State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., vs Diwan Chand on 27 July, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011
Date of institution : 23.8.2011
Date of Decision : 27.7.2012
M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu
through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Diwan Chand s/o Jas Ram son of Nanu Ram resident of Village
Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka.
2. M/s Parshotam Periwal & Bros., Mandi No. 2, Abohar through its
Proprietor.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte 2nd Appeal First Appeal No. 1263 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.8.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Om Parkash s/o Dharam Dass resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. The Jhumian Wali Co-operative Agriculture Services Sabha Limited, Village Jhumian Wali through its Secretary.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 2
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte 3rd Appeal First Appeal No. 1264 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.8.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Parshotam s/o Om Parkash s/o Nand Ram, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. The Jhumian Wali Co-operative Agriculture Services Sabha Limited, Village Jhumian Wali through its Secretary.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte 4th Appeal First Appeal No. 1265 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.8.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Hari Krishan @ Har Krishan Lal s/o Dil Sukh Ram, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. M/s Parshotam Periwal and Bros. Mandi No. 2, Abohar through its Proprietor/Incharge.
3. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Limited having its registered office at 27, New Cotton Market, Layout, Nagpur through its Managing Director.
...Respondents.
First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 3First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte For respondent No.3 : None.
5th Appeal First Appeal No. 1267 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.8.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ram Parkash s/o Banwari Lal, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. M/s Kukar Trading Company, Mandi No. 2, Abohar through its Proprietor/Incharge.
3. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Limited having its registered office at 27, New Cotton Market Layout, Nagpur through its Managing Director.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte For respondent No.3 : None.
6th Appeal First Appeal No. 1268 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.8.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 4
Versus
1. Sahib Ram s/o Ganga Ram son of Sadda Ram, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. M/s Parshotam Periwal & Bros., Mandi No. 2, Abohar through its Proprietor.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 29.6.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte 7th Appeal First Appeal No. 1449 of 2011 Date of institution : 23.9.2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 273, Kamrajan Road, Ahor, 636102 (Salen), Tamilnadu through Mr. Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Baljeet Singh s/o Banwari Lal aged 50 years, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka
2. M/s Parshotam Periwal and Bros., Mandi No. 2, Abohar, through its Proprietor/Incharge.
3. DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited, Regd. Office 6th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, 18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 25.7.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member. Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte For respondent No.3 : Ex.-parte First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 5 PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This order will dispose of following seven appeals:-
S. First Appeal Appellant's Name Respondent's Name Order
No. No.
1. 1263 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Om Parkash & Anr. 29.6.2011
Ltd.
2. 1264 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Parshotam & Anr. 29.6.2011
Ltd.
3. 1265 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Hari Krishan & others 29.6.2011
Ltd.
4. 1266 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Diwan Chand & Anr. 29.6.2011
Ltd.
5. 1267 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ram Parkash & Anr. 29.6.2011
Ltd.
6. 1268 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Sahib Ram & Anr. 29.6.2011
Ltd.
7. 1449 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Baljeet Singh & others 25.7.2011
Ltd.
