State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karnal Seeds Corporation vs Sukhpreet Singh on 1 January, 2018
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.611 of 2017
Date of Institution : 23.08.2017
Order Reserved on: 19.12.2017
Date of Decision : 01.01.2018
Karnal Seeds Corporation Pattran, District Patiala, Punjab
actually, M/s Karnail Seed Farm, Raidharana Road, Harryou Khurd,
Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
.....Appellant/opposite party no.3
Versus
1. Sukhpreet Singh S/o Balwinder Singh, R/o Village & Post
Office Badouchhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....Respondent no.1/complainant
2. M/s Manohar Lal Aggarwal and Sons, Bassi Road, Near SBOP
(Now SBI), Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. R.K. Fertilizers Agency, Phase-II, New Grain Market, Sirhind
Road, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala.
.....Respondent nos.2&3/opposite party nos.1&2
First Appeal against order dated
16.06.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vishal Goel, Advocate
For respondent no.1 : Sh. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate
For respondent no.2 : Sh. Hitesh Mittal, Advocate
For respondent no.3 : None
............................................ J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 16.06.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the 'District Forum'), accepting the First Appeal No.611 of 2017 2 complaint of respondent no.1 of this appeal by directing appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation. Respondent no.1 of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before the District Forum, appellant and respondent nos.2 and 3 are the opposite parties (OPs) therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Short facts of the complaint are that complainant filed complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that he purchased 20 KG paddy seeds of category PB-1401 on 10.05.2014, vide bill no.1587 from OP no.1. It gave guarantee of pure quality and free from any type of defects of above seeds to him. It was further averred that after four-five months, when paddy crop was ready to be reaped, he noticed that the said crop was not of pure quality and there were mixture of some other seeds with it. He approached OP no.1 for redressal of his above grievances and made several requests for compensating him for the loss caused to him by its unfair trade practice, but to no effect. On 16.10.2014, he moved an application to Chief Agricultural Officer Fatehgarh Sahib about this matter. The matter was investigated by Agricultural Officer, Sirhind and he gave report to the effect that the above seeds PB-1401 were contaminated and mixed with Seeds No.1509 and 1121 of Basmati variety and due to above mixture of seeds, some crop was ready for reaping earlier than the other one and due to such untimely readiness of the crop, the complainant could not reap all the crops First Appeal No.611 of 2017 3 simultaneously and resultantly got lesser yield therefrom. Mixture of seeds also gave poor quality of crop, due to which the complainant could not get appropriate rates of his crops and thus suffered financial loss. He requested OP to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as financial loss, but OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He also served a legal notice on the OP, but to no effect. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for financial loss sustained by him; further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment; and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is just misuse and abuse of law. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the manufacturer and authorized dealer have not been impleaded as parties. He has concealed the true, relevant and material facts from this Forum. On merits, it was averred that he purchased the seeds in question as per his choice from OP no.1. It was denied that he approached OP no.1 for redressal of his grievances. It was admitted that application was moved by complainant to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib in this regard. It called OP no.1 and the manufacturer, OP No.3, of said seeds and they have been heard by competent authorities. It was further averred that OP no.1 purchased the said seeds in sealed bags of 10 Kg each from OP no.2, who is a dealer of seeds in First Appeal No.611 of 2017 4 question. OP No.1 kept the said stock so purchased from OP no.2 intact and further sold two bags of 10 Kg each to the complainant in the same condition, as purchased from OP no.2. OP no.1 has no concern with the mixture and quality of said seeds. If there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the same was on the part of OP nos.2 & 3. OP no.1 controverted the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. Later on, OP no.1 filed an application for impleading OP nos.2 & 3 as parties in the complaint. That application was allowed by the District Forum, vide order dated 16.09.2015, and OP nos.2 & 3 were impleaded as parties in complaint.
