State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs Gurdial Singh on 10 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
1. First Appeal No.1216 of 2011
Date of institution : 12.08.2011
Date of decision : 10.02.2014
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. through its Regional Manager, its
duly constituted attorney, Regional Office, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Shri Gurdial Singh s/o Shri Mehar Singh, resident of Village
Atla Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa.
.......Respondent/Complainant
2. Healthy Crops Pvt. Ltd., Opposite City Police Station, Mansa
through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. Hariyali Kissan Bazar, Muktsar (Producer), through its Director,
Bathinda Road, Muktsar.
......Respondents- Opposite Party No.1&3
2. First Appeal No.1223 of 2011
Date of institution : 16.08.2011
Date of decision : .02.2014
Healthy Crops Private Limited, Opposite City Police Station, Mansa
through its Director Shri Sunil Kumar, r/o A-8, Near Mai Nikko Devi
School, Mansa.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Shri Gurdial Singh s/o Shri Mehar Singh, resident of Village
Atla Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 2
2. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Beej Bhawan, Possa
Complex, New Delhi-110 012 through its Managing Director.
3. Hariyali Kissan Bazar, Muktsar.
......Respondents- Opposite Party No.2&3
First Appeals against the order dated
22.6.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Shri J.K. Singla, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Shri Himanshu Arora, Advocate. For respondent No.3: Shri S.S. Bhinder, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The above noted appeals have been preferred against the order dated 22.6.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Gurdial Singh, complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the following directions were issued to opposite parties No.1 and 2:-
i) OPs No.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.80,132/-, the loss which has been suffered by complainant on account of adulterated paddy seed;
ii) Adequate and reasonable amount of compensation, on account of mental tension, physical harassment as well First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 3 as for labour, manuring and look after of the paddy crop by the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-;
iii) Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses due to the adamant and callous attitude of the OPs.
The first appeal (FA No.1216 of 2011) has been filed by opposite party No.1, whereas the second appeal (FA No.1223 of 2011) has been filed by opposite party No.2, for setting aside the said order.
2. As per the averments, made in the complaint, the complainant purchased 90 kilograms of PR-118-NSC seed of opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.5,950/-, vide Bill No.5704 dated 8.5.2010. First he prepared the seedling of the seed and thereafter after properly cultivating the land measuring 10 acres planted the seedling in the same. He properly looked after the crop and had been using the fertilizer and pesticides at proper times and in proper manner. When the crop was just to ripe, he found that 70% of the crop had ripen whereas 30% was still unripe. It is only thereafter that he came to know that there was adulteration in the seed so purchased by him from opposite party No.1. He brought that fact to the notice of that opposite party and also told him that he was suffering financially on account of that adulterated seeds. That opposite party visited his fields and assured him that he would take the necessary action. On 4.10.2010 he gave an application to the Inspector of Agricultural Department, who visited the spot and prepared his report. He was informed about the damage to his crops, vide letter dated 22.12.2010. It was reported that in the year First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 4 2010-2011 on the basis of the harvesting of the paddy crop in the district of Mansa, the average yield was 6038 kilograms per hectare whereas the average yield from his 10 acres of land was 4093 kilograms per hectare. Thus, he suffered a loss of 1945 kilograms per hectare. In that year the Government rate was Rs.1030/- per cwt. and, as such, he suffered a financial loss of about Rs.1,00,000.00. In addition to that he had spent Rs.8200/- per killa for irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides and labour and the total amount so spent by him was Rs.82,000/-. On account of the supply of defective seed, he suffered mentally and financially, for which he is entitled to Rs.35,000/-. He prayed for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay those amounts, in addition to Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed independent written replies. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the seed was so purchased from him by the complainant and that at the instances of the complainant, he visited his fields. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, he pleaded that the seed was supplied to him by opposite party No.2, which had been duly tested, certified and tagged by the Punjab Seed Verification Authority. The seed was sold in sealed bags and it was inscribed on those bags that there was no responsibility as per field condition, germination, growth and yield; as the same depends upon certain natural influences, which were beyond the control of the manufacturer. The complainant had agreed to all those conditions. When he visited the fields of the complainant, along with officials of First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 5 opposite party No.2, it was found that there was discrimination, which was due to indefinite weather conditions. They had told the complainant that in case the defect was not cured, they must be informed within a week but no such information was given to them. The yield of the crop depends upon various factors, such as, fertility of the land, quality of seed, different types of fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation facilities and weather conditions. He was never informed by the complainant or the Agriculture Department about the spot survey and no reason has come forth as to why the