J.K. Agri. Genetics Limited vs JITENDER

M /s. J.K. Agri Genetic Ltd. has filed this revision petition against the concurrent orders of District Forum, Hisar and the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The matter arises out of a case of failure of paddy crop resulting in an alleged loss of Rs.4 lakhs suffered by the Complainant.

THE facts, as seen from the record, are that the Complainant had purchased paddy seeds of different quantities from the revision petitioner/OP-2 on two different dates in May 2008. It was sown in 20 acres of land. The growth of the crop and the yield were below the norms. On the request of the Complainant, a team from the Agriculture department of the State inspected his field on 22.9.2008 and thereafter reported that the crop contained 18-20% of other verities of plant. Due to this, there was a possibility of loss to the extent of 22-25%. The District Forum held OPs liable to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the Complainant on account of loss of crop. In appeal the State Commission rejected the contention of the OPs that the Complainant had purchased two different verities of seeds on different dates, which meant that the Complainant himself had mixed the seeds to save on the cost of cultivation. Therefore, the State Commission agreed with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the present revision petitioner.

IN the proceedings before this Commission, Mr. Apoorv Garg, counsel for the revision petitioner sought to question the report of the agriculture department, relied upon by the fora below on the ground that the inspection was done contrary to the instructions of the department of the agriculture. In this behalf, he drew our attention to a communication of 3.1.2002 from the Director of Agriculture Haryana addressed to all Deputy Directors in the State, on the subject of inspection of farmers fields for to verification of complaints of quality of seeds. As per this communication, the inspecting officers were required to associate representatives of the concerned seeds agency as well as a Scientist from Haryana Agriculture University, at the time of inspection of the concerned farmer fields. The counsel however, failed to explain why this question was not raised in the written response of the revision petitioner before the District Forum. Secondly, the instruction relied upon by him was nearly six years old and there was nothing to show if it had not been modified in between.

IN the revision petition, it is alleged that the Complainant had bought two different verities of paddy seeds, which would mean that he had himself mixed the two verities to save his cost of cultivation. This contention is clearly based on an assumption and nothing more. It has therefore, rightly been rejected by the State Commission. In the result, the revision petition fails to make out any substantive case against the impugned order. We do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material error in the revision petition, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is held to be devoid of merit and is dismissed as such.