TO PROCEED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT DUE TO PROVISION OF DEFECTIVE SEED.
1. The claimant solicited one petition before the DCO, Okara against Ch. Chiragh Din, Muhammad Yousaf Seed Corporation, Sadar Bazar, Okara. Claimant submitted that he purchased pea seed to the worth of Rs. 8000/- from the respondent?s shop. As per contents of the claim respondent sold him substandard seed as such his crop was spoiled. For the above said substandard seed he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 76,000/-.
2. Claim was resisted by the respondent by filing his written statement. Respondent contended that claimant entered in his shop and he was specifically intimated that indigenous pea seed is being sold to him and claimant also paid the price of the local seed (Pakistani). Claim has been falsely filed just for to defame him in public view. It is further averred in the written statement that report of the Agriculture Officer was prepared in his absence hence report being exparte is not reliable and claim be dismissed.
3. After completing the pleadings of both the parties they were directed to produce respective evidence. Claimant Usman Khalid himself appeared in the witness box and get recorded his statement as a sole witness. On the documentary side he produced original purchase receipt as Ex.
PA, letter dated 16-03-10 drafted by the DCO as Ex-PB/1, report of the Agriculture Officer as PB/2, affidavit as PB/3, letter dated 24-03-10 drafted by the District Officer as PB/4, blank receipt as PB/5, written reply of the respondent as PB/6, letter of the District Officer E & IP as Ex- PB/7, affidavit of the claimant as Ex -PB/8, written reply of the defendant as Ex- PB/9, complaint to the Registrar of this Court as Ex- PB/10 and closed the documentary evidence. On the other hand defendant Nadeem Iqbal appeared as Dw-1 as sole witness and not other witness or documents was produced to corroborate his version.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The first question before the court is that if the petitioner case falls within the definition of the consumer or not. Receipt issued by the respondent indicates that Rs. 8000/- received by the respondent which was the price of the Pea Seed. Furthermore respondent has not agitated on the core point that petitioner is not consumer, when this point is not disputed between the parties hence legal inference can be drawn that petitioner is a consumer of the respondent and rightly filed the instant claim.
6. The next question before the court is that if the disputed Pea Seed was purchased by the claimant as imported or he voluntarily purchased the local Pea Seed. To resolve this bone of contention evidence of both the parties is significant as far to get resolve this issue. Claimant himself appeared in the witness box and deposed that he demanded Pea Seed " Alina" but respondent did not sold the same furthermore he deposed that due to said reason little fruit was born by the plants. For to prove his claim, claimant produced empty seed bag, receipt of the purchase of seed as Ex- PA. This Pw faced the cross examination. In his cross examination respondent put a specific suggestion to him that he purchased indigenous Pea Seed. Claimant replied that he himself purchased the disputed seed. He submitted that he demanded Alina? seed but respondent sold him Sohni Dharti Seed for the ready reference statement of the claimant is reproduced above said statement of the claimant indicates that when he purchased the disputed seed it was brought into his notice that Sohni Dharti seed is being sold to him as such he purchased the same. The said Sohni Dharty seed itself indicated that it is local made and indigenous. When it was brought into his notice that seed is local made, he may reject the same.
Furthermore petitioner/claimant has placed receipt dated 18-11-10 allegedly issued by the respondent Chiragh Din which is Ex-PA, it clearly reveals that Sohni Dharti seed was sold to him. It is important maxim that man can speak lie but documentary evidence never speaks false. When the documentary evidence relied by the claimant is present in the record documentary evidence eliminates the oral evidence. So far the argument that Agriculture Officer made a report which is Ex-PB/2. This report specifically narrates that "Sohni Dharti Matri" seed was sown in the field but required fruit was not born from the plants. This report was made by the Agriculture Officer in the absence of the respondent, in case respondent was summoned he might have assisted him the actual field where his sold seed was sown. In absence of the respondent, petitioner might have inspected some other field. When the report is exparte, in absence of the respondent, I am unable to accept it as a gospel truth. Apart from this evidence, petitioner has submitted his affidavit as PB/8 in which he sworn on oath that the disputed seed for the "Mutre" which was purchased by him from the shop of the respondent was "Sohni Dharti". The said affidavit is sworned by the claimant.
Report of the Agriculture Officer fully support the version of the respondent that petitioner purchased local Shoni Dharti seed not imported seed. The empty bag produced by the claimant clearly reflects on it, that it was Limit Seed Company Pakistan which is printed upon it. Hence in the presence of candid admission of the respondent that petitioner had sold him Sohni Dharti Seed furthermore receipt Ex-PA and affidavit himself sworn by the claimant rebuts the claim of the claimant. Furthermore legal notice U/s 28 (1) which is the mandatory provision prior to the filing of claim required to be delivered to the respondent which is not delivered by the claimant hence for the above said couple of reasons claim of the petitioner is not proved hence is dismissed. Registrar of this court is directed to dispatch the copy of the orders to the Directorate of Punjab Consumer Protection council for the purpose of compliance of Rule 25 ibid. {{URDU TEXT}}
7. File be consigned after its due completion.