State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajiv Fertilizers, Pesticides And ... vs Ranjit Singh on 14 March, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 469 of 2013
Date of institution: 22.4.2013
Date of Decision: 14.3.2014
Rajiv Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds, Near Kauni Road, Doda,
(Bathinda-Muktsar Road), District Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Proprietor
Rajiv Kumar Bansal son of Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal.
.....Appellant/OP No. 1
Versus
1. Ranjit Singh son of Chand Singh son of Sher Singh, resident of
Village Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Navkar Hybrid Seeds Private Limited, Biker Ali Wadi, Marzapur
Cross Road, Ahmedabad - 380001 (Gujarat) through its Managing
Director/Chairman.
...Respondent No.2/OP No. 2
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondent No.1 : Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 468 of 2013
Date of institution: 22.4.2013
Rajiv Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds, Near Kauni Road, Doda,
(Bathinda-Muktsar Road), District Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Proprietor
Rajiv Kumar Bansal son of Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal.
.....Appellant/OP No. 1
Versus
1. Ranjit Singh son of Chand Singh son of Sher Singh, resident of
Village Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2
FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013
2. Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, Registered Office Bayer House,
Central Avenue, Hiranandari, Pawar, Mumbai 400076 Maharashtra
India.
...Respondent No.2/OP No. 2
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondent No.1 : Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
First Appeals against the orders dated
24.1.2013 & 26.2.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri
Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member This judgment will dispose of above mentioned two appeals as in both the appeals similar facts are involved. Both the appeals are against the impugned orders dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Member Meenakshi, Order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Member Amrinder Singh Sidhu and the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Hon'ble President Sh. K.K. Bansal of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib(in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint Nos. 77 & 78 dated 2.4.2012 filed by Ranjit Singh was disposed off. First Appea No. 469 of 2013
2. The complaint was filed by one Ranit Singh on the allegations that he is an agriculturist and is ploughing the land of his father for the livelihood. On 17.5.2011 he had gone to the shop of OP 3 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 No. 1 to sow BT. Cotton crop in the land of his father and wanted to sow the BT Cotton seed as recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (in short 'PAU'). One Jarnail Singh s/o Munshi singh, resident of Doda was alongwith him. Proprietor of the shop had told that he had two qualifies of BT Cotton Seeds one is Navkar 555 BT and other is SP 7007. The complainant purchased two packets of Navkar 555 BT and two packets of SP 7007 vide bill No. 94 dated 17.5.2011 through OP No. 1 and had sown the seeds as per the recommendations. Whereas the plants increased more than 5 Ft., but there was very low flowering. The complainant approached the OP to look into the matter and further stated that as per his experience these plants were not of BT Cotton and further alleged that low quality of seeds were given to him and that too of not BT Cotton but no attention was given by Op No. 1. The complainant also moved an application before Agricultural Development officer, Gidderbaha, who inspected the fields and gave his report that the seeds in question are not recommended by PAU, Ludhiana and is not suitable to the climate. It is of poor quality and its production will be 2 to 2½ quintals. Accordingly, he again approached Op No. 1 and narrated the entire incident and demanded for compensation but he refused to pay any claim to the complainant. The complainant suffered loss of 90% of his crop as per the report of the ADO. The rate of Cotton Crop is 4,000/- per quintal and has suffered a loss of Rs. 52,000/- per acre on account of less yield. He had also used fertilizers, spray, pesticides but due to poor quality of the seed, it could not work. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to pay Rs. 15,000/- labour 4 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 charges, Rs. 2,000/- as costs of seeds, Rs. 20,000/- for mental tension and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP No. 1 in its written statement in which it was admitted that on 17.5.2011 the complainant came to his shop and purchased two packets of BT Cotton on his own without asking of OP No. 1, OP No. 1 never disclosed that these are qualities of BT Cotton Seeds; the complainant purchased BT Cotton seeds two packets of Navkar Company 555-BT vide bill No. 94 dated 17.5.2011, the seeds so sold were purchased from Op No. 2 in sealed covers and were sold in the same form. It was denied that the complainant had sold the BT cotton as recommended. It was denied that any fertilizers were used. It was also denied that the complainant had also gone for spraying of pesticides and insecticides. In case the crop has given no flower, OP No. 1 is not responsible and ultimately, it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. Op No. 2 in its written statement has stated that the seeds sold by OP no. 2 to Op No. 1 were of prescribed standard. There was no defect in the seeds. These were of standard quality. In case it did not yield, the Ops are not responsible for the same. Ultimately, it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, bill dt. 17.5.11 Ex. C- 5 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 1, copy of Technical report Mark-A, jamabandi Ex. C-2, bill dt. 20.9.2011 Ex. C-3, bill dt. 24.8.2011 Ex. C-4, bill dt. 8.6.2011 Ex. C-5, bill dt. 12.8.2011 Ex. C-6, receipt of Studio Ex. C-7, photograph Mark- B, news cutting mark-C. