State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Chand Thakur vs Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr. on 20 May, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.98/2014
Date of Presentation: 19.03.2014
Date of Decision: 20.05.2014
..................................................................................
Ramesh Chand Thakur, son of Shri Ram Dass,
Resident of Village Shdiyana, Post Office Jubbar Hatti,
Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Sai Seeds & Pesticide,
35/11, Anaj Mandi, Shimla,
District Shimla-01, H.P.,
Through its Proprietor.
(2) Doctor Seeds Private Limited,
No.5, 5th Floor, Carnival Shopping Complex,
The Mall, Ludhiana-151 001 (Punjab), India,
Through its Managing Director.
.......... Respondents.
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant:
Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1:
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2:
Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ against the order dated 09.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, seeking a direction to them, to compensate him for the loss of crop of carrots, due to defective seeds, supplied by them, stands dismissed.
2. Appellant- Ramesh Chand Thakur, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, alleging that on 12.01.2011, he purchased 800 Grams of carrot 'Early Nantes' seeds alongwith 400 Grams carrot 'New Kuroda' seeds from respondent No.1, for sowing in his fields. Seeds were allegedly sown in the month of March, 2011. Seeds of carrot 'New Kuroda' were sown, on an area, measuring about 1-2 Bighas, while the seeds branded 'Early Nantes' were sown, on an area, measuring 3 to 4 Bighas. Produce of 'New Kuroda' seeds was normal, but the crop of 'Early Nantes' seeds was not successful, inasmuch as the plants, instead of continuing to produce leaves above the ground, started producing shoots (gandals), indicating that the carrot roots were not growing. Page 2 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________
3. The fact was brought to the notice of respondent No.1, from whom seeds were purchased. He advised that Complaint Cell of respondent No.2, who are the packers of the seeds, be approached. Complainant allegedly telephoned the Complaint Cell of respondent No.2 on 18.05.2011 and on the next following day, he sent a written complaint alongwith photographs, by courier. When there was no response, he wrote another letter on 14.06.2011. Even the reminder did not fetch any response.
4. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondents, to pay a sum of `1.00 lac, as compensation, for the loss sustained by him, another sum of `20,000/-, as compensation, for the wages paid by him to the labourers, engaged for growing the crop, a sum of `25,000/-, on account of mental and physical harassment and also claimed litigation expenses to the tune of `7,500/-. He alleged that he had been producing around 100 mounds (equivalent to 40 Quintals) carrots every season, but on account of failure of crop, in respect of 'Early Nantes' seeds, the Page 3 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ crop sown on 3 to 4 Bighas area, completely failed and he could not earn anything.
5. Respondent No.1 did not deny having sold the seeds, but pleaded that he sold the seeds in the same state and condition, in which these were received from respondent No.2, in packets. Respondent No.2 also did not deny that respondent No.1 had sold the seeds, packed by it, to the appellant. However, it was denied that there was any telephonic complaint on 18th May, 2011, or a communication dated 19th May, 2011, alongwith photographs, was received. It was stated that communication dated 14.06.2011, had been received, which was responded to, vide letter dated 23 rd June, 2011. Copy of letter was filed with the reply, which is Annexure R-1
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no expert evidence, suggesting that the crop had failed, leave alone the proof of allegation that alleged failure of crop was due to defective seeds.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant & respondent No.1, as also the Advocate Page 4 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ appearing vice counsel for respondent No.2 and gone through the record.
8. No-doubt, the appellant did not adduce any expert evidence, in support of his claim that the carrot plants started producing shoots (gandals), in mid-May, indicating that underground carrots were not growing into edible roots, but he approached respondent No.2, the packer of seeds, vide letter dated 19th May, 2011, copy Annexure C-2, sent through courier, against receipt Annexure C-3, and requested them to send some representative to inspect the crop for himself, in support of his allegation that the crop had not been successful. Of course, respondent No.2 has denied having received Annexure C-2, in its reply, yet it has not adduced any evidence, in support of the denial. Even affidavit of the functionary of respondent No.2, who is supposed to receive the communications, on its behalf, has not been filed.
9. Appellant sent another communication dated 14th June, 2011, Annexure C-4, by registered post. Respondent No.2 admits having received this communication. It is alleged that this communication Page 5 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ was replied to, vide Annexure R-1, which is dated 23rd June, 2011. But there is no evidence in the form of postal receipt or courier receipt or even the affidavit of dispatcher, indicating as to by what mode, the reply was sent to the appellant. Appellant denies having received the aforesaid communication.
