STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 718 of 2019 Date of Institution: 19.08.2019 Date of Decision: 04.07.2022 Naresh Kumar, aged about 67 years son of Shri Phool Singh, resident of Village Unehri, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

…….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Ved Parkash Sunil Kumar, Radaur, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor/partner.

2. Mahindra Agri Solutions Limited, Mahindra Towers, Dr. GM Bhosle Marg, PK Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai 400018 Maharastra through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.

3. Mahindra Agri Solutions Limited, 100-2/02, Asulampally Road, Mulugu Village and Mandal, Medak, District Telangana, PIN

502279 through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.

……Respondents/Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

Ms. Manjula, Member.

Present: Shri Rahul Singla, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Shital Bindal, counsel for respondent No.1.

Ms. Sapna Khurana, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

*******

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J.

For the reasons stated therein, the miscellaneous application is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. The complainant, namely, Naresh Kumar has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 08.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed, it being devoid of any merit.

3. The case of the complainant in nutshell was that he had purchased 6 kilograms of mustard seed make M46565 Lot No.32 MCR 6349 from opposite party No.1, dealer of opposite parties No.2 and 3, who were developer of the seed. After purchasing the mustard seed, he sowed the same in 3 acres of his land and found the seed sold to him to be spurious of inferior quality and adulterated, as a result of which, there was 90% germination of other crops in his field instead of mustard crop. He complained to opposite party No.1 and on his complaint officials of the company visited his land and told that adulterated seed had been supplied but they failed to give any plausible explanation to his query and ultimately, on 21.11.2016, he lodged a complaint with the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar regarding sale of sub-standard and inferior quality of mustard seed. A team of Agriculture Department consisting of Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagadhri; Block Agriculture Officer, Radaur; and Assistant Plant Preservation Officer, Yamuna Nagar inspected his 3 acres of agriculture land and submitted report stating therein that due to germination of 90% of other crops than mustard crops, the complainant suffered financial loss, which led him to file the complaint.

4. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed written version whereas opposite parties No.2 and 3 failed to file the written version and accordingly their defence was struck off.

5. In its written version, opposite party No.1 controverted the allegations of the complainant praising the sold mustard seed and challenged the inspection report on the ground that the same was in the absence of the representative of opposite party No.1 as well as area Patwari. Opposite party No.1 had purchased the mustard seed from opposite party No.2 being developed by opposite party No.3 and there was no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1.

6. In support of his case, the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure CA and relied upon documents Annexures C-1 to C-4 whereas opposite party No.1 relied upon bill Annexure R1/1 showing purchase of mustard seed from opposite party No.2 being developed by opposite party No.3.

7. After hearing counsel for the complainant and counsel for opposite party No.1, the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint being devoid of any merit.

8. Aggrieved of the passing of the impugned order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

9. Counsel for the complainant/