State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharat Super Seeds Corporation vs Bora Singh & Ors. on 2 August, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 18.07.2011.
Date of Decision: 02.08.2013.
1. Bharat Super Seeds Corporation, Advanta House, City Thana
Road, Mansa.
2. M/s Namdhar Seeds Pvt. Ltd., H.O. Uragahalli, Bidadi Post,
Ramangara Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka-562109.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Bora Singh S/o Sh. Jangir Singh S/o Sh. Natha Singh, Resident of
Village Talwandi Aklia, Tehsil and District Mansa.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
08.06.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of the following ten (10) appeals, as the questions of facts and law involved in all the appeals are the same:-
Sr. Appeal Number Parties Name
No.
1. F.A. No.1092 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Bora Singh.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 2
2. F.A. No.1093 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Dara Singh.
3. F.A. No.1094 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Santokh Singh.
4. F.A. No.1095 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Jasvir Singh.
5. F.A. No.1096 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Satpal Singh.
6. F.A. No.1097 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Karnail Singh.
7. F.A. No.1098 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Palwinder Singh.
8. F.A. No.1099 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Sikander Singh.
9. F.A. No.1100 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Gurmail Singh.
10. F.A. No.1290 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Ram Singh.
Appeals at Sr. No.1 to 9 are directed against the similar orders dated 08.06.2011, and Appeal at Sr. No.10 is against the order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short "the District Forum"). Facts are taken from F.A. No.1092 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Bora Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called "the appellants"), pleading that he is an agriculturist. In April, 2010, salesman of the appellants came to village Talwandi Aklian and described about the Narma seed BT-Namcot-617, representing that the said variety of the seed has been manufactured by appellant no.2 and First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 3 is being sold by appellant no.1. It was represented that the quality of seed is superior and gives more produce and its colour is more white than the other varieties and fetches more rate. By spending less amount, more profit can be earned.
3. On the said assurances given by the salesman of the appellants, the respondent along with Sh. Dara Singh S/o Babu Singh, Karnail Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, Santokh Singh S/o Joginder Singh, residents of village Talwandi Aklian, District Mansa went to the shop of appellant no.1 and the owner/partner of the appellant no.1 firm also declared that Namcot-617 seed is of superior quality of seed of Narma and there is no mixing and the produce is more than the other varieties and the diseases also affect this seed less and gave guarantee of every kind.
4. On the assurances and representations of the appellants, the respondent purchased six bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.228 dated 03.05.2010 for Rs.5,550/-.
5. The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in three acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety.
6. The respondent immediately informed the appellants about the same and the appellants put off the respondent on the pretext that the spot inspection will be done. Then the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa and on the basis of the First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 4 application, Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir inspected the spot and told about the inferior quality of the seed as well as mixing of the same. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.216 dated 12.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 2149.2 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1,49,154/-.
7. The respondent along with the respectables of the village went to the appellants and apprised them about the inferior quality of the seed and the loss suffered, but the appellants refused to pay any compensation. The respondent suffered lot of mental and physical harassment as well as financial loss and is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.
8. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,49,154/- as loss of the crop and Rs.60,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
9. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were taken that the respondent has no cause of action to file the complaint, nor he complained about the quality of the seed to the appellants. The appellants were not informed at the time of spot inspection by the Agriculture Department and the report of the Agriculture Department is vague and the complaint is not maintainable. The seeds were not tested in the laboratory before filing the complaint. The appellants are selling the seeds after getting the same tested from the laboratory and after certifying the same. The complaint has been filed on false facts. The produce of the crop depends upon various First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 5 other factors, such as soil, water, fertilizers, spray etc. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/-.
