State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shriram Fertilizers And Chemicals vs Mukhtiar Singh on 21 July, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
1. First Appeal No.845 of 2016
Date of Institution : 08.11.2016
Order reserved on: 18.07.2017
Date of Decision : 21.07.2017
M/s Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals, 2nd Floor, Kirti Mahal
Building, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi, Regional Office at Ganpati
Storage Complex, Malout Road, Bathinda through its Regional
Manager - Sanjay Gulati s/o Dr. K. L. Gulati.
.....Appellant/opposite party No.2
Versus
Mukhtiar Singh s/o Gulab Singh, r/o Village Kabarwala, Tehsil
Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondents/Complainant
Appeal against order dated
20.09.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sri Muktsar.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rakesh Verma, Advocate For respondent : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate And 2. First Appeal No.902 of 2016 Date of Institution : 30.11.2016 Order reserved on: 18.07.2017 Date of Decision : 21.07.2017 Mukhtiar Singh s/o Gulab Singh r/o Village Kabarwala, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Appellant/complainant Versus F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 2
1. Singla Seed Store, 150, New Grain Market , Malout through its Partner/Proprietor;
2. Shri Fertilizers & Chemicals Kirti Mahal 19, Rajendara Palace, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.
.....Respondent/opposite parties Appeal against order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Ex-parte For respondent No.2 : Sh. Rakesh Verma, Advocate ............................................ SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER :-
This order shall dispose of the above-referred appeals together, as they have arisen out of the same order of District Forum, and as such, can be conveniently disposed of simultaneously. Challenge in this appeal by appellant in appeal No.845 of 2016 is to order dated 20.09.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, directing the appellant of this appeal to pay Rs.1,28,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of sale of seeds along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation to respondent of this appeal. Appellant of this appeal is OP No.2 before the District Forum and respondent of this appeal is complainant therein and they are referred, as such, F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 3 hereinafter for the sake of convenience. Appellant of Appeal No.902 of 2016 is complainant in the complaint and respondent No.1 of this appeal is OP No.1 in the complaint and respondent No.2 of this appeal is OP No.2 in the complaint and they be referred, as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience. Order shall be pronounced in main FA No.845 of 2016 by us.
2. Complainant Mukhtiar Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 'Act') against OPs on the averments, that he purchased 28 packets of 6588 BT Cotton Seed @ Rs.900/- per packet for Rs.25,2000/-, vide bill No.311 dated 03.05.2015 from OP No 1, which assured that yield would be 16 to 18 quintals per killa, as the germination of the seed would be at least 95%. OP No.1 also assured him that one packet seed was sufficient for one killa of land and recommended to sow 28 packets of seed in 20 killas of land.
Cotton seeds were sown at recommended distance with DAP fertilizer per killa by him. He spent Rs.5000/- per killa as he put 2½ bags Urea, per killa, in addition and spent Rs.2500/- per killa for watering and cultivation treatment etc. As such, he spent approximately Rs.3,00,000/- on cotton crops, but was surprised to find that plants had not grown up in a proper way, as most of the plants remained small in height and normal plants even did not bear flowers/fruits. He made a request to Agriculture Department, Malout, vide application dated 07.10.2015, who inspected his above 10 acres of land and submitted a report that due to attack F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 4 of white fly, the plants had not grown up in proper height and the yield would be 80% to 90% less than the normal BT cotton crops yield. Ops sold the spurious seeds to him, hence he suffered huge loss, as average yield of 6588 BT Cotton was 16 to 18 qunitals per acre and at last season, the average price of BT cotton was Rs.45,000/- per quintal. He made a request to OPs to offset him for his loss, but to no effect. Hence, complaint was filed by him before the District Forum seeking following prayers from OPs:-
i. to refund Rs.25,200/- as price of 6588 BT
Cotton seed,
ii. to pay Rs.17,50,000/- as compensation for
mental tension and harassment;
iii. to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP No1 filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint does not fall into the definition of Consumer as defined in CP Act, in as much as, he purchased the seeds for commercial purposes. He filed the complaint to blackmail this OP only. OP No.1 is a reputed dealer and has been his business, as such for more than 10 years. OP No.1 sold approved variety of seeds only after proper permission of concerned Government Departments. District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case, as complicated question of law and facts are involved in present matter, therefore, the matter should be relegated to Civil Court for adjudication. OP No.1 has no F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 5 control over the use of said seeds after their sale. The alleged ADO report was prepared by the concerned official with the connivance of complainant and is not as per actual position. Seeds were denied to be of spurious or mixed quality. On merits, all the allegations made in the complaint were denied vehemently by OP No.1.
