State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief Agricultural Officer And Others vs Devender Pal Singh And Another on 11 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 224 / 2013
1. Chief Agricultural Officer
Haridwar, Block Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
2. Agricultural Officer
Block Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
3. Sh. B.S. Negi S/o not known
Incharge, Seed Centre, Block Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3
Versus
1. Sh. Devender Pal Singh S/o late Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o Village Sahdevpur, P.S. Pathri
Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Uttaranchal Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited
Pant Nagar, Post Haldi
District Udham Singh Nagar
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Gajender Singh, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 225 / 2013
Uttaranchal Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited
Pant Nagar, Post Haldi, District Udham Singh Nagar through
Dr. C.M.S. Negi, Production Officer
Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Sh. Devender Pal Singh S/o late Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o Village Sahdevpur, P.S. Pathri
Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2
2. Agricultural Officer
Block Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
3. Sh. B.S. Negi S/o not known
Incharge, Seed Centre, Block Bahadarabad
District Haridwar
......Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 / Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Gajender Singh, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Dated: 11/09/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
These two appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 270 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties (appellants before us in the present appeals) to pay compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Forum, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a farmer by occupation and farming is the source of livelihood for the complainant and the complainant as well as his family are dependent upon the income earned by the complainant from farming. It was alleged that the opposite parties motivated the complainant to grow the crop of 3 Urad. It was also alleged that the complainant purchased the seeds of Urad and sowed the said seeds in 50 bighas of land. It was further alleged that the said crop did not yield satisfactory result and did not give proper germination, which caused great financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant along with four people had purchased 20 kgs. of Urad seed for sum of Rs. 790/-; that the complainant had purchased seeds of Rs. 316.20/- only; that as per the scheme, 50% concession / rebate was given to the complainant and the complainant had paid only sum of Rs. 158.10/-; that 20 kgs. of Urad seed can very well be sowed in only 15 bighas of land; that the complainant did not comply with the required procedure and norms; that there was no defect in the seeds and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant along with four others had purchased 20 kgs. of Urad PU-19 seeds for sum of Rs. 790/-; that the said seeds could be sowed in 15 bighas of land; that the loss, if any, sustained by the complainant is on account of his own act by not adhering to the required norms and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.07.2013 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed First Appeal No. 224 of 2013 4 and whereas the opposite party No. 1 has filed First Appeal No. 225 of 2013, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the consumer complaint, it is evident that in the consumer complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that for how much amount he purchased the seeds of Urad. The complainant has only stated that the crop did not yield the desired result, which caused financial loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded that the complainant along with four others had purchased seeds worth Rs. 790/-. The said fact is also evident from the receipt dated 27.03.2011 (Paper No. 40 on the record of First Appeal No. 225 of 2013), which shows that the complainant had purchased Urad seeds worth Rs. 790.50/-. When the complainant has alleged that the seeds in question did not yield desired and satisfactory result and caused him financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, it was incumbent upon him to disclose the quantity of the seeds purchased by him as well as the price paid by him for the same, which the complainant did not disclose in his consumer complaint. The complainant has merely averred that he had sowed the said seeds in 50 bighas of land, which fact has been denied by the opposite parties and they have also specifically pleaded that 20 kgs. of Urad seeds purchased by the complainant could very well be sowed in 15 bighas of land only.
8. Thus, it can be said that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has not disclosed the true and correct facts in his consumer complaint. The complainant has also not given any basis 5 for claiming the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and how he has suffered the loss to the said extent.
9. So far as the quality of the seeds and yield provided therefrom is concerned, the complainant has nowhere pleaded that the seeds were not upto the mark and that the quality of the seeds was sub-standard and low. The opposite parties have stated that the complainant did not adhere to the required norms and did not adopt the required procedure for germination of the seeds. The Project Officer, Haridwar has submitted his report dated 03.10.2011 to the Joint Chief Seeds Production Officer, Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited (Paper No. 39 on the record of First Appeal No. 225 of 2013), wherein he has stated that he had inspected the field of the complainant and found that the field has been ploughed and that the complainant did not produce the receipt of the seeds purchased by him, the bag of the seeds and tag etc. and in the said report, he has concluded that the claim made by the complainant is false. The complainant has not filed any evidence to show that there was any defect in the seeds and inspite of his adhering to the required norms and complying with the required procedure, the seeds did not give the required yield / result.
10. This apart, Sh. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Chief Agricultural Officer, Haridwar in his affidavit dated 02.11.2012 (Paper Nos. 17 to 19 on the record of First Appeal No. 224 of 2013), has specifically averred in para 6 that on inspection of the field, no abnormality / shortcoming was found. The complainant has not filed any plausible and cogent evidence to show that the seeds were of low and sub-standard quality and did not give the desired result.
611. In view of above discussion, the District Forum was not justified in allowing the consumer complaint and passing the award against the opposite parties, whereas the complainant was not entitled to any compensation and the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeals are fit to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, both the appeals are allowed. Order impugned dated 12.07.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 270 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 225 of 2013.
(D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K