RAJINDER SINGH vs VARINDER

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Karnal dismissing his complaint with costs.

AS we are firmly of the view that the order under appeal must be upheld on both its grounds, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the merits of the case in an order of affirmance. It suffices to mention that on the appellant's own showing in the complaint, he had purchased 500 gms. of Madhu Ras melon seed for Rs. 49/- for planting the same in his land. He sowed the same in an area measuring 3 bigas late, or virtually out of the season on or later than the 24th of April, 1993. It was his case that on germination, it was found that the seed was sub-standard and of an inferior quality and consequently a fraud has been committed upon him and he had lost an estimated crop of Rs. 12,000/- which was claimed as relief. The respondents in their reply highlighted the fact that the appellant had come to the shop on the 28th of April, 1993 for purchasing melon seed and he was categorically told that the season for planting the same had virtually past and instead it was harvesting time. However, the appellant returned thereafter and insisted sharply for the purchase thereof and consequently 500 gms. of Madhu Ras Malon Seeds were sold to him on the said date. It was pointed out that in the complaint, the appellant had himself averred that Madhu Ras melon was being marketed at Rs. 6/- to Rs. 8/- per Kgm. in the months of May and June and it was thus evident that the seed should not have been planted in early May, when virtually the end of that month was its harvesting season and inevitably, the crop there from would be either poor or non-existent.

The appellant led evidence in support of his case by way of affidavits of co-villagers, apparently to establish his stand that the crop was poor. In rebuttal, the respondent relied on authoritative treatises to show that the season for sowing melon fruits is November to January and in any case it is harvested in May or early June.

THE District Forum particularly took notice of the fact that the appellant had not furnished a sample of the allegedly defective seed and the defect therein could only be determined after proper analysis or test in an appropriate laboratory and, therefore, he deserves to be no suited on the legal ground. Equally on merits, it held that the seed had been sown wholly out of season despite warnings and for this act of the appellant the respondent could not possibly be penalized. Inevitably, the complaint was dismissed. Mr. Rajinder Singh, who projected his case in person primarily placed reliance on the affidavit testimony, he had adduced and argued that it was not incumbent upon him to furnish a sample of the seed and further that Section 13 of the Act did not apply to him.

WE are afraid that despite the appellant's vehement persistence, there is no merit in his stand. Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act is in somewhat mandatory terms & categorically provides that where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the same, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods and thereafter have the same analysed in an appropriate laboratory and follow the subsequent procedure prescribed by clauses (d) to (g) of the said sub-section. In this context, the appellant's admant stand that he did not and was not obliged to furnish the sample of the alleged defective seed has only to be noticed and rejected. WE are unable to see how this statutory provision, would not be applicable in the case of the appellant, as he had vainly attempted to argue. The District Forum's finding on this point has to be affirmed and the appeal must fail on that short ground alone. Equally, we are in agreement with the view taken by the District Forum as regards the admitted out of season planting of the seed virtually in the month of May itself. It had rightly placed reliance on the admitted fact that the same was purchased on the 28th of April and must necessarily have been planted much later. Consequently, this appeared to be so close to the harvesting time of the Madhu Ras melon that inevitably no meaningful crop could be harvested from such out of season sowing. Reliance was also placed on the extracts of the magazine of the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar indicating that within the State the proper time of sowing was the month of February and not later. For the aforesaid reasons, we would confirm the order under appeal and dismiss the present appeal without however, burdening the consumer with any costs. Appeal dismissed. _____________