4. Upon notice, OP nos. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel, but later on, they failed to appear and also failed to file written version despite so many opportunities given to them. Hence, their right to file the written version was struck off by the District Forum due to efflux of time.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Manohar Lal Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vivek Kumar Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence. OP no.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhbir Singh Ex.OP3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/33 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the First Appeal No.611 of 2017 5 complainant, as referred to above. Aggrieved by above order, OP no.3 now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record of the case. Only two points fall for adjudication in this appeal before us. The first point for consideration is whether the complainant was supplied the defective paddy seeds by OPs in this case, which were mixed in nature and hence caused loss to him. Second point for adjudication is that if it is so, then what is the quantum of loss faced by the complainant in this case. These are the essential points for adjudication in this case. The pleadings of the parties have been carefully weighed by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. Evidence on the record has also been evaluated by us with their able assistance. The version of the complainant as unfolded in the complaint is that he purchased 20KG paddy seeds of category PB-1401 on 10.05.2014, vide bill no.1587 from M/s Manohar Lal Aggarwal & sons OP no.1. OP no.1 induced him to purchase it on the premise that the paddy seeds were free from any type of infirmities. After 4-5 months from their sowing, he found that crop was not of pure quality and it was a mixture with some other crop. When he approached OPs for redressal of his grievance, it ended in fiasco. He approached the Agricultural Authorities Fatehgarh Sahib on 16.10.2014 by moving an application, whereupon spot inspection was made by the Agriculture officer finding mixtures of seeds, to be the culprit of his financial loss. He alleged mixtures of seeds, which gave rise to First Appeal No.611 of 2017 6 variety of paddy crops. Some of which riped early and some of which then unriped at that point of time. On the other hand, the OPs denied the case of the complainant. They denied any such mixture of seeds sold by it to complainant against price. OP nos.2 and 3 were impleaded as parties during pendency of the case, being manufacturer and supplier of the above seeds. They also filed their separate written version after their impleadment as parties denying the case of the complainant in toto before Forum below despite striking off their defence. Their rebutter is that loss to the crop/mixture of seeds could be on account of various other reasons like quality of soil, climate and seeds of previous crops and so on.
6. The controversy can be adjudicated with the aid of evidence on the record in this case by us. The District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant as it is and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to him as prayed for, besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses by making OP no.3 time bound to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which to pay interest @9% per annum thereupon. We find that the District Forum passed this order in somewhat snappish manner. This observation of the District Forum is conjectural and not based upon any solid and substantial evidence on the record. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 on the record. He has deposed regarding purchase of above seeds by him from OP no.1 and the point of mixture of the seeds and further suffering of loss by him. He has not quantified the loss by First Appeal No.611 of 2017 7 deposing this fact specifically on oath as to what was the area of the land, where he had grown his paddy seeds and what was the less yield reaped by him out of the same. His affidavit is sub silentio over this matter. Ex.C-2 is bill no.1587 dated 10.05.2014 proving this fact that complainant purchased 20 KG seeds of PB 1401 category for Rs.2000/- from OP no.1. Copy of J form is Ex.C-3 on the record, which is not legible, but can be discerned to the effect that he sold the paddy of Rs.1,08,851/- only. The application is Ex.C-4 dated 16.10.2014 moved by complainant to Chief Agricultural Officer Fatehgarh Sahib. The report of Agricultural Development Officer is Ex.C-5 on the record dated 18.02.2015. This report has established this fact that spot inspection was carried out by Agricultural Development Officer on 28.10.2014 and he found 90% of the paddy crop was ripe for harvesting. There was mixture of basmati 1509, basmati 1121 PB 1401 varying from 16% to 20%. It was observed in the report that basmati 1121 PB1421 would be ripe and the basmati 1519 would have fallen down by being overriped by that time. He quantified loss of complainant as 40 KG per acre totaling of 1 quintal and 20 KG annually only. There is no evidence of the complainant on the record to prove that he suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/- in this case. Chief Agricultural Officer Fatehgarh Sahib also issued notice to OP no.1 under Seeds Act, as to why he be not proceeded against under law for this malfeasance and to produce the record before him. The complainant served legal notice Ex.C-7 to OP supported by postal receipt Ex.C-8 on the file.
