The complainant's duty to disclose true facts and provide evidence of sub-standard quality, and adherence to required norms for seed sowing is essential to establish a claim under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER :

Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President-These two appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 270 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties (appellants before us in the present appeals) to pay compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Forum, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a farmer by occupation and farming is the source of livelihood for the complainant and the complainant as well as his family are dependent upon the income earned by the complainant from farming. It was alleged that the opposite parties motivated the complainant to grow the crop of Urad. It was also alleged that the complainant purchased the seeds of Urad and sowed the said seeds in 50 bighas of land. It was further alleged that the said crop did not yield satisfactory result and did not give proper germination, which caused great financial loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant along with four people had purchased 20 kgs. of Urad seed for sum of Rs. 790/-; that the complainant had purchased seeds of Rs. 316.20/- only; that as per the scheme, 50% concession/rebate was given to the complainant and the complainant had paid only sum of Rs. 158.10/-; that 20 kgs. of Urad seed can very well be sowed in only 15 bighas of land; that the complainant did not comply with the required procedure and norms; that there was no defect in the seeds and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant along with four others had purchased 20 kgs. of Urad PU-19 seeds for sum of Rs. 790/-; that the said seeds could be sowed in 15 bighas of land; that the loss, if any, sustained by the complainant is on account of his own act by not adhering to the required norms and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.7.2013 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed First Appeal No. 224 of 2013 and whereas the opposite party No. 1 has filed First Appeal No. 225 of 2013, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the consumer complaint, it is evident that in the consumer complaint, the complainant has nowhere stated that for how much amount he purchased the seeds of Urad. The complainant has only stated that the crop did not yield the desired result, which caused financial loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded that the complainant along with four others had purchased seeds worth Rs. 790/-. The said fact is also evident from the receipt dated 27.03.2011 (Paper No. 40 on the record of First Appeal No. 225 of 2013), which shows that the complainant had purchased Urad seeds worth Rs. 790.50/-. When the complainant has alleged that the seeds in question did not yield desired and satisfactory result and caused him financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-, it was incumbent upon him to disclose the quantity of the seeds purchased by him as well as the price paid by him for the same, which the complainant did not disclose in his consumer complaint. T