same was done in his absence and without any information. He never dealt in sub-standard, imperfect or low quality seeds and always relied upon the quality products sold by the prestigious establishments. He used to sell the seed in proper packing and sealed conditions. No cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint and the same is not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service on his part. The complainant has concealed the material facts and the complaint has been filed on wrong facts for harassing him. The complainant does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Act and the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its written reply took the same pleas, which have been taken by opposite party No.1. In addition to that, it pleaded that the complainant has not been able to say with certainty whether the seeds were sown in the land owned by him. The real producer of the seed was Hariyali Kissan Bazar (opposite party No.3) and the same was purchased by it from that concern. It is a prestigious Corporation of Government of India and deals only in First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 6 quality products. The seed was manufactured by opposite party No.3 in the season of Kharif 2008 and was graded and packed by it and thereafter the same was supplied. Therefore, it is not liable for any such imperfection. The complainant has exaggerated the amount claimed in the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.3 in its written reply only replied those facts, which relate to it. It pleaded that the seed which was sold by it to opposite party No.2 was very old and had already expired. That seed was sold in the year 2009 and the life thereof was 9 months and that was duly inscribed on the packing. It had been selling the seed in the market only after the proper laboratory tests. The seed which was so sold by it to opposite party No.2 in the year 2009 had been duly tested in the laboratory and was found to be perfect. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against it. It has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party.
6. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that there is nothing on the record to conclude that there was any negligence on the part of this opposite party as the seed purchased by him from opposite party No.2 was in sealed bags and the same was sold as such to the complainant. No evidence has been First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 7 produced on the record from which it may be inferred that it was this opposite party, who had made adulteration in the seeds. The seed was duly tested and approved by the recognized authority i.e. Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, Kotkapura, as is clear from the Certificate Ex.OP-3. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the seed was defective. The District Forum recorded the finding regarding the defect in the seed on the basis of the report of the Agriculture Department. No such finding could have been recorded on the report as this opposite party was not associated at the time of the inspection of the fields of the complainant and when he visited the fields of the complainant, he had assured that by passage of time the plants would develop and in case he was not satisfied he should report the matter to that opposite party. No such report was ever made by the complainant. In these circumstances the District Forum was not justified in recording a finding on the report of the Agriculture Department. Even if the seed was found to be defective, no such direction could have been issued against this opposite party as it sold the seed in the same condition in which it was purchased by it from opposite party No.2.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that it was obligatory for the complainant to get the seed tested from the approved laboratory for proving the defect therein. The same was never got tested from any such laboratory and in the absence of the report of the laboratory no such finding that the seed was defective could have been recorded by the District Forum. The non- ripening of 30% of the crop cannot be attributed to the defective First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 8 seed as the growth of the crop depends upon a number of factors, such as the type of soil, fertilizer used, proper irrigation, climatic conditions, proper use of pesticides etc. From the evidence produced by the complainant, it cannot be concluded that there was any defect in the seed and, as such, the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum on the basis of evidence produced before it. From the evidence produced by the complainant, it stands proved that after purchasing the seed from opposite party No.1, which had been supplied by opposite party No.2, the same was sown by him in his 10 acres of land and when on his application the spot was inspected by the agriculture expert, it was found that only 70% of the crop had ripen and 30% was unripe. The only conclusion that can be drawn therefrom is that the seed was adulterated. It was on the basis of the report of the agriculture expert, which was duly proved on the record that the compensation was assessed by the District Forum. There is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned order.
11. In view of the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506 (NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED v. M. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY AND ANOTHER), we do not find that there is any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that the defect in the seed could have been proved only by getting the sample thereof tested in the approved laboratory:- First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 9
"Majority of the farmers in the 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, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.
They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural 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 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 First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 10 they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naïve 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."
