State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shiv Khad Bhandar, vs Mahinder Singh on 21 July, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007
Date of institution : 20.9.2007
Date of Decision : 21.7.2010
Shiv Khad Bhandar, Grain Market Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its partner
Vinod Kumar son of Chuni Lal, resident of Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Mahinder Singh s/o Balbir Singh r/o Village Khara, Tehsil & Distt. Faridkot.
2. Akash Ganga Seeds (India) Ltd. 24, 5th Floor, 2nd Main Subbana Garden
Vijaynagar, Bangalore - 560040 through its MD.
3. Malatesh Krushi Kendra, Opposite Forest Office, PB Road, Ranebennur
Karnataka - 581115 through its MD.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 21.8.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridkot.
Before:-
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by Shiv Khad Bhandar-opposite party No.1(in short, "the appellant") against the order dated 21.8.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot(in short, "the District Forum"), by which the complaint of the complainant(in short, 'respondent No.1') was accepted.
First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was owner of 7 acres of land in village Khara. Respondent No. 1 wants to sow some indigenous maize and some hybrid quality maize over some portion of his land and approached the appellant for purchasing maize seed on 13.9.2006. Appellant suggested to him to sow African Tall variety of hybrid maize seed produced by respondent No.3 and marketed by respondent No. 2. Appellant assured him that these seed were pure and of best quality and yield would be about 200 quintal per acre. On assurance of the appellant, respondent No. 1 had purchased 70 Kg. of African Tall variety of hybrid maize seed alongwith 1 quintal of indigenous maize against bill No. 5356 dated 13.9.2006. Appellant had charged Rs. 1400/- for hybrid variety of maize and Rs. 1300/- for other maize seed. He sowed hybrid maize seed over 1½ acre of land after properly irrigating and cultivating the land. He had used one and a half bag of DAP fertilizer at the time of sowing the seed in one and half acre of land. He had also sown indigenous maize on the other 1½ acre of land. It was pleaded that germination of indigenous maize was good instead of hybrid maize and only 10% of hybrid maize seed were germinated. Both the portions of the land i.e. sown indigenous seed and hybrid seed were equally manured, cultivated, irrigated and fertilized. Respondent No. 1 informed about the problem of poor germination to the appellant, who told that he would contact the respondents No. 2 & 3 to compensate respondent No. 1 but nothing was paid. Respondent No. 1 had submitted an application dated 5.10.2006 to the Chief Agricutlure Officer, Faridkot requesting him to get the spot inspected and for appropriate action. Chief Agricutlure Officer, Faridkot deputed his junior to inspect the crop at the spot and to report about the germination. As per assurance around 300 quintal fodder yield was expected from 1½ acre of land but due to poor yielding he had suffered loss of Rs. 36,000/- on the basis of average rate of Rs. 120/- per quintal First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 3 maize fodder in the market during the relevant period. The allegation of respondent No. 1 was that the hybrid maize seed sold by the appellant was spurious, sub-standard and as such, its germination was poor and it was deficiency on his part as well as on the part of respondents No. 2 & 3. Respondent No. 1 had prayed that the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 & 3 may please be directed to pay Rs. 56,000/- on account of financial loss, mental tension, harassment and inconvenience caused to him due to substandard seed.
3. Respondents No. 2 & 3 were not appeared despite service before the District Forum and were proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Appellant replied by taking preliminary objections that he had purchased 2800 Kg. maize African Tall Akash Ganga Seed from Kissan Agro Seeds MB-59, Gali No. 7, IInd Floor, Arya Pura, Delhi-110007 vide bill No. 4273 dated 7.9.2006 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Appellant purchased maize seed in a sealed condition and respondent No. 1 also admitted that he had received the seed in a sealed condition. Appellant had properly stored the seed in dispute. Appellant was neither the manufacturer nor the marketing agent of the manufacturer, as such, he was not liable for defect, if any, in the seed. The objection was raised that Kissan Agro Seeds was necessary party to the complaint from which the appellant had purchased the seed. It was denied that the appellant had given any assurance to respondent No. 1 with regard to quality and yield of the seed. Another objection was raised that respondent No. 1 had purchased the seed for commercial purpose. Respondent No. 1 did not comply with mandatory provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Respondent No. 1 had failed to disclose the khasra numbers of the land where the seed was allegedly sown. Complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the complaint, as such, only the Civil Court was competent to determine the real question of First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 4 controversy. Respondent No. 1 was not a 'consumer' of the appellant and the controversy involved in the complaint was not a consumer dispute. The complaint was vague and imaginary, as such, the same was not tenable.
