DIVERSE AGRO Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the unsuccessful respondents. The facts of this case are these. The complainant, Gurmeet Singh, who is an agriculturist owns 27 acres land in Village Dhan Singh Dhana, Distt. Bathinda. Respondent Diverse Agro, the petitioner in this revision petition and Nandan Biometrics Ltd. Respondent No. 2 approached him for diversification from tranditional farming towards herbal farming. They allured that in case he sows Safed Musli seeds, there would be optimum return with their exclusive expert techniques and seeds. On 04.05.2005, the parties entered into Tripartitle agreement/memo of understanding. The complainant paid Rs. 79,000/ - to Diverse Agro, petitioner at Bathinda vide receipt dated 04.05.2005 for Safed Musli seeds. Fertilizers and pesticides were also provided worth Rs. 57,000/ - vide another bill dated 04.06.2005. Seeds were sown under their expert advice and advice of Sh. Iqbal Singh, Agricultural Officer of Agrucultural Department. The complainant had to install another tubewell bore as per advice given by the respondents. Safed Musli was sown in July 2005 in an area of 5 acres. Sukhbir Singh from the petitioner side came to visit the complainant 's farm twice. Sukhbir Singh advised the complainant Karandi treatment at the bed but the plants withered away as the seeds were not of good quality and thereafter, the respondents were asked to visit the farm but they did not pay heed with the request made by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant filed a complainant before the District Forum wherein he claimed Rs.03,17,000/ - i.e. price of Safed Musli in the sum of Rs.79,000/ -, amount paid to the labour Rs. 1,50,000/ -, expenses of tubewell bore Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 2,000/ - expenses incurred for purchase of fertilizers etc.,

(2.) THE petitioner was proceeded against ex -parte. Nandan Biometrics Ltd. contested the complaint. It denied all the allegations. It denied having signed tripartite agreement (Memo of understanding). It averred that the complainant was not a consumer as Safed Musli is a commercial crop, which requires huge capital.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it dismissed the appeal.