State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswinder Singh vs Zimidara Hybrid Beej Bhadar on 19 July, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 129 of 2016
Date of institution : 11.02.2016
Date of decision : 19.07.2017
Jaswinder Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Resident of Village Enna
Khera, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Zimidara Hybrid Beej Bhandar, Shop No. 80, Janta Bhawan,
Sirsa (Haryana), through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. Karnal Seed Farm, Head Office : Plot No. 27, Shop No. 40,
Kashwa Road, Karnal (Haryana) through its Partner/Proprietor.
....Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
15.01.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Vishal Goel, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 2 The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.1.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 104 dated 22.8.2014 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that complainant owned 35-37 killas land in the revenue estate of Village Enna Khera, Tehsil Malout. He had also taken 9 acres of land on lease (theka) in Sauni-2014. Ops advertised with great pump and show that Pussa-1121 Basmati seed is of very high quality seed and average yield would be 14 quintals per killa. Allured from the advertisement made by the Ops, complainant purchased 15 bags of 10 KG of Pussa-1121 seed @ Rs. 100/- per kilogram for total amount of Rs. 15,000/- vide bill No. 7804 dated 6.5.2014. It was intimated that 5 Kg seed is sufficient for 1 acre. He belonged to farmer's family, therefore, he was conversant with the farm technique and had sown the seed as per the recommendations of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and also used pesticides and insecticides, watering and other methods recommended by PAU. He spent Rs. 5000/- per acre for cultivation. He used 10 Kg zinc, 5 Kg. sulphar per acre. After plantation of the plant, she sprayed 1 bag of DAP fertilizer per acre. He also spread 36 KG Urea per killa in two installments. In First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 3 this way, he used fertilizers of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. He spent Rs. 2500/- per killa on watering. He spent a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- and paid Rs. 42,700/- to the labour for plantation. After plantation, it was noticed that crop was not looking like Pussa-1121 Basmati, rather, it was looking like simple paddy crop. Accordingly, he moved an application dated 16.7.2014 to the Director, Agriculture Department, Punjab and Chandigarh and Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib for getting the quality of the seed checked at the cost of the complainant. He moved another application dated 4.8.2014 to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Agricultural Development Officer, Malout visited the spot and inspected the crop and made a report that the crop is simple paddy and is not of Pussa-1121 Basmati. The Officer further stated that exact variety cannot be ascertained with the lab test but he fortified that standing crop is not Pussa-1121. He approached I.F.T.C. Campus, Tappa Khera Road, Abul Khurana but the lab stated that there is no provision for variety test of the plants. Then he approached Agricultural Lab, Karnal but they stated that only the farmers of Haryana State can get it checked. The simple paddy seed is available @ Rs. 12/- to Rs. 20/- per Kg. and hybrid paddy @ Rs. 30/- per Kg whereas Op No. 1 sold it @ Rs. 100/- per Kg. He has one sealed packet in packed condition, therefore, the variety can be ascertained from the Laboratory. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint was filed against the Ops seeking directions against them to refund a sum of Rs. 15,000/- paid by the First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 4 complainant to Op No. 1, pay compensation of Rs. 15 Lacs and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by Ops. Op No. 1 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as there was no defect in the seed. The alleged inspection report prepared by the official of Agriculture Department is not in accordance with law. The spot report is no report in the eyes of law, therefore, it is liable to be ignored because no Killa number and khasra number of the land inspected were mentioned in it. The complainant also did not specify the killa numbers and square numbers where he allegedly sow the paddy, the seed purchased from Op No. 1; the complaint is bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that Pussa-1121 Basmati seed is of very high quality recommended by Punjab Agriculture University. The complainant purchased only 5 bags of 10 Kgs each of paddy seeds from this Op at Sirsa. It was denied that 15 bags of 10 Kg each were purchased. It was again reiterated that crop inspection is not relevant as it was not made in the presence of Ops and no reference of any Killa number was given. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Op No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that this Forum had got no territorial jurisdiction to hear First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 5 and decide this complaint; the complaint is not maintainable as complainant had concealed the material facts from the Forum and filed a false complaint on the basis of concocted story with malafide intention to gain money by way of wrong and in illegal manner. Op No. 2 had sown 8 hectare Basmati Pussa 1121 in the fields of Balkar Singh s/o Teja Singh in Village Bhutan Khurd, District Sangrur under the supervision of Karnal Seed Farm. The first checking was done by Punjab State Seed Recognized Society, Chandigarh on 23.9.2013 and second inspection on 7.10.2013. Op No. 2 sold 50 bags of Pussa 1121 to Op No. 1. Land of Enna Khera is not best for the paddy crop; the matter involved lengthy evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses, which is not possible in summary procedure, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court; samples forward of the crop were not collected and sent in the presence of Ops. On merits, it was admitted that average yield of Pussa 1121 is upto 10-12 quintals per acre. No notice was given to Op by the complainant at the time of inspection that the crop was not looking like of Pussa 1121 Basmati. A false story was created by the complainant. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
5. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavits Exs. CW-1 to 5 and documents Exs. C-1 to 31. On the other hand, Op No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. Op-1/1 and documents Exs. Op-1/2 to Op- First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 6 1/35. Op No. 2 had tendered affidavit Ex. Op-2/1 and documents Exs. Op-2/2 to 2-17.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sh. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondents Sh. Vishal Goel, Advocate and have gone through the record of the District Forum with their assistance.