The above mentioned first six appeals are against the impugned orders dated 29.6.2011 and First Appeal No. 1449 of 2011 is against the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur(in short the "District Forum") and are disposed off in a single order as in all the appeals the facts, dispute and the question of law involved is same. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the complainant/respondent No.1 (hereinafter called 'respondent No.1') were that respondent No. 1 is an agriculturist and holds joint agriculture land with his brother Aatma Ram and father Jas Ram. The details of the land of respondent No. 1 with his co-sharers and the details of the land of the other respondents are mentioned below in which they have sown the seeds in dispute; are as under:-
First Appeal Name of Details of the Land
No. respondent No. 1
1263 of 2011 Om Parkash 81 Kanals 2 Marlas, Rect. No. 136 Killa No. 4 to
7, 14, 15/1, 15/2, 16/1, 17, 22, 23, 24 Village
Jhumian Wali
1264 of 2011 Parshotam 33 Kanal 3 Marlas, Rect. No. 235/2(33-3) Khewat
No. 150 Khatoni No. 229, Village Jhumian Wali
1265 of 2011 Hari Krishan Rect. 41 Killa No. 21/2 (2-12) 22(8-0) 23(8-0)
Rect. No. 60 Killa No. 2(8-0) 3(8-0) 9/1(2-0) 13(8-
0) 18(8-0) First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 6 1266 of 2011 Diwan Chand, 9 acre i.e. 66 Kanal 9 Marlas REct. 41 Killa No. Aatma Ram, Jas 21/1(5-0) Rect. 42 Killa No. 18/3 (4-16) 19/2(4-4), Ram 22(8-0), 23/1(2-8) 23/3 (5-4) 24(8-0) 25(8-0) Rect. No. 59 Killa No. 2(8-0) 3/1/1(2-8) 8/2/2(2- 11) (8-0) Khewat No. 426 Khatoni No. 721 Village Jhumian Wali 1267 of 2011 Ram Parkash & 6 Acre 3 Kanals 7 Marlas Rect. No. 59, Killa No. Asha Rani 25(6-19) Rect. No. 60 Killa No. 21 (7-7) Rect. No. 67 Killa No. 1(8-0), 10(8-0) 11(8-0) REct. No. 68 Killa No. 5(7-12) 6 (5-11) Khewat No. 457 Khatoni No. 774 Village Jhumian Wali 1268 of 2011 Sahib Ram 67 Kanal 2 Marlas Rect. No. 95 Killa No. 7,8,13 to 18 Village Jhumian Wali 1449 of 2011 Baljeet Singh & 31 Kanals Rect. No. 13, Killa No. 17(8-0) Rect.
Banwali Lal No. 135 Killa No. 8(8-0) 13(8-0), 18(7-0) Khewat No. 478 & 479 Khatoni No. 807 & 806 Village Jhumian Wali
3. Respondent No. 1 purchased two packets of J.K. 1947 BG, six packets of RCH 134-BG II 45 (Rashi), six packets of 6558-BG II and eight packets of RCH-134 BT (Rashi) cotton seeds from respondent No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.16,650/- vide bills dated 27.4.2010 and 6.5.2010. Respondent No. 2 had assured to respondent No. 1 that these seeds were of high quality and would give yield about 10 quintals per acre and were immune to leaf curl virus and other diseases, worms and insects etc.. Respondent No. 1 had sown RCH 134 BT (Rashi) and RCH 134 BG II seeds in his nine acres of land from the above mentioned seeds and followed the instructions/advice given by the appellant for cultivation of the crop. He had also sprayed pesticides and fertilizers as per the instructions but after few months, respondent No. 1 found that the growth of the crop was not proper, fruit was less and the crop was also found suffering from leaf curl virus. Respondent No.1 informed respondent No.2, who personally visited his fields in the second week of August, 2010 and admitted that there was less growth of the crop and fruit. Certain other farmers also approached respondent No. 2 with the same problem and held demonstration before respondent No. 2 for selling of spurious seeds to the farmers. Respondent No. 1 and other farmers moved applications to Agriculture Officer, S.D.M., Fazilka and other authorities, upon which team First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 7 of Agriculture Officers inspected the crops of respondent No. 1 and other farmers and submitted their report vide letter dated 21/22.9.2010.