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Kumar Ex. OP-1/A, bill dt. 16.4.2011 Ex. OP-1, delivery challan dt. 16.4.2011 Ex. OP-2, consignee copy Ex. OP-3. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjay Siwach Ex. OP-2/A.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the Hon'ble Member Meenakshi in her order dated 24.1.2013 allowed the complaint with a direction to Op No. 1 to pay Rs. 45,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of yield and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, whereas Member Amrinder Singh Sidhu in his order dated 26.2.2013 agreed with the order passed by the Hon'ble Lady Member Ms. Meenakshi and did not agree with the reasoning given by the learned President, who in his order dated 24.1.2013 had dismissed the complaint, therefore, the separate order has been passed by the Members and the President.
Facts of F.A. NO. 468 OF 2013
8. In this complaint, Ranit Singh had purchased two packets of Navkar 555 BT Cotton Seeds on 17.5.2011 vide bill No. 94 from the shop of OP No. 1 as recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for ploughing the land of his father. Other pleadings are the same as stated above.
6FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013
9. The complaint was contested by Op No. 1 only and OP No. 2 was ex-parte. OP No. 1 in its written statement in which it was admitted that on 17.5.2011 the complainant came to his shop and purchased two packets of BT Cotton manufactured by Bayer Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd.-OP No. 2 vide bill No. 94 dated 17.5.2011 on his own without asking of OP No. 1 and the seeds so sold were purchased from Op No. 2 in sealed covers and were sold in the same form to the complainant. Similar stand was taken as stated above.
10. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, technical report Mark-A, bill dt. 17.5.11 Ex. C-1, bill dt. 6.7.2011 Ex. C-2, copy of bill dt. 12.8.2011 Ex. C-3, photograph Mark-B, jamabandi for 2005-06 Mark-C. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Kumar Ex. OP-1/A, bill dt. 20.4.2011 Ex. OP-1.
11. Since the proposition of following the proper procedure is involved in both the appeals, therefore, the following findings will be applicable to both the above stated appeals.
12. The procedure to dispose of the complaint has been provided under Section 14 of the CP Act. Section 14(2) provides that every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together. It has been provided that if any Member for any reasons is unable to conduct a proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall continue to the proceeding 7 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member. Section 14 (2A) and (3) are reproduced as under:-
"(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding:
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government."
13. From the perusal of the abovesaid provisions, it is clear that the proceedings are to be conducted by the President associated by atleast one Member and in case the President and the Member differ on any point they shall state the point or points of difference and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point/points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum.
14. However, the perusal of the orders under the appeals shows that the matter has not been heard by the President alongwith the Member. No point of difference between the President and the Member have been enumerated and referred to the 3rd Member for hearing. The President and Members have heard the matter separately and had passed their own orders, which is not in consonance with the procedure under the CP Act, therefore, the complaint is required to be remanded back to the learned District Forum with a direction to hear the complaint as per Section 14 of the 8 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 CP Act and then to pass order accordingly as provided under the Act. The counsel for the respondent Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate also agreed to this preposition that the procedure followed by the Hon'ble Members and President of the Learned District Forum is not in consonance with Section 14 of the CP Act. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set-aside and the complaints are remanded back to the learned District Forum to hear the complaints according to the procedure enumerated under Section 14 of the CP Act and to pass the order accordingly. The orders under appeals passed by the learned District Forum are set-aside.
15. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 22.4.2014.
16. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 10.3.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
17. The appellant in F.A. no. 469 of 2013 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- 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.
18. The appellant in F.A. no. 468 of 2013 had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed 9 FIRST APPEAL No. 469 of 2013 cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
19. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
20. Copy of this order be placed on F.A. No. 468 of 2013.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member March 14, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member