10. It was submitted in the grounds of appeal that the District Forum erred in believing the defence version that the appellant forged the bills on 3-4 points. The bill produced on the record by the complainant is Ex. C-8 in which 15 bags of 10 Kg. each has been stated to be sold by Op No. 1 to the complainant. Whereas version of the Op is that only 5 bags were sold to the complainant and carbon copy of the bill has been placed on the record as Ex. Op-1/2. It seems that figure 1 has been added in the number of bags and in the column of amount. We have gone through the findings recorded by the District Forum, it was stated that they had checked the original carbon copy of the bill book, which shows that 5 bags of Pussa 1121 was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. In this way, the complainant has tampered the bill for an illegal gain. The party which is not First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 7 coming forth with clean hands could be thrown from the proceedings at any stage, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that he has not come to the Forum with clean hands for an illegal gain. We subscribe to these findings given by the District Forum.
11. It was further argued that the Forum did not properly appreciate the pleadings and evidence on the record. In case we go through the pleadings of the complainant, he has stated that he owned 35-37 Killas of land and 9 killas of land was taken on rent in all he is owing 44-45 acres of land. In case he purchased just 50 Kg. seed, it is sufficient for 10 killas only. In the complaint, it has not been stated what were the khasra numbers in which the seed so purchased from Ops was sown. The report of the Agricultural Department i.e. Agricultural Department Officer, Malout is Ex. C- 30, who states that he inspected the field of Jaswinder Singh on 25.7.2014. There was paniri of paddy in 1 marla land, which was not of Basmati 1121. This report shows that Officer had inspected only the paniri and not the crop sown by the complainant in his fields. There is another report Ex. C-26 from Directorate of Rice Research about the sample sent to it and as per their version, it was not of 1121 Basmati. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of inspection by the Agricultural Officer and sending the sample to the Directorate of Rice Research, no notice was given to the Ops, therefore, we does not know whether the sample sent to the laboratory was that of the rice purchased from the Ops. They have further stated that Op No. 2 was granted licence vide First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 8 document Ex. Op-2/2 by Directorate of Agriculture, Punjab and there are inspection reports of Pussa 1121 Ex. Op-2/3 and seeds were found to be in order and 50 bags of seed was sold to Op No. 1 vide invoice Ex. Op-2/8. Therefore, certificate of testing is there in favour of the Ops. The complainant has not brought on the record sufficient evidence to prove that the seed purchased by it from Op No. 1 was not that of Pussa 1121 whereas the evidence produced on record by Op No. 2 proves that seed of Pussa 1121 was sold by Op No. 2 to Op No. 1. Since the complainant was having a big land i.e. 44-45 acres, possibility cannot be ruled out that he might have purchased the seed from other shopkeepers because seed purchased by the complainant from Op No. 1 is 50 Kg. sufficient for 10 acres only when it was sent to laboratory at Hyderabad. No notice was given to the Op and it was not dispatched in their presence. No notice was given to Ops at the time of inspection of the crop of the complainant, therefore, in the absence of connecting evidence, it is difficult to prove on the record that seed purchased by the complainant from Op No. 1, manufactured by Op No. 2 is not that of Pussa 1121.
12. The District Forum has also passed a detailed order after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on the record, therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is justified.
13. Sequel to the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 129 of 2016 9
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
15. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER July 19, 2017.
as