4. The seeds of RCH 134-BT and RCH 134-BG II varities manufactured by the appellant gave only yield of 1½ quintal per acre against the assurance of 10 quintals per acre by respondent No.2. Respondent No. 1 had also sown other seeds i.e. JK 1947 BG & 658811 and 6488 BG II in other six acres of his land which gave yield of 10 quintals per acre. Hence, it was alleged that the appellant manufactured sub-standard seeds and due to this reason, respondent No.1 suffered loss of 8½ quintals per acre and this act of the appellant was unfair trade practice. Due to sub-standard quality of the seeds, respondent No. 1 had suffered a loss of Rs.4,09,400/-. Complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 may be directed to pay him Rs.4,09,400/- alongwith interest @ 2% per month for loss suffered by him and Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice, appellant as well as respondent No. 2 filed their separate written replies but both the replies were on the same lines. Respondent No. 2 replied by taking an objection that the seeds had not been got tested by respondent No. 1 from the Government recognized laboratory and in the absence of any report from the competent laboratory, no seeds can be proved to be defective/sub-standard. On merits, it was pleaded that the seeds were sold to respondent No. 1 in a sealed packet, in intact and same position, in which the same were purchased from the appellant. It was denied that any promise was given for the expected yield to the tune of 10 quintals per acre. The yield not only depends upon the seeds, but upon so many other factors, including environmental factors, like application of seed rate, climate, water intervals, sowing of seeds in First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 8 depth, attack of pests and diseases, quality of soil and water etc. The less quantity of yield was not due to any defect in the quality of the seeds, rather respondent No. 1 himself failed to comply the instructions and was negligent in looking after the crops. Even the peak season for sowing the crop is upto 30th April, but the complainant had sown the said seeds after 30th April. Respondent No. 1 had sown only 16 packets of seeds in nine acres of his land but as per the guidelines of the Punjab Agricultural University, two packets of seeds were required for per one acre. The report of the Agriculture Development Officer reflects that the plants were found suffering from leaf curl disease, which was caused by white fly transmitted virus, which was not related to the quality of seeds. Even the identity of the land has not been mentioned by the Agriculture Development Officer in its report. No intimation was given by the Agriculture Development Officer to respondent No. 2 regarding the inspection of the fields of the farmers. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Appellant in its written reply adopted the same pleas as taken by respondent No. 2 and strongly pleaded that the seeds manufactured/developed by it are of best quality and passed through all the required tests. It was specifically denied that there was any defect in the quality of the seeds. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint by observing that respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of 8½ quintal per acre for his 9 acres of land. The average price of the cotton crop during the year 2010 was Rs.5000/- per quintal, as such, respondent No. 1 had suffered a loss of 8 ½ X 9 X 5000 = Rs.3,82,500/-. The appellant as well as First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 9 respondent No. 2 were directed to pay Rs.3,82,500/- with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses jointly and severally. Respondent No. 2, who is dealer of the appellant may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2011
8. In this case, respondent No. 1 had sown 16 packets of Rashi- 134 I & II seeds purchased from respondent No.2 and manufactured by the appellant in his 81 kanals and 2 marlas of land. As per report of the committee of the Agriculture Development Officers Ex.C-6, respondent No. 1 had sown the seeds in question in 12 acres of his land and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 1.2 quintal per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that he had sown the seeds in 10 acres 1 kanal and 2 marlas of his land, whereas the committee observed that respondent No. 1 had sown the seeds in 12 acres of land. We take the total land of respondent No.1 as 10 acres, where he had sown the seeds in question and suffered loss of 8.8 quintals per acre for his 10 acres of land, which comes to be (10x8.8x5000) = Rs.4,40,000/-.
9. The complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed and the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to pay Rs. 4,40,000/- with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses jointly and severally. Respondent No. 2 i.e. dealer of the appellant may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2011
10. In this case, respondent No. 1 had sown 3 packets each of Rashi-134 I & II seeds purchased from respondent No. 2 and First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 10 manufactured by the appellant in his 33 kanals and 3 marlas of land. As per report of the committee of the Agriculture Development Officers Ex.C- 6, respondent No. 1 had sown the seeds in question in 4 acres of his land and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 2 quintal per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre and respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of 8 quintals per acre for his 4 acres of land, which comes to be (4x8x5000) = Rs.1,60,000/-.
