UDAYNATH MAHTO vs NAND LAL PRASAD

Petitioner/Complainant has preferred an appeal against order dated 30.5.2008 passed by Jharkhand, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (for short, ''State Commission'') in First Appeal No.638 of 2007. Since, no second appeal lies against the impugned order, it is treated as revision petition.

Brief facts are that petitioner is an agriculturist, purchased certain seeds on 14.01.2006 namely, Bean-3 K.G., Ladyfinger-One Packet, Karaila-50 grams and Watermelon-One oz from Respondent/Opposite Party for Rs.395/- for which cash memo no. 1296 was given to him. Thereafter, petitioner prepared the field and sowed the seeds. Even after properly watering for two months, the plants did not grow property. Petitioner expected yield of 15 quintal bean worth Rs.18,000/-, Ladyfingers 2 ? quintal of Rs.3,000/-, Karaila 50 Kg. worth Rs.600/-, Watermelon 25 KG worth Rs. 2,125/-/ Hence, petitioner suffered loss of Rs.21,725/- on account of failure of vegetable crops, including price paid for the seeds(Rs.395/-). Thus, consumer complaint claiming loss of Rs.22,120/- was filed.

Respondent/Opposite party did not appear and contest the complaint, hence, was proceeded exparte.

District Consumer Forum, Lohardaga (for short, ''District Forum'') vide order dated 30.08.2006, allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.22,125/-.

Being aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order allowed the same. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint.

Hence, this petition.

At Petitioner''s request, Ms. Deep Shikha Bharati was appointed as an Amicus Curiae.

Notice of present petition was issued to the respondent. However, respondent being duly served by Registered AD post, did not appear. Therefore, was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 12.09.2013.

We have heard the learned amicus curiae and gone through the record, including the original record of the District Forum.

It is submitted by learned amicus curiae, that packets of seeds were of the expiry date. Secondly, due to continuous irrigation for two months, seeds were not germinated. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the respondent.

District Forum in its order held; " Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit fully supporting his case In the affidavit, he asserted that only on irrigation he had to pay rent of irrigation machine of Rs.250/- and purchased diesel for Rs.100/-. He further asserted he expected produce of Bean amounting to 15 quintal, worth Rs.18,000/-; Lady''s fionger 2.5 quintal valued at Rs.3,000/-; karaila 50 Kg. worth Rs.600/-; Watermelon 25 Kg. worth Rs.2,125/-; In this way he suffered a loss of Rs.21,725/- on account of failure of vegetable crops. The complainant asserted that he purchased seeds of the aforesaid vegetable worth Rs.395/-. Thus, the total loss suffered by him is of Rs. 22,120/-. He has furnished photo copy of receipt no.1296 dated 14.01.2006 in support of his claim having purchased seeds of aforesaid vegetables worth Rs.395/-.

It may be noted that notice to O.P. was sent through Registered post on 20.04.2006 and the same is not sent back in this forum undelivered. It shows that the notice has been received by the O.P. but arrogantly, he did not turn up and did not reply, contesting the claim of complainant.

Consequently, this complaint case is decreed and complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.22,125/- The case is accordingly disposed of ex parte in the favour of the complainant ."

On the other hand, State Commission in the impugned order observed; " 5. It is stated on behalf of the appellant on merit of the case that proper growth of seeds not only required watering, but proper sunlight, adequate minerals in the soil and necessary fertilizer/ manure etc. are also required and in absence of such pleadings and/or evidence/proof, poor growth of plant and yield cannot be attributed only to the quality of seeds. Genuineness of Cash memo no. 1296, dated 14.1.2006 has also been challenged.

The complainant claimed to have purchased seeds of four kinds, namely, Bean, Ladyfingers, Karaila and Watermelon and it has been alleged that none of the plants could grow. So question arises whether all the four types of seeds were of bad or poor quality or there were some other reasons for it. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to support his contention that the plants did not grow. At least some of the boundary agriculturists were required to support it. The complainant is silent on the yield or produce which he got, which might not be of his expectation or he did not get anything. The District Forum, we do not know on what basis has gone to the extent that the seeds did not germinate at all, whereas it was not the complainant''s case. It is unheard of that after sowing the seeds, when there was no germination after a week the complainant went on continuously watering the filed in winter season for two months. In winter if there was not germination after about a week or ten days, there was no occasion for watering continuously for two months, which might have resulted into either non germination or poor growth of plants.

In our opinion in absence of any supporting evidence brought on record by the complainant, even if the other side had not appeared and contested the complaint before District Consumer Forum, the complaint could have been allowed only when the claim was primafacie proved by evidence. We need not go into the question of genuineness of each memo in question. Proceeding on the basis that the complainant had purchased the seeds in question from the opposite party-appellant, in our view, the complainant failed to establish that due to non-standard quality of seeds supplied he had to suffer loss.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and specially in absence of any material brought on record to prove his case and claim the complainant ought not to have been allowed. The District Forum without applying its mind, simply on the failure of the other side to contest the complaint, accepted the claim and in on line, without considering requirement of supporting evidence, allowed the same. Perhaps the District Forum was in a great hurry to dispose of the complaint. It should not have forgotten that we are to be led by the ''evidence'' and ''proof'' on the subject. In absence of any proof or evidence to the contrary it can''t be said that the seeds supplied by the appellant were in any way defective, hence, in these circumstances, no liability can be fastened to the appellant.

In view of the above, we are unable to sustain the order and have, therefore, no option, but to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal ."

One of the ground taken in this petition is, that packets of seeds were of expiry date. It is nobody case at all, that packets of seeds purchased by the petitioner were of expiry date. Petitioner in its complaint has nowhere stated about this fact. Now at revision stage, he cannot take altogether a new plea, which was not his case before the District Forum.

The other ground taken by the petitioner is, that despite continuous irrigation of two months, the seeds were not germinated. Except for the bald statement of the petitioner, by way of his own affidavit, there is no corroborating evidence to support his case, that plants did not grow. When there was no germination of the plants for two months despite watering, the petitioner could have easily made a complaint to the Collector or District Agricultural Officer or before the Panchayat. Admittedly, no such complaint was made to any of the authorities.

The State Commission was right in concluding that "In absence of any supporting evidence brought on record by the complainant, even if the other side had not appeared and contested the complaint before District Consumer Forum, the complainant could have been allowed only when the claim was prima-facie proved by evidence ".

Since, there is no evidence in support of petitioner''s allegations, that seeds purchased by him were defective, we find no reason to disagree with the findings given by the State Commission. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The present petition having no merit, stand dismissed.

No order as to cost.