ORDER
This order shall dispose of the abovestated revision petitions as the facts and the point of law involved is the same. Facts are being taken from revision petition 3179/2010.
-2-
Petitioner which was the opposite party no.2 before the District Forum has filed this revision petition against the judgment and final order dated 14.05.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No.163/2010. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal thereby upholding the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant/respondent out of which Rs.5,000/- is to be paid by opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 and rest of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner. Costs of litigation has been quantified at Rs.2200/-. The amount has been made payable jointly and severally. Facts: As per averments made by the respondent in his complaint, he purchased 3 bags of JK seeds RH-10 paddy seed produced by the petitioner against receipt no.7115. That an instruction booklet was provided along with the seed bags to the complainant for following the instructions and procedure to be followed and quantity required per acre, along with the feeding and taking care of the crop for the best and higher yield. The complainant
-3-
prepared the nursery and planted the nursery in 3 acre of agricultural land. Complainant noticed after three months that the crop was not even in entire land of three acres as 33% plants had attained proper
4
height, 33% plants were of medium height whereas 34% plants were very low in height. That the respondent had approached the petitioner who refused to resolve his grievance. Being aggrieved by the loss caused, respondent approached the District Agriculture Officer who appointed a committee and submitted its report which reads as under:
On registration of the complaint No. 08 - 123 dated 18.08.2008, Deputy Director Agriculture appointed the under signatory as Local Commissioner vide Letter No. 3088-89 dated 12.09.2008 and the under signatories inspected the filed by visiting the village on the spot and at the time of inspection Sh. Bhoop Singh Son of Sh. Balbir Singh resident of Village Naglaper Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat for complainant side was present but no was present from the respondent side.
" Therefore during the inspection it was found the:-
1- Farmer has planted RH 10 variety of paddy in three acres of land. 2- In this filed of paddy there were 25% to 30% of different variety of plants. 3- Mixed plants were having different time of ripening, which will ripe approximately 15 later than the RH 10.
4- These mixed plants of paddy were of poor quality than the RH 10. -4-
After the receipt of the record from the committee constituted by the District Agriculture Officer, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is not disputed before us that the onus to prove that the seeds supplied were defective or spurious was on the respondent/complainant. Counsel for the petitioner states that the report of the District Agriculture Officer relying upon which the fora below have allowed the complaint does not show that the seeds supplied to the respondent were either defective or spurious. We find substance in this submission. The initial onus to prove that the seeds were either defective or spurious was on the complainant/respondent. The only evidence produced by the complainant regarding the defective seeds is the report of the
5
District Agriculture Officer. The report submitted by the District Agriculture Officer does not say that the seeds supplied were either defective or spurious. There is no other evidence on record to show that the seeds produced by the
-5-
petitioner supplied by the buyer to the respondent through dealer were either defective or spurious. The respondent failed to discharge the onus placed on him. The fora below have erred in recording the finding that the petitioner had supplied defective seeds because of which the yield was low.
For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed. The State Commission is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner be released to the petitioner.
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER
6