State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Gurdeep Singh vs Punjab State Seed Corporation Limited on 29 July, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.513 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 03.04.2006.
Date of Decision: 29.07.2011.
Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Gurkirpal Singh @ S. Kirpal Singh R/o Village
Karyal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Punjab State Seed Corporation Limited, having its Head and Regd. Office 835-
36, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director, service through its
Branch Office, opposite Canal Office, Amritsar through its Branch
Manager/Principal Officer.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
20.01.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. S.P. Thukral, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Gurdeep Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the
appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, pleading that on 26.05.2003, he purchased the seed of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' weighing 30 kgs from the respondent corporation from their branch opposite Canal Office, Amritsar vide receipt no.5715 @ Rs.28/- per kg. The respondent assured the appellant at the time of purchase of seeds that the said variety of 'Basmati' is a better variety and will give more yield, profit than First Appeal No.513 of 2006 2 any other variety of the 'Basmati' and on the said assurances, the appellant purchased the seeds of said 'Basmati'.
3. The appellant planted the plants of the said variety in seven acres of his land and the crop matured for harvesting one month earlier than other varieties of the 'Basmati'. After harvesting the said crop of said 'Basmati', appellant brought the produce to the Grain Market for selling, but no rice miller was ready to purchase the said variety of basmati on the ground that it was not 'Basmati' and the appellants sold the same after storing it along with other basmati in the Grain Market on 11.11.2003 and 14.11.2003.
4. The rice millers refused to accept the crop on the ground that the said variety was not basmati and purchased the said Basmati Sugandha No.III @ Rs.640/- per quintal which was less than half of the rate of basmati which was Rs.1300/- per quintal.
5. The respondent in fact supplied the defective and poor quality of seeds to the appellant which resulted in a big financial loss of Rs.6000/- per acre to the appellant. The said act of the respondent in selling defective and poor quality of seeds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused a great mental pain, financial loss, agony and harassment and the appellant is entitled to claim Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides financial loss of Rs.42,000/- and the costs of litigation.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, preliminary objections were taken that the compliant is not maintainable and the appellant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The appellant has no locus standi and is not a consumer as defined under the Act. The Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint has been filed in order to extract money. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant purchased the seed of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' weighing 30 kgs. on 26.05.2003 from Ludhiana sub office. The seeds of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' was notified by the Govt. of India as 'Basmati' and stand approved by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. First Appeal No.513 of 2006 3 The appellant has not sown the correct/required quantity of seeds i.e. 8 kgs. per acre which comes to 56 kgs., whereas the appellant has sown only 30 kgs. of seeds in 7 acres of land. The appellant purchased the seeds as per own accord and free will after satisfaction. The seeds were of good quality which were approved by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and the proper growth of seeds depends upon number of factors such as prescribed quantity, fertilizer, watering etc. The selling of the produce is not the responsibility of the answering respondent. No assurance with regard to the profit was given. The appellant never made any complaint to the respondent at the time of cultivating or before harvesting. The said seeds were notified by the Govt. of India and the respondent has no liability. All other allegations were denied being wrong and incorrect and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant has not produced any evidence that the seeds of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' were defective seeds. The appellant should have taken the Chief Agriculture Officer to his fields when the crop was standing, in order to get a report from him regarding quality of seeds, and dismissed the complaint.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.01.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant purchased the seeds 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' vide bill Ex.C1/1 and paid Rs.840/- to the respondent. The respondent represented that the said seeds are of good quality and it will give more produce. After harvesting, when the First Appeal No.513 of 2006 4 produce was taken to the market, it was not purchased by any rice miller on the ground that it was not 'Basmati' seed and ultimately, the same was sold at half the rate through commission agents vide bills Ex.CW2/1 and Ex.CW2/4 @ Rs.640/- per quintal, whereas at that time, the rate of the 'Basmati' was Rs.1300/- per quintal and, thus, the appellant suffered loss and mental harassment, tension and the District Forum has not taken into consideration all these facts and the appeal may accepted. It was contended that the said quality of the seeds was duly notified by the Ministry of Agriculture vide notification dated 15.11.2001 and the seeds supplied were not of good quality and for that reason, the appellant suffered loss.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' is not basmati even as per the notification relied upon by the counsel for the appellant and it was a kind of paddy crop and the respondent never assured the appellant that the seeds sown were of basmati. The appellant has not examined any expert to prove that the loss was due to that quality of seeds and the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed, because there is no evidence to prove the contention of the appellant.
13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The version of the appellant is that he purchased the seeds "Basmati Sughanda No.III" and the same were sown and the due care and cautions were taken, but the crop harvested did not yield the profit as the crop was sold @ Rs.640/- per quintal and nobody purchased it as 'Basmati', the rate of which was Rs.1300/- per quintal.
15. The first question that arises in the present appeal is whether the seeds purchased were really 'Basmati' seeds or it was a kind of paddy seed only and whether the selling of the seeds at half of the rate is sufficient to prove that the said seeds were not of good quality or it was of some other brand? First Appeal No.513 of 2006 5
16. It was admitted by the respondent in its reply that the appellant purchased the seeds of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III', weighing 30 kgs. on 26.05.2003. It was also pleaded that the seeds of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' were notified by the Govt. of India as 'Basmati' and was approved by the Punjab Agriculture University. As per cash memo Ex.CW1/1, the appellant purchased 30 kgs. of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III', and the necessary pesticides was also given which is mentioned on the back of this cash memo. The stand taken by the respondent is that the quantity of seeds required for 7 acres was 56 kgs., whereas the appellant has purchased only 30 kgs. of seeds and for that reason, the produce was less. Even if the version of the respondent is believed, then also the produce might have been less, but the 'kind' of the produce cannot be changed. The respondent has sold the seeds of 'Basmati Sugandha No.III' to the appellant and the rate of 'Basmati' was Rs.1300/- per quintal, whereas the rate of paddy was Rs.640/- per quintal and the crop of the appellant was sold @ Rs.640/- per quintal vide sale voucher Ex.CW2/1. If the crop was of 'Basmati', then whatever the quantity of the produce was, that should have been sold @ Rs.1300/- per quintal, whereas 'P.R. Saugandh' weighing 36 quintals was sold @ Rs.640/- per quintal vide the said sale voucher. The appellant has relied upon the notification of the Ministry of Agriculture dated 15.11.2001 which was issued after consultation with the Central Seed Committee for regulating the quality of the seeds of paddy. At serial no.5 of this notification, variety of 'Poosa Sugandh-3' is mentioned and the 'kind' is 'Paddy'. Thus, as per this notification, 'Sugandha No.III' was an ordinary kind of 'Paddy, but not 'Basmati' as was sold to the appellant. The learned District Forum observed that no expert was examined, nor the crop was got inspected from the agriculture experts, but this fact is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in this case, the 'kind' of the seeds was not 'Basmati', but it was only a 'Paddy', whereas the respondent sold the seed of 'Sugandha No.III', mentioning it as 'Basmati', but the produce of it turned to be a kind of 'Paddy' and as per the above notification First Appeal No.513 of 2006 6 also, it was not 'Basmati Rice', but it was only a kind of 'Paddy' and that resulted into the loss of the produce and profit to the appellant and he has also undergone mental tension on finding that the seeds sold to him by the respondent was stated to be of 'Basmati', whereas it turned out to be a kind of 'Paddy'.
17. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the order of the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on record and is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 20.01.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed and the appellant is awarded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as a consolidated sum covering compensation, financial loss, mental torture etc. The respondent is directed to pay this amount to the appellant/complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay this amount with 7.5% interest p.a. from the date of order till realization.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.07.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member July 29, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)