First Appeal No.611 of 2017 8
7. To counter this evidence on the record, OP also adduced their version and evidence. The OPs relied upon documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/30. We have evaluated these documents on the record. Ex.OP-3/2 is the result of the laboratory regarding the quality of the seeds. Some of the samples are recorded as failed and some of the samples are recorded as passed in it. Karnal Seed Farm sold seeds vide Ex.OP-3/3 to Ex.OP-3/30 to other seed stores on the record. The OP wanted to establish this fact that seeds, which were sold to different persons in the market and no such complaint was received from any quarter. All these seeds are contained in Ex.OP-3/31 to Ex.OP-3/33 on the record. Affidavit of Manohar Lal Proprietor of OP no.1 is Ex.OP1/1 on the record.
8. The counsel for OP no.3 now appellant relied upon law laid down in "Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Limited Vs. Ram Swaroop" 2015(1)CPJ-530, to establish this fact that variations in condition of crops needs not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds, but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. Onus is always on complainant to prove that there was defect in the seeds, which can be proved by report of laboratory only. We have gone through this authority cited before us by counsel for OP no.3 now appellant, but find that it would be distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. The Apex Court held in case "National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another", (2012) 2 SCC-506 that majority of the farmers in the First Appeal No.611 of 2017 9 country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers, Rights Act, 2001. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agriculture Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of costly seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time, he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective, nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds in the land purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naive to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory. In this view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the contention of the OP that complainant has not opted for the laboratory test of the seeds is unable to make a dent in the case of the complainant. On the other hand, the OP could have applied to District Forum for laboratory test of the seeds, which were in their possession as well. The report of Agriculture Development Officer First Appeal No.611 of 2017 10 can be safely relied upon in proving the inferior quality of seeds. He is disinterested public servant and his report is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We find that there is mere affidavit of complainant on the record that he suffered loss, but this affidavit is unable to exactly quantify the loss suffered by him due to the above substandard seeds. We are left with the report of Agriculture Development Officer only on the record wherefrom, we could seek some help to decide this case. Spot inspection was carried out by Agriculture Officer and his report Ex.C-5 has established on the record that there was mixtures of seeds of other seeds with the seeds sown by the complainant in the land. The mixtures was of basmati 1509 and basmati 1121 and one of the crop riped early, whereas the other one was unripe at that point of time. The complainant suffered loss of 1.20 KG due to this fact as proved by the report of Agriculture Officer Ex.C-5. The complainant has not produced on record any solid evidence as to what was the area of land sown by him with the above seeds. The version of the complainant and evidence of the complainant is undisclosed and unstated on this point. Undoubtedly, there was mixture of seeds, which is purely on account of fault of OP no.3, being manufacturer of it. However, the District Forum has awarded the exaggerated compensation to complainant, which is not justifiable one. At the most, the complainant suffered the quantification of total loss due to mixtures of seeds to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. The J form produced by complainant is unable to prove First Appeal No.611 of 2017 11 this fact that he suffered loss beyond that and it is in derogation of the report of the Agriculture Development Officer. Consequently, we accept the complaint of the complainant partly and reduce the quantum of loss suffered by him from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.15,000/- only. We find that lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- to complainant would be sufficient to serve the interest of justice in this case. We affirm the order of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses granted to complainant by the District Forum.
9. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant in part and the compensation is reduced protanto, as referred to above.
10. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- in compliance with order of this Commission. Out of these amounts, the amount of Rs.20,000/- be remitted to respondent no.1 of this appeal, being complainant and remaining amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheques/demand drafts after the expiry of 45 days.
11. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.12.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.611 of 2017 12
12. The appeal 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 January 01, 2018 MM