State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gursewak Singh & Ors. vs Rajpura Pesticides & Anr. on 17 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1703 OF 2010
Date of Institution: 29.09.2010
Date of Decision: 17.01.2014
1. Gursewak Singh S/o Bagwant Singh,
2. Nahar Singh S/o Jagir Singh,
3. Bhag Singh S/o Suchha Singh.
All are residents and Khewatdar of Village Bhargrana, Tehsil
and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....Appellants/Complainants
VERSUS
1. Rajpura Pesticides (Seed Grower and Merchants), # 28, Krishna
Market Rajpura Town, District Patiala through its
Proprietor/Manager.
2. Seven Seas Hybrid Seeds, Hydrabad Office Pvt.Ltd. Plot
No.18, Survey No.192-A, TamKuta Village, Shameerpet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 78, Hydrabad, Andhra Pardesh,
through its Proprietor.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 11.8.2010 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellants : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Harish Nain, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex-parte
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants for modification of the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 2 of 7 "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by them was partly allowed and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the respondents/opposite parties was imposed jointly and severally for mis-representing the seed of paddy 1121 as Basmati PUSA 1121. Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- were also awarded.
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that in the month of May, 2009 complainants approached opposite party No.1 for purchasing of seed of Basmati 1121. The concerned Salesman/Manager/Proprietor of opposite party No.1 assured them that the quality of the seed available with them was Basmati 1121 which was prepared and packed by opposite party No.2 and it was the best quality seed which would give more yield as compared to other varieties. Lured by the assurance given by the Salesman, they agreed to purchase the said seed 'Basmati 1121'. Complainant No.1 purchased two packets/bags of 6 Kgs. each of Hybrid 1121 paddy seed of Seven Seas Hybrid seed @ Rs.65/- per kg. from opposite party No.1 on 12.5.2009. Complainant No.2 also purchased two packets of same variety while complainant No.3 purchased six packets/bags of 1121 paddy seed. The receipts were issued for the sale of the seed. In all, complainants No.1 and 2 paid Rs.780/- each while complainant No.3 made the payment of Rs.2,340/- for the purchase of seed. Complainants No.1 and 2 had sown the seed, in question, in their agricultural land of 2 acres each while complainant No.3 had sown the seed, in question, in 4½ acres of land in Village Bhagrana, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. Later on nursery plants were transplanted in the field with the help of labourers in the first week of July, 2009, First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 3 of 7 cultivating the land and irrigating the same through submersible pump. They spent about Rs.50,000/- for preparation of the land. They hired 8 men as labourers @ Rs.2,000/- per acre for transplanting the paddy nursery. Proper care was taken and nitrogen and DAP Manures were also used as per requirements. They spent Rs.10,000/- per acre during the growth of the plants, apart from above said expenses. In the month of August, 2009, when the paddy Basmati crop was 50 days old, they were shocked to observe the condition of the same and it was found to be duplicate/other Basmati seed. The seed, in question, had not germinated completely and had also not grown up properly. The plants had matured early and paddy fruits had already grown on the same but those were very small in quantity. They approached opposite party No.1 and informed it about the growth of the plants. It was intimated that they were going to suffer a huge economic loss of about Rs.5,00,000/- due to poor variety/quality of the seed supplied by it. Each of them; moved separate applications to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, for inspecting the spot and taking necessary action against the opposite parties. The concerned official of the Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib visited the spot and prepared a detailed inspection report regarding the condition of the paddy crop. It was mentioned in the report that it was a different variety and not "Basmati 1121", as assured by opposite party No.1. Thus, opposite party No.1 committed a fraud and violated the conditions of the Seed Act, 1966. They approached the opposite parties and explained the facts but they totally refused to accept their version. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, they sought First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 4 of 7 directions to the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to them as compensation/damages and costs of proceedings of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed joint written reply pleading therein that the complainants have not come to the District Form with clear hands and have concealed certain material facts. The provisions of the Seed Act and the Seed Rules, 1968 have not been followed. Section 14 of the Seed Act provides powers to Seed Inspector to initiate prosecution against the supplier of defective seed and to take into his possession the sample of defective seed which are to be sent to analyst for analysis. The seed as demanded by complainant No.1 was sold to him and the bill was also issued in which it was mentioned that 1121 variety of the paddy seed was sold. It was nowhere mentioned that "Basmati 1121" was sold to him. It cannot be said, without seeing the bills, that the same were issued to complainants No.2 and 3 as well. In fact they did not purchase the seed on the advice of opposite party No.1, as such, no assurance was given to them. The allegations levelled are vague, baseless and afterthought. Since no seed of "Basmati 1121" was sold to complainant No.1, the question of suffering any financial loss, as alleged, did not arise at all. The report of the Agriculture Officer is not binding upon them as they were not associated at any time. The said officer did not adopt the proper procedure. Denying all other allegations, the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 5 of 7
5. The District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint in the terms referred above.
6. Not fully satisfied by this order, the complainants have come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum, while allowing the complaint, only directed the opposite parties to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- whereas they suffered a huge financial loss and mental tension and harassment due to the sale of defective seed by the opposite parties. As such, besides awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- a penalty of Rs.10,000/- be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Further only Rs.5,000/- have been awarded as litigation costs whereas they spent Rs.22,000/- as such. It has also not been clarified whether the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- in all to the three complainants or Rs.10,000/- to each of them. No compensation on account of mental harassment, agony towards selling of duplicate seed and causing huge loss has been awarded.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order has held that the opposite parties sold the seed to the complainants by mis- representing the seed as "PUSA 1121" while the seed was of "paddy 1121" on the same price as of PUSA 1121. As it was difficult to differentiate between PUSA 1121 and paddy 1121 by the farmers and the opposite parties had not clarified to the farmers that seed purchased by them was not of PUSA 1121 but it was of paddy 1121 which shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 6 of 7 Thus findings of the District Forum have attained finality on account of non-filing of the appeal by the opposite parties.
9. Apparently when a substandard seed was supplied to the complainants, they were likely to suffer loss on account of fall in the yield, both in quality as well as in quantity. The complainants have contended that they incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- per acre during the growth of the plant. Even though they have deposed that they actually spent this amount but no documentary evidence in support of these contentions have been placed on record. In the absence of any specific proof of actual loss suffered by them, we assess this loss as Rs.5,000/- per acre.
10. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellants/complainants is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each to complainants No.1 and 2 (i.e. Rs.5,000/- per acre) and Rs.22,500/- to complainant No.3 as compensation for loss of yield. However, we find no reason to enhance the compensation for supplying the substandard seed. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum is to be distributed the among complainants in the ratio of quantity of seed purchased i.e. Rs.2,350/- each to complainants No.1 and 2 and Rs.5,300/- to complainant No.3. Since, the complainants filed a joint complaint, the litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum are found to be in order and these would be shared equally by the three complainants. The impugned order of the District Forum is modified to that extent.
First Appeal No. 1703 of 2010 Page 7 of 7
11. The arguments in the case were heard on 14.01.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER January 17, 2014 VINAY