- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD. v. SANJEEV SEHGAL & ANR.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3179 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 163/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumput Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. BHOOP SINGH & ANR. Resident of Village Nagla Par, Tehsil Bapoli Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Shop No. 107, New Sabzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3180 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 167/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. SANJEEV SEHGAL & ANR. Resident of Village Kachroli, Tehsil & District Panipat Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Through its Proprietor Ravinder Kumar, Shop No. 107, New Sabzi Mandi
Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3683 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 164/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. SUNIL & ORS. Resident of Village Siwah, Tehsil & District Panipat ...........Respondent(s)
1
Panipat Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Shop No. 107, New Sabzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana
REVISION PETITION NO. 3684 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 165/2009 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAM BHAJ & ANR. Resident of Village Jhatipur, Tehsil Samalkha Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Shop No. 107, Near Subzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3685 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 166/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ROHTASH & ORS. Resident of Village Siwah, Tehsil & District Panipat Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Shop No. 107, New Sabzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3686 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 169/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE GENETICS LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
2
1. BHOPAL & ORS. Resident of Village Ujha, Tehsil Bapoli Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Shop No. 107, New Sabzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 168/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE. GENETICE LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. DALBIR SINGH & ANR. Resident of Village Dahar, Tehsil & District Panipat Panipat
Haryana
2. HINDUSTAN TRADING COMPANY
Through its Proprietor, Shop No. 107, Near Sabzi Mandi Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3708 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 04/03/2010 in Appeal No. 170/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. J.K. AGRE. GENETICE LTD.
1-10-117, 4th Floor, Varun Towers, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500016
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAMESH KUMAR & ANR. Resident of Village Alupur, Tehsil & District Panipat Panipat
Haryana
2. NAFE SINGH PROP.
M/s. Haryana Krishi Sewa Kendra, New Anaj Mandi, Madlauda
Panipat
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
3
For the Petitioner : NEMO For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 13 Sep 2011
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
Alert