Gurbhagat Singh vs Bharat Seeds Corporation

THIS appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Hon''ble National Commission has been filed against order dated 14.9.2001 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (Punjab) in Complaint Case No. 418 of 2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

AS per averments the appellant/complainant, a farmer of village Dabra, Tehsil and District Muktsar purchased the cotton seed from the OP and sowed it in 5 acres of land. AS per averments, the seed was of P-36 quality, the purchase bill has been brought on record vide Annexure-I. It is the say of the appellant/ complainant that, initially a very good cotton crop grew up but at the time of manuring and harvesting, it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the seeds were of mixed variety as the produce from some plants were good while from others it was poor. The appellant has averred that he enquired about the quality of seeds from the OP but did not get any satisfactory answer. The appellant has alleged that since the seeds were of mixed variety, they required irrigation, spray and manure at different timings and this way his all efforts went in vain and resultantly the crop of cotton was very bad. It is further the case of the appellant/complainant that it was certified by the expert of Agriculture Department whose report is on record as Annexure 2 that due to mixing of the seeds, some of which were of superior variety and others of inferior kind, a good crop cannot be obtained. Due to defective seeds supplied to him allegedly by the respondent/OP, the complainant has claimed Rs. 1,01,000 out of which Rs. 50,000 is the loss on account of poor crop, Rs. 20,000 on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 31,000 towards amount spent on spray, sowing and labour etc. In the reply filed by the OP, the preliminary objection taken is that the complaint is bad on account of non joinder of necessary party and it has been filed with the mala fide intention of harassing the OP. It has been stated that no seeds as alleged was purchased by the complainant and thus no cause of action has accrued against it. The complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of concealing material facts from the Court. It is further contended that the OP is carrying on business of selling the seeds in the name and style of M/s. Bharat. Seed Corporation and is an authorised dealer of I.T.C Zenek Limited, Banglore, Pakka Seed Corporation, Raman (Pb.) and Vikram Seed Limited and is selling the certified seed with authority from the aforesaid company since 1999 and has been getting its authorisation certificates renewed every year. Pertaining to the seeds in question, it is stated that P-36 variety is not stocked at his shop so it could not have been sold either to the complainant or to some other person. In fact the complainant came to respondent''s shop as he wanted to purchase the seed of P-36 quality but since the proprietor Sh. Pawan Kumar did not have it, he gave the address of Durga Seed Company, Gur Bazar, Gidderbaha and same was written on a plain paper with a view to give the complainant the address of Durga Seeds. However Sh. Pawan Kumar the proprietor of OP was shocked to receive the summons after coming to know that same paper has been placed on the file by the complainant after forging something upon it. The respondent has alleged that forging has been done with a view to defraud the OP with mala fide intentions. The OP firm is an income tax payee and all the transactions are entered in the account books. The OP has produced the copies of the bills for the month of April, May and June by way proof, to deny the sale of the seeds in question to the complainant.

In reply on merits, all the averments given under the preliminary objection have been reiterated.

IN evidence, the complainant Sh. Gurbhagat Singh has filed his evidence by way of affidavit along with Exhibits C-I to C-VII and Mark '' H'' whereas on behalf of respondent Sh. Pawan Kumar, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Seeds Corporation, Muktsar has filed his evidence by way of affidavit along with Exhibits R-3 to R-14. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to prove his case on the basis of any documents on record.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal has been filed pleading inter alia that though the appellant submitted an affidavit regarding the losses suffered by him on account of facts alleged in the complaint, the Forum totally ignored the same and dismissed the appeal. The appellant has further contended that Annexure A-1, the slip issued by the respondent which proved the sale of seeds in question, C-1 being the original receipt issued by Durga Seeds Corporation and Annexure C-2 showing the purchase of pesticides and insecticides used for saving a bad crop were produced on record. However the District Forum did not take into account any of the above mentioned documents and wrongly dismissed the complaint. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order and accept the appeal. Adverting to the merit of appeal : a perusal of pleadings of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove his averments, hence his complaint deserved to be dismissed. In fact the most important document for holding the OP liable for supply of defective seeds, has not been produced on the record to prove his prime averment that the defective seeds as alleged by him were sold to him by the OP. Annexure C-1 brought on record is of some other shop namely Durga Seeds Corporation a simple ordinary paper on which the name of some shop has been written cannot be accepted as the original bill for proving the sale of seeds. Hence it will be unjustifiable to accept the version of the complainant in which he has alleged that the defective seeds were sold by the respondent/OP. The appellant has further placed on record, the purchase bills for the insecticides and pesticides which he had to use and incur expenses for saving the cotton crop from the insects and pests etc. However since he has not been able to prove his prime averment that seeds were sold by the respondent/OP the incidental expenses incurred by him on the crop for damage control cannot be even taken into account. There is nothing on record from which the complainant''s case of sale of defective seeds by the OP can be corroborated successfully. The complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the same is upheld. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.