5. On merits, appellant pleaded that respondent No. 1 had purchased the seed as per his own wishes. Purchase of seed against bill dated 13.9.2006 was not denied but it was pleaded that the same was sold in a sealed condition. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had not given the date and method regarding the sowing of the seed, which was not properly sown by respondent No.1. The germination of the seed depends upon the cultivation, treatment of land, watering, quality of land and climatic conditions etc. The Agriculture Department Officer had not informed the appellant regarding the inspection of the crop. The allegation of the appellant was that the said report was procured by respondent No. 1 in connivance with the employees of Agricultural Department. It was denied that respondent No. 1 had suffered loss of Rs. 36,000/- rather it was stated that the seed was of good quality. It was pleaded that he was not liable for any loss nor there was any deficiency on his part. It was prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
6. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the record, accepted the complaint and the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 & 3 were directed to pay consolidated compensation of Rs. 15,000/- within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. If failed, pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the date of decision of the complaint till realization of the amount.
7. Hence, the appeal.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 5
9. There is no dispute between the parties that the seed of indigenous and hybrid maize were purchased by respondent No. 1 on 13.9.2006 from the appellant, which was manufactured by respondent No. 3 and marketed by respondent No. 2.
10. The grouse of respondent No. 1 was that he sown the hybrid seed in his 1½ acre of land after properly irrigating and cultivating the land and half bag of D.A.P. Fertilizer was also used at the time of sowing the seed in his land but the germination of the hybrid maize seed was very poor and only 10% of seed were germinated while the germination of the indigenous maize seed was 'good'. He had reported the matter to the appellant, who assured him that after contacting with respondents No. 2 & 3, respondent No. 1 will be compensated but later nothing was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1. Then he approached the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot and made an application on 5.10.2006 for spot inspection and appropriate action. The Chief Agricultural Officer has deputed his junior officer to visit the spot and report regarding the germination. The version of respondent No. 1 was that the Agricultural Officer had inspected his maize crop and found that the seed was of sub-standard quality and the germination of the same was very poor, who submitted his report to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot.
11. Respondent No. 1 has not mentioned the date when the Agricultural Officer had inspected his maize crop and who were present at that time in the complaint as well as in his affidavit. Respondent No. 1 had also not summoned the application, which was made to the Chief Agricultural Officer to prove his allegations mentioned in the said complaint. The same was also not produced by the Agricultural Officer when he was examined as witness by respondent No. 1.
12. We have also perused the photocopy of the checking report Ex. C-17. From the perusal of the same it can be established with naked First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 6 eye that the said report was not prepared by the same person, who had signed the same as Agricultural Development Officer. From the perusal of the report, it is very much clear that the same was not prepared and signed at the same time in a single sitting. No description of the land is also mentioned by the Inspecting Officer in his report.
13. The Agricultural Officer has also not given any notice to the appellant before the inspection of the crop of respondent No.1. Even no Halqa Patwari, Chowkidar, Sarpanch, Nambardar or any neighbourer of the field of respondent No. 1 was associated by the Agricultural Officer at the time of inspection of the hybrid maize of respondent No.1.
14. No khasra numbers are mentioned by the Agricultural Officer in his report in which respondent No. 1 had sown hybrid maize which was inspected by him. No copy of Jamabandi or Girdawari produced by respondent No. 1 in evidence to show the Kharsra Nos. in which he had sown the hybrid maize. Even respondent No. 1 has not mentioned the Khasra Nos. of his land in the complaint in which he had sown the hybrid maize.
15. From the perusal of the report, it is clear that the alleged report was procured by respondent No. 1 in connivance with the Inspecting Officer of the Agricultural Department.
16. Respondent No. 1 has also not produced the hybrid maize seed before the District Forum for the analysis of the same from the Laboratory, which is mandatory as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding the defective seeds. Even in his complaint he has also not alleged that he had sown the whole seed in dispute and there was no quantity of seed with him for sending the same for its analysis from the Laboratory.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 7 Versus Parchuri Narayana", 2009(1) CPC 471, which is fully applicable on the facts of the appeal.
18. Respondent No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. C-18 of one Sukhdev Singh s/o Kishan Singh R/o Village Khara in support of his version but said Sukhdev Singh had not mentioned in his affidavit even a single word regarding the germination of seed in dispute. He has not mentioned in his affidavit that the disputed seed was not germinated and the yield of the maize crop was poor. Affidavit of Sukhdev Singh also falsify the version of respondent No. 1 regarding the quality of the hybrid maize seed in dispute. Sukhdev Singh has not supported the version of respondent No.1.
19. We have also perused the certificates produced by respondent No. 1 as Ex. C-5 to C-8 which shows that the seed in dispute was certified by Karnataka State Seed Certification Agency, Bangalore.
20. So from the perusal of these certificates, it is proved beyond doubt that the seed in dispute was certified by the Government Agency before its sale in the open market.
21. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that respondent No. 1 is failed to establish that hybrid maize seed was defective/sub-standard. There is merit in the appeal of the appellant and the same is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set-aside. No order as to costs.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 7500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 7500/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum. First Appeal No. 1292 of 2007 8
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Lt. Col. Darshan Singh [Retd.])
Presiding Member
July 21, 2010. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member