12. After having gone through the evidence produced on the record and giving due weight to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that it was correctly recorded by the District Forum that the seed so purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 was defective as a result of which he suffered financial loss and injury. The complainant in support of the averments made in the complaint proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-3. He specifically deposed therein that he had prepared the seedling with the help of the seed so purchased from opposite party No.1 and the same was planted by him in his 10 acres of the land. He properly looked after the crop and had been irrigating the same and had also been using the fertilizer and pesticides in proper manner from time to time and still only 70% of the crop had ripen and the other remained unripe. It is pertinent to note that opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their written replies have admitted that they had gone to the fields of the complainant after he lodged a complaint with them and had inspected the paddy crop so sown by him. Even they had found that at some places in the fields, the crop was rare. They had told the complainant that those plants would ripe by the passage of time and First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 11 in case he had still some grievance he should approach them. That itself shows that even these opposite parties admitted the averment of the complainant that there was no uniform growth and ripening of the crop; which is bound to be the result of the adulterated seeds.
13. The averments of the complainant are further proved by the letter dated 22.12.2010 of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, Ex.C-5. It is mentioned in that letter that the report of the Agriculture Officer, Mansa was received, which was made by him after inspecting the spot and it was mentioned therein that out of the crops standing at the spot 70% had ripen and 30% was still unripe and that was bound to effect the quality and yield. No evidence has been produced by the opposite party to rebut all this evidence of the complainant.
14. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 have relied upon the Certificate Ex.OP-3 issued by the Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, Kotakpura. Seed of PR-118 quality was passed by that Authority. There is nothing on the record to connect that certificate with the seed in question. The bill, vide which the complainant purchased the seed from opposite party No.1, was proved on the record as Ex.C-4. The lot number is not mentioned therein whereas the lot numbers of the samples of the seed which had passed the test were duly given in the above said certificate. Opposite party No.2 proved on record the bills, vide which it sold the different seeds, including the seed in dispute, to opposite party No.1, as Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-12. No lot number is given in these bills and in the absence thereof, it cannot First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 12 be concluded that the seeds, which were so sold by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 had passed the test.
15. Opposite party No.2 itself has pleaded in its written reply that it had purchased the seeds from opposite party No.3 and the same was manufactured in the season Kharif-2008 and was supplied to it in the season 2009. However, opposite party No.3 in the written reply averred that the seed was sold by it to opposite party No.2 in the year 2009 and the life of that seed was 9 months. Vide above said bills Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-12 the seeds were sold by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 on or after 22.4.2010. The seed in dispute was further sold by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 8.5.2010. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that seedlings of the paddy are planted in the month of June/July. Thus, the seeds must have been purchased by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.3 in the month of June 2009 itself. The life of that seed was only 9 months and, as such, by the time the same was sold by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1, the same had already expired. Thus, it stands proved that the seeds sold by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, which had been purchased by it from opposite party No.2 was defective.
16. Opposite party No.1 could have escaped its liability only if it has been able to prove that the seed was purchased by it in sealed bags and the same was sold as such to the complainant. No doubt, that plea was taken by that opposite party in the written reply but there is no evidence for substantiating the same. The affidavit of Sunil Kumar of that opposite party was proved on the record as First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 13 Ex.OP-6 but he did not depose about those facts in that affidavit specifically. In this brief affidavit it has only been stated that the contents of the reply are true and correct as per official record and be read as part of that affidavit. In fact, this affidavit is no affidavit in the eyes of law and, thus, the pleas taken up by opposite party No.1 in the written reply have remained unproved. Therefore, this opposite party cannot escape from its liability.
17. The Chief Agriculture Officer in his letter Ex.C-5 assessed the loss on the basis of the average yield of the paddy crop and by taking into consideration the Government rate of the paddy prevailing in the year 2010. No evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to rebut that part of his report. It was in view of that report that the District Forum assessed the damage to the crop of the complainant. We do not find any infirmity in the findings so recorded by the District Forum. Reasonable compensation of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by it and there is no ground to interfere with the quantum of that compensation.
18. From our above discussion, we conclude that there is no merit in both these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
19. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal (FA No.1216 of 2011) by opposite party No.2 along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant/opposite party No.2. First Appeal No.1216 of 2011. 14
20. Similarly, the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal (FA No.1223 of 2011) by opposite party No.1 along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum and the appellant/opposite party No.1.
21. The arguments in these cases were heard on 3.2.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) February 10, 2014 MEMBER Bansal