11. The complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed and the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses jointly and severally. Respondent No. 2 i.e. dealer of the appellant may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2011
12. In this case, respondent No. 1 had sown 4 packets of RCH 134 BT (Rashi) seeds, 2 packets of RCH 134-II (Rashi), 2 packets of Shakti-9 (Rashi) seeds and one packet of Jai B.T. (Ankur Seeds), purchased from respondent No. 2 and manufactured by the appellant and respondent No.2, respectively, in his land. As per report of the committee of the Agriculture Development Officers Ex.C-10, respondent No. 1 had sown the Rashi Seeds in question in 5 acres of his land i.e. Rashi 134 I & II and Shakti-9 in 2 acres of his land. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that he had sown Jai B.T. seeds in one acre (though written as 3 acres in the report of Agriculture Development Officers) and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 2 quintals, 2.5 quintals and 2 quintals per acre, respectively, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre. So we take the land of respondent First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 11 No. 1 as 4 acres instead of 3 acres, where he had sown RCH-134 BT (Rashi) seeds and allowed the complaint. Respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of 8 quintals, 7.5 quintal and 8 quintals per acre, respectively for his 7 acres of land, which comes to be (4x8x5000) = Rs.1,60,000/-, (2x7.5x5000)= Rs.75,000/- i.e. total Rs.2,35,000/- and the appellant and respondent No. 2 were directed to pay this amount to respondent No. 1 and for (1x8x5000)= Rs.40,000/- were liable to pay by respondent No.2 and 3 to respondent No.1 jointly and severally with 8% per annum interest and awarded Rs.1000/- each as litigation expenses. Respondent No. 2- dealer of the appellant as well as respondent No. 3 may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2011
13. In this case, the complainant had sown 8 packets of RCH 134 BT (Rashi) seeds purchased from respondent No. 2 and manufactured by the appellant and 4 packets of Jai BT-1 (Ankur) manufactured by respondent No.3, in his 6 acre 3 kanals and 7 marlas of land. As per report of the committee of the Agriculture Development Officers Ex.C-7, respondent No. 1 had sown the seeds in question in 6 acres of his land and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 3 quintal per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre. The complaint was allowed and it was observed that respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of 7 quintals per acre for his 6 acres of land, which comes to be (6x7x5000) = Rs.2,10,000/- and also sown Jai BT I (Ankur Seeds) in his two acres of land, which comes out to be (7x2x5000) = Rs.70,000/- and directed to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 1 also sown RCH 134 (Rashi Seeds) in 4 acres of his land and compensation for the same comes out to be (7x4x5000) = Rs.1,40,000/-, which was directed to be paid by the appellant and First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 12 respondent No. 2. These amounts were liable to pay with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also liable to pay Rs.1000/- each as litigation expenses. Respondent No. 2-Dealer of the appellant and respondent No. 3 may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1268 OF 2011
14. In this case, respondent No. 1 had sown 17 packets of RCH- 134 BT (Rashi) seeds purchased from respondent No. 2 and manufactured by the appellant, in his 67 kanals and 2 marlas of land. As per report of the committee of the Agriculture Development Officers Ex.C-7, respondent No. 1 had sown the seeds in question in 8 acres of his land and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 3 quintal per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre and in this way respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of 7 quintals per acre for his 8 acres of land, which comes to be (8x7x5000) = Rs.2,80,000/-.
15. The complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed and the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to pay Rs.2,80,000/- with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses jointly and severally. Respondent No. 2-Dealer of the appellant may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 2011
16. In this case, respondent No. 1 had purchased three packets of 6488 BG II (Shri Ram) seed, which was manufactured by respondent No. 3, four packet of RCH 134 BG II 45 (Rashi) seed, which was manufactured by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 6,175/- against bill dated 27.4.2010. Respondent No. 1 alongwith his father had sown seeds of 6488 BG II (Shri First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 13 Ram) in 15 kanals of his land and RCH 134 BG II 45 (Rashi) in his 16 kanals of land. As per report of the committee of Agriculture Officers (Ex. C-6), respondent No. 1 sown RCH 134 in four acres of land, whereas it is proved that RCH 134 seeds were sown only in two acres of land and the expected crop from the inspection of the field was found 2.5 quintals per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre. Respondent No. 1 has suffered loss of 7½ quintal per acre for his two acres of land in which RCH 134 BG II 45 (Rashi) seeds were sown and average price of cotton crop during the year 2010 was Rs. 5000/- per quintal, as such, respondent No. 1 had suffered a loss of 7½ x 2 x 5000 = Rs. 75,000/-. As per report Ex. C-6, no negligence was defect proved in the seeds of Bio Seed 6488 BG II produced by respondent No. 3 and dismissed the complaint against respondent No.3.
17. Complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed and the appellant and respondent No. 2 were directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- with 8% per annum interest from the date of complaint till realization and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses jointly and severally. Respondent No. 2-Dealer may be given liberty to recover the compensation amount from the appellant.