10. In Annexure C-4, communication dated 14.06.2011, it is written that a communication was sent earlier also on 19.05.2011 and the appellant was assured that within ten days, action would be taken, on his complaint, but no action had been taken. Respondent No.2 was required, through letter dated 14.06.2011, to depute some functionary, to inspect the crop, for its satisfaction, that the crop had failed.
11. Now, when the appellant had approached the respondents to inspect the field and see for themselves that the crop was not successful and the roots were not developing, because of shoots having appeared, respondent No.2 was supposed to have deputed some expert, on its establishment, to inspect the crop. Place of work of respondent No.2 is at Ludhiana, which is not very far-off from Shimla. Thus, Page 6 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ it was quite easy for respondent No.2 to have sent some expert, to inspect the crop.
12. It is made out from the record that respondent No.2 has, on its pay rolls scientific experts, as is made out from affidavit of one Prittam Chaudhary, submitted by it. The deponent claims to possess vast experience in production of seeds, their germination, vegetative stages and maturity stages. He has declared that he is an employee of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, therefore, could have deputed this employee, to inspect the crop, in question, when approached by the appellant, repeatedly. Its failure to get the crop inspected from its own expert, despite requests by the appellant, renders it liable to an adverse inference, that it knew that there was substance in the complaint lodged by the appellant.
13. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, in our considered view, cannot be non-suited, for want of expert evidence.
14. The above stated position apart, respondent No.2 should have got the sample of the Page 7 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ seeds, supposedly retained by it, analyzed from some independent laboratory. Appellant, who is farmer, was not supposed to have kept a sample of the seeds, in question, for a variety of reasons. First, there was no reason for him to apprehend that the crop would not grow into edible roots, as in the past also, he had been growing off-season carrots and getting good results. Secondly, the quantity of seeds, purchased by him, was so small, i.e. 800 Grams only (contained in two packets) that he was not supposed to have kept half of it (one packet), as sample.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506, has held that as per requirement of Rule 13(3) of Seeds Rules, 1968, duty is cast on the seller of seeds, to keep sample of seeds for a period of three years and, therefore, when a complaint is there, about the quality of seeds, the seller should produce the sample for analysis from some independent laboratory. Fact situation of the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was similar to the fact situation of the present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Page 8 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ farmer is not supposed to keep the sample of seeds, purchased by him for sowing and that the seller, who is duty bound to retain sample over a period of three years, must offer the sample for analysis, when there is a complaint about the quality of seeds.
16. Coming to the quantum of loss, sustained by the appellant due to failure of crop, appellant has alleged that he had sown the seed, in an area, measuring 3 to 4 Bighas. There is no evidence in support of the plea, except his own affidavit. An expert, whose affidavit has been submitted by respondent No.2, namely Prittam Chaudhary, in his affidavit has sworn that 6 Kilograms seed is required for one Hectare of land. One Hectare land is equivalent to 13-14 Bighas of land. That means, 800 Grams of seed, which the appellant purchased from respondent No.1, could not have been sown, in an area, exceeding 1-5 Bighas of land.
17. Appellant has himself submitted sale papers of carrots grown, on another piece of land, where the second variety of seed was sown. These sale papers are Annexure CW7(a), CW7(b), CW7(c), CW7(d) and CW7(e). The total amount of these five Page 9 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ sale papers, works out at `26,250/-. The quantity of seeds, which yielded the aforesaid sale proceeds was 400 Grams. Quantity of failed seeds was double the quantity of successful seeds. Therefore, it can be presumed that the failed seeds would have earned double the aforesaid amount of `26,250/-, i.e. `52,500/-.
18. For fetching the aforesaid sale proceeds, the appellant was supposed to have spent certain amount of money on irrigating the crop, adding manure to it, applying insecticides, harvesting it and transporting it. In the absence of specific evidence, we assess the expenditure on these counts, to be equivalent to 1/3rd of the total sale proceeds. So, we reduce the aforesaid amount of `52,500/- by 1/3rd. The net loss sustained by the appellant thus works out at `35,000/-.
19. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted and impugned order set aside. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and respondent No.2 is ordered to pay a sum of `35,000/-, on account of actual monetary loss sustained by the appellant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, Page 10 of 11 Ramesh Chand Thakur Versus Sai Seeds & Pesticide & Anr.
(F.A. No.98/2014) ___________________________________________________ from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 01.08.2011, to the date of the payment of the aforesaid amount of money. Respondent No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of `10,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment and a sum of `5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
20. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member May 20, 2014.
*dinesh* Page 11 of 11