SHAKTI VARDHAK HYBRID SEEDS PVT LTD Vs. NARSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against concurrent findings of Fora below. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who has drawn our attention to a letter dated 3.1.2002 which was sent by the Director of Agriculture, Panchkula, Haryana to all the Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State of Haryana. This letter is on the subject:

(2.) In this letter directions had been given that in such cases, the fields of the farmers be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of agriculture department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/KVK, HAU and report be submitted after inspection. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no compliance of the directions given in the said letter as the petitioner was never associated with the inspection carried out by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Jind. The report is with reference to a letter date of which is not legible in Xerox copy of the report at page 42. The reference letter has not been placed before us. The inspection team had visited the field of the complainant on 20.11.1999 and after inspection found that germination percentage of Sarson crop was hardly 3-5%. The Xerox copy of the said report, which is at page 42, is signed by the members of the team. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a letter dated 1.2.2010 from Block Agriculture Officer, Narnaul (Hissar) to Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Hansi in respect of good germination of mustard seeds. However, the said report cannot in any manner help the case of the petitioner, since it pertains to some other fields at a different point of time. Though Counsel for the petitioner has filed letter dated 3.1.2002 from the Director of Agriculture, Panchkula, Haryana, to Dy. Directors (Agriculture) in the State of Haryana, yet it is not known whether the said directions continued to be in force till the year 2009. Moreover, it may not be always possible to associate the representative of the seed agency. The petitioner had, in fact, alleged collusion between the agriculture department and the complainant for the purpose of getting compensation. However, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to sustain the said plea of collusion between the agriculture department and the complainant. The team constituted by the Dy. Director (Agriculture), Jind had inspected the field of the complainant and had found that the germination percentage of Sarson crop was hardly 3-5% which by itself, would go to show that the seeds were not of good quality. The Fora below have placed reliance on the said report and we have no reason to take a different view of the matter. The Consumer Fora have awarded compensation of Rs. 41,350/- with interest thereon. In our opinion, the orders of the Fora below are just, fair and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity so as to interfere with the same under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The REVISION PETITION is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.