18. Hence, all the appeals filed by Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd against the order of the District Forum on the grounds that the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the order is passed on conjecture, surmises and presumptions as nowhere from the facts on record it is proved that the seeds were of inferior quality, the orders are against the law of the land, as such, the same are liable to be set-aside.
19. There is no dispute that the seeds in dispute were manufactured by the appellant company, respondent No. 2 was the dealer of the appellant and the seeds were purchased by respondent No. 1 from First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 14 respondent No. 2. It was also not denied by the appellant or respondent No. 2 that the growth of the crop was not proper and fruit was less.
20. The version of respondent No. 1 was that the seeds, which were purchased by him from respondent No. 2, who was the dealer of the appellant, were of inferior quality and due to this reason he had suffered the losses. On the other hand, the version of respondent No. 2 and the appellant is that without the analysis/tests from the laboratory, it cannot be held that the seeds were of inferior/sub-standard quality. There are also some other reasons, environmental factors, application of seed rate, climatic condition, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases.
21. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 1 had not produced any portion of the seeds before the District Forum for the testing of the same from the appropriate laboratory to find out whether the same were of inferior quality or not. The respondent No. 2 as well as the appellant has also not produced the seeds of same lot number before the District Forum for the testing the same from the appropriate laboratory. It is also not the case of respondent No. 2 and the appellant that the seeds of the same lot number were not available with them.
22. On the complaints of the farmers, Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Abohar constituted the Committee consisting Dr. Sandeep Kumar, ADO, Dr. Randhir Singh, ADO and Bhupinder Kumar, ADO, who inspected the cotton crops of the farmers of village Jhumianwali i.e. the village of the all respondent No. 1 in seven appeals. After inspection, the Committee submitted their report Ex. C-7.
23. We have perused the report Ex. C-7. The report of the Committee is very exhaustive and the name of the farmer, father's name, First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 15 name of the village, variety, area as well as the expected yield were given in the said report.
24. The Committee had observed that the height of the plants of cotton crop pertaining to seeds of Jai BT (Ankur) was only 1 to 3 feet and the fruits were very less(0 to 36) and was suffering from leaf curl upto 60 to 80%. It was also observed that the height of the plants of cotton crop pertaining to seeds RCH 134 BT I and II was upto one to 3.5 feet and the fruits were only zero to 42 and the same was suffering from leaf curl to the tune of 70 to 95% but where the other seeds were sown like J.K. 1947 Bio Seed 6488, 6588 by the farmers with the above seeds, the height of the plants were upto 6 to 8 feet and were suffering very low from the attack of curl leaf and the expected yield was approximately 10 quintals per acre. So from the report of the Committee, it reveals that the cotton crops relating to seeds Jai BT (Ankur) and RCH 134 BG I and II were not properly grown up, fruits were very less and were suffering from the leaf curl disease whereas the crops of variety of other seeds were not suffering from any disease as well as the growth and fruits were proper. The Committee had inspected the crop of 34 farmers and it was not the complaint of respondent No. 1 only. If only respondent No. 1 had made the complaint regarding the sub-standard quality of the seed of the above varieties than it can be presumed that the crop of respondent No. 1 was less due to other reasons as mentioned in reply by the appellant and respondent No. 2 and not due to sub-standard quality of the seeds. The complaints regarding the sub-standard quality of the seeds in dispute were made by so many farmers shows that the version of the appellant and respondent No. 2 is not correct that the crops were not grown up due to other reasons like environmental factors, like application of seed rate, climate, water First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 16 intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, quality of soil and water etc.
25. The appellant as well as respondent No. 2 had not filed any objections against the report of the Committee. It is also not alleged by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 that the Committee had not inspected the fields of respondent No. 1 in the present appeal as well as in the other appeals. Only it is alleged that Khasra numbers not mentioned by the Committee, which were inspected by the Committee of the experts constituted by the Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Abohar.
26. The appellant as well as respondent No. 2 had not produced affidavit of any other farmer to whom they had sold the seeds of above lots to prove that the seeds in dispute were purchased and sown by him and were of good quality.