4. Separate written reply was filed by OP No.2 by raising the preliminary objections that OP No.2 is reputed company and doing the business of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds etc. for last 20 years. Complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer, as he sowed cotton crops for commercial purposes alone to earn profits. He has no locus standi to file the complaint under CP Act. Complex questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint, which requires voluminous evidence for adjudication and hence the matter should be relegated to Civil Court for decision. He has filed the frivolous complaint just to harass and blackmail OP No.2 to extort the money. No spurious/mixed quality seeds were ever sold to him, as alleged in the complaint. The alleged Agricultural Development Officer report was prepared in connivance of complainant and is not as per actual position on the spot. On merits, all the allegations contained in complaint were denied vehemently by OP No.2. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 and his affidavit as Ex.C-5 along with documents F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 6 Ex. C-6 to C-14, and closed the evidence. As against it, OP No.1 tendered in affidavit of Sh. Anil Singla Proprietor Singla Seed Store New Grain Market Malout as Ex.OP1/1 along with documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence of OP No.1. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Gulati, Regional Manager Bathinda, Sri Ram Fertilizers and Chemicals, Bathinda as Ex.OP2/1 along with documents Ex. OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/35 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, accepted the complaint of complainant, by directing OPs to pay an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of sale of seeds along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, OP No.2 now appellant preferred First Appeal No.845 of 2016 to set aside the impugned order, whereas complainant also filed First Appeal No.902 of 2016 for enhancement of the amount of loss.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record of the case. The complainant filed his affidavit Ex.C-5 deposing all the facts stated in the complaint. He deposed that vide bill No.311 dated 03.05.2015 Ex.C7, he purchased 28 packets of 6588 BT Crop for Rs.25,200/- from OP No.1. As per version of the complainant, the cotton crop bore defective seeds, giving inadequate quality of the cotton crop. He moved complaint to Agricultural Development Officer, Malout vide Ex.C-6 on the F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 7 record. The report of Agricultural Development Officer Malout, is Ex.C-4 on the file. It has transpired from his report that he visited the agricultural fields of complainant on 09.10.2015 accompanied with complainant for the inspection of the above crops. The report further reveals that the cotton crop was inspected as per version of the farmer. The inspection of field reflected the attack of white fly to the crop extensively, due to which the yield of cotton crop was less than 80 to 90%. The copy of jamabandi is Ex.C-12 on the record proving ownership of land, where the cotton crop was grown. Photo copies of FIRs No.209 & 0095 are Ex.C-13 &14 on the record registered against OPs.
7. OPs relied upon affidavit of Anil Singla proprietor, vide Ex.OP1/1 and affidavit of Sanjay Gulati ExOP2/1 on record, admitting the fact of sale of seeds to complainant, but denying any defective quality of the seeds sold by him to complainant. BOth the witnesses denied the case of the complainant that loss suffered by him was due to sub-standard quality of seeds sold by OP No.1.
8. It is contention of the OPs that seeds were not tested in any recognized laboratory under Section 13 of the Act. We find no ground to reject the case of complainant on this solitary contention. Majority of the farmers in the country are illiterate. They are not aware of the provisions of Seeds Act 1966 and the rules framed there under and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2011. Ordinarily, after F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 8 purchasing the seeds for sowing, the farmers do not retain a sample thereof, so as to utilize it for sample in the event of loss of crop or less yield therein on account of defects in the seeds. In normal cases, a farmer would use the entire quality of costly seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time, he discovers that crop has failed, because the seeds purchased by him were defective, nothing remains with him of the seeds purchased by him for testing in the laboratory. Even otherwise, costly seeds are not preserved by the poor farmers after sowing season. Rule 13(3) of Seed Rules 1968 cast a duty on every person keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety under Section 7 of the Act to keep it over a period of three years as a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded after one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seeds kept as part of the complete record, has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity and potency thereof.
Hon'ble National Commission in EID Party (I) Ltd. Vs. Gourishankar & Anr reported in IV(2006) CPJ 178 (NC) held that "Since petitioner company is engaged in subsisting of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 9 lot which was sold to respondent No.1 to the effect that it was not sub-standard/defective, so that the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and anr. reported in 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 838 observed that Seed purchased by the farmers from seed corporation found to be defective. Farmers are unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained. Complaint could not be rejected, to prove defect farmers could not be expected to keep a sample before sowing. Defective sample otherwise proved by the Horticulture and Agriculturist experts. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory." Such sample could have been easily made available to the District Forum for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test by the dealer or manufacturer of the seeds.
9. Further, report of Agricultural Development Officer is Ex.C4, which has been carefully examined by us. The report says that there was heavy attack of white fly on the cotton crops and there was also heavy attack of leaf curl virus on the cotton crops. The growth BT6588 Seeds, thus, remained stunted. Above attacks have nothing to do with the stunted growth of the cotton plants, because at the most, the white fly could have eaten either the fruit F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 10 of the cotton crops of the leaves of the cotton plants only. The dwarfed growth of cotton plants was entirely due to the mixed quality of seeds or sub-standard quality of seeds supplied by of BT6588 Seeds sold to complainant against price through its authorized dealer. Weed growth, white fly attack and leaf curl virus attack would not have stunted the growth of the cotton plants, they could have destroyed the crops at the most. The dwarfed growth of BT6588 Seeds was entirely imputable to the sale of mixed quality of seeds in this case giving stunted growth of the plants.
10. Deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs is contributory factor for causing loss to the complainant. The plants of cotton crops in our opinion remained stunted entirely due to mixed quality of seeds only. The loss to complainant has occurred primarily by mixed quality of seeds. The District Forum has rightly quantified the loss to the complainant in this case. We do not find any ground either to enhance the compensation or to reduce it. The compensation awarded to complainant by District Forum is quite reasonable as no precise evidence to quantify the loss in correct figure is forthcoming on the record
11. As a result of our above discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the order of District Forum under challenge in this case. Consequently, both above-referred appeals, First Appeal F.A. No. 845 of 2017 & F.A. No.902 of 2016 11 No.845 of 2016 and First Appeal No.902 of 2016 are without any merit and are dismissed.
12. The Appellant/OP in First Appeal No.845 of 2016 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal and further Rs.75,000/- on 2.12.2016 in compliance with order of this Commission dated 18.11.2016. Bothe these amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.
13. Arguments in the above appeals were heard on 18.07.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
14. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Surinder Pal Kaur) MEMBER July 21, 2017 DB