27. Respondent No. 1 has clearly mentioned the prescription of the land where the seeds in dispute were sown by him, which was not rebutted by the appellant as well as by respondent No. 2. The appellant tendered into evidence package of practice for crops of Punjab Ex. R-3, guidelines to protect the crop of BT Cotton Ex. R-4 but neither in the reply nor in the affidavits the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 had stated that such guidelines which are mentioned in Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-4 were supplied to respondent No. 1 but he did not comply with the same.
28. It is proved beyond any doubt that even the appellant and respondent No. 2 have also not rebutted that the crops of respondent No. 1 were not grown up/developed properly/smoothly.
29. Now the only dispute which we have to decide is:-
(i) whether the seeds manufactured by the appellant as well as by Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. were of inferior quality/sub-standard or not?First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 17
(ii) whether the respondent No. 1 suffered the loss due to improper growth of the crops, due to sub-standard quality of the crops?
30. The appellant is the manufacturer of the seeds Rashi 134 BG I and II but no evidence was produced by the appellant that before selling the seeds in dispute the same were certified from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required under Section 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966. Even no certificate is produced by the appellant to prove that the Seed in dispute before selling in the market were got analyzed from the appropriate laboratory. The relevant Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966 are reproduced hereunder:-
"6. Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc. :- The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify,--
(a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;
(b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under Clause (a) and the particulars which such mark or label may contain.
7. Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties:- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless,--
(a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under Clause (a) of Section 6;
(c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof, specified under Clause (b) of Section 6; and
(d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.
8. Certification agency:- The State Government or the Central Government in consultation with the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette establish a certification agency for the State to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification agency by or under this Act.
First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 18[8-A. The Central Seed Certification Board* :- (1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Central Seed Certification Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to advise the Central Government and the State Governments on all matters relating to certification, and to co-ordinate the functioning of the agencies established under Section 8.
(2) The Board shall consist of the following members, namely :-
(i) a Chairman, to be nominated by the Central Goverument;
(ii) four members, to be nominated by the Central Government from out of the persons employed by the State Governments as Directors of Agriculture;
(iii) three members, to be nominated by the Central Government from out of the persons employed by the Agricultural Universities as Directors of Research;
(iv) thirteen persons, to be nominated by the Central Government to represent such interests as that Government thinks fit, of whom not less than four persons shall be representative of seed producers or tradesmen.
(3) A member of the Board shall, unless his seat becomes vacant earlier by resignation or otherwise, be entitled to hold office for two years from the date of his nomination :
Provided that a person nominated under Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) of sub-section (2) shall hold office only for so long as he hold the appointment by virtue of which his nomination was made. 8-B. Other Committees :- The Board may appoint as many Committees as it deems fit consisting wholly of the members of the Board or wholly of other persons or partly of members of the Board any partly of other persons as it thinks fit to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be delegated to them, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, by the Board. 8-C. Proceedings of Board or Committee not to be invalid by reason of any vacancy therein :- No proceeding of the Board or any Committee thereof shall become invalid merely by reason of the existence of any vacancy therein or any defect in the constitution thereof.
8-D. Procedure for Board :- The Board may, subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, make bye-laws for the purpose of regulating its own procedure and the procedure of any Committee thereof and the conduct of all business to be transacted by it or such Committee.First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 19
8-E. Secretary and other officers :- The Central Government shall, --
(i) appoint a person to be the Secretary of the Board, and
(ii) provide the Board with such technical and other staff as the Central Government considers necessary.]
9. Grant of certificate by certification agency :- (1) Any person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety may, if he desires to have such seed certified by the certification agency, apply to the certification agency for the grant of a certificate for the purpose.
(2) Every application under sub-section(1) Shall be made in such form, shall contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of any such application for the grant of a certificate, the certification agency may, after such enquiry as it thinks fit and after satisfying itself that the seed to which the application relates conforms to the [prescribed standards], grant a certificate in such form and on such conditions as may be prescribed :
[Provided that such standards shall not be lower than the minimum limits of germination and purity specified for that seed under Clause (a) of Section 6.] Notes
1. Scope 2. Application for Certificate
1. Scope :- Section 9 of the Act deals with grant of certificate by certification agency.
2. Application for Certificate :- Where a firm engaged in production of MS 2077A sorghum seed, had applied for certificate under section 9 of the Act, authorities cannot decline to entertain such application for certificate on the ground that Government had taken a decision to confine the production of foundation seeds only to the Government and private individuals cannot be permitted to produce foundation seeds."
31. So by not producing the certification certificate as well as the analysis report of the seeds in dispute of any recognized laboratory, it cannot be presumed that the seeds in dispute were not of inferior quality. If such certificate had been produced by the appellant or respondent No. 2 regarding the quality of the seeds then the onus was upon respondent First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 20 No. 1 to prove that the seeds in dispute were of inferior quality after the test from the appropriate laboratory.
32. It is replied by the appellant in para No. 2 of the reply to the complaint that:-
"the answering opposite party is a leading manufacturer/producer of the seeds in question and has a very well equipped laboratory, where are the lots of the products are stirringly checked before their release in the market. The answering party has also a research centre, where field test of the products are done before their release to the market. The answering party never supplied any sub-standard or inferior quality of seeds to its customers all around India."
33. But the appellant did not produce even the report of its own laboratory that the seeds in dispute were checked in its laboratory before its sale in the market. No report of the field test also produced by the appellant to prove that the seeds were of good quality.
34. The appellant as well as respondent No. 2 nowhere pleaded or produced any evidence that the seeds in dispute were got tested from the certification agency or from the Central Seed Certification Board as required as per Section 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966. As such, the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 have badly failed to prove that the seeds in question were of superior/standard quality.
35. The counsel for the appellant cited the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission titled as "Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Versus Gahnshyambhai Fulabhai Patel" III (2011) CPJ 433 (NC); "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Versus Parchuri Narayana", 2009(1) CPC 471, of this Commission in First Appeal No. 1006 of 2006 "Jallandhar Singh versus Tau Agrotech Pvt. Ltd." Decided on 11.3.2010 also of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 21 Panchkula titled as "Narender Kumar versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others" 2007(2) CLT 683 and First Appeal No. 3064 and 3093 of 2007 "M/s Mohindra Hybrid Seed Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus Karam Chand & Anr.", decided on 11.1.2012 but the same are not applicable in the facts of the present complaint as in the present case the appellant and respondent No. 2 had failed to prove that the requirements of Section 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Seeds Act were complied with by them before putting the seeds in the market for sale.
36. In view of the above discussion, it is proved beyond any doubt that the seeds in dispute sold to respondent No.1's were of sub-standard quality and respondent No.1's suffered loss due to defective quality of the seeds in dispute.
37. We are of the view that the orders passed by the District Forum in all the appeals are legal, valid, detailed one and conclusive and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, all the appeals are without any merit and the same are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal, which will be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1/complainants in each appeal.
38. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 26.7.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
39. The appellant of F.A. No. 1266 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 1,67,250/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant and respondent No.2. Remaining amount shall be paid by the First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 22 appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
40. The appellant of F.A. No. 1263 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 1,96,000/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant and respondent No.2. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
41. The appellant of F.A. No. 1264 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 56,000/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant and respondent No.2. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
42. The appellant of F.A. No. 1265 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 93,000/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant, First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 23 respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
43. The appellant of F.A. No. 1267 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 45,500/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
44. The appellant of F.A. No. 1268 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 1,16,000/- in compliance with the order dated 16.9.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant and respondent No.2. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
45. The appellant of F.A. No. 1449 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 13,500/- in compliance with the order dated 5.10.2011. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. Remaining amount as First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 24 per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
46. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
47. Copy of this order be placed in:-
S. No. First Appeal No. Appellant's Name Respondent's Name
1. 1263 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Om Parkash & Anr.
2. 1264 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Parshotam & Anr.
3. 1265 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Hari Krishan & others
4. 1267 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Ram Parkash & Anr.
5. 1268 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Sahib Ram & Anr.
6. 1449 of 2011 M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Baljeet Singh & others (Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member July 27, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg) as Member First Appeal No. 1266 of 2011 25