10. On merits, it was submitted that the respondent has concocted the story and some persons have filed the complaints in order to blackmail the appellants. No complaint was ever made to the appellants about the quality of the seed. The appellants have not sold any mixed quality of the seed and the respondent is not entitled to any compensation. Similar other pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
11. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
12. 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 report Ex.C-3 submitted by Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa is based on physical verification of the field of the respondent by Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir. The Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, Mansa has sent a detailed report Ex.C-4 and both the reports were not challenged by the appellants in any manner. The respondent has suffered average loss of his produce in one acre of land to the extent of 1791 kgs. as per report of the Chief Agriculture Officer. As per the prevailing rates (Rs.6,940/- per quintal), the total loss come to Rs.1,49,154/- and the appellants are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. The complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay Rs.1,49,154/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 which was sold to the respondent by appellant no.1 and appellant no.1 purchased the same from the manufacturing First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 6 company i.e. appellant no.2. Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.06.2011, the appellants have come up in appeal.
14. 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.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the order passed by the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises. The seeds purchased from appellant no.1 were of superior quality and the same were tested in the laboratory. Ex.OP-1 is the Germination Certificate as per which the genetic purity and germination of Cotton BT Namcot-617 variety had the germination percentage, varying from 75% to 98% and as per the Germination Certificate Ex.OP-2, the seeds in question were having germination percentage as 91% and GOT percentage as 96%.
16. As per the Govt. of India, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Biotechnology, Memo dated 25.05.2009, the Standing Committee recommended the BT Cotton hybrids namely NAMCOT-616 BG-II, NAMCOT-617 BG-II for commercial release in the North Zone (Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan). As per letter Ex.OP-4, appellant no.2 is the sub-licensee of Mahyco Mansanto. As per letter Ex.OP-5, Namdhari Seeds Private Limited was accredited to the International Seed Testing Association and the said accreditation was valid for three years. The bills of selling this seed to various farmers are Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-19 and the affidavits of various farmers are Ex.OP- 20 to Ex.OP-23. It was contended that the District Forum has not considered the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and relied upon the First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 7 reports Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 of the Agriculture Department, as per which the genetic potential was less in the seeds and that was the main reason for loss of the produce. This observation of the Agriculture Department is based on conjectures and in a day, the Agriculture Officer, Jhunir could not inspect the fields of the respondent or the other farmers. It has been further argued that the rate of the crop has been mentioned at a very higher rate, but as per the information received under the RTI Act, the minimum price of the rate of the cotton was Rs.2500/- per quintal and maximum price was Rs.7235/- per quintal. The District Forum has calculated the compensation wrongly @ Rs.6,940/- per quintal and the said rate was of off-season as per Ex.C6. The quantity of the produce was also taken from two marlas and the same cannot be the representative sample. The total land covered was 31 acres and it could not be inspected in a day. As per the report, it was mentioned that the seeds seem to be defective and there was no defect, specifically pointed out. The Assistant Statistic Officer gave different quantities of the produce. The order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be accepted.
17. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the spot was visited and the produce was calculated at the spot. The appellants were served with the notice, but they did not bother. The area of Mansa is known as Cotton Belt and its soil is very good for cotton crop. The respondent purchased the cotton seed on the assurance of the appellants, but the produce was very less and even the flowers were affected by the disease. The respondent moved application Ex.C-5 to Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who got the inquiry conducted from Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir and sent the copy of the report to the respondent. Assistant Cotton Development Officer, Mansa sent the First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 8 report, stating that the produce was 50% less of many farmers which prove that the genetic potential of the seed was very less and the farmers suffered the financial loss due to less genetic potential of the seed. It has been contended that the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
18. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the file.
19. The District Forum mainly relied upon the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa Ex.C-3 as well as of Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, Mansa Ex.C-4. As per Ex.C-4, 10-12 farmers complained about the seed BT Namcot-617 and the condition of the crop was almost the same of all the farmers and the produce was approximately 50% less which prove that the genetic potential of the seed was less. The manufacturing company is responsible for the less genetic potential of the seed. The farmers suffered the financial loss due to the less genetic potential and the seed was of inferior quality.
20. To rebut this evidence and the observations, the appellants have placed on record the Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2. As per these certificates, the Lot sold to the respondent was R0902-42-05 and as per Germination Certificate Ex.OP-2, the percentage of the germination was 91 and the percentage of GOT was
96. As per Office Memo Ex.OP-3, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) constituted a Standing Committee, to review the applications for commercial release of BT Cotton Hybrids and the application submitted by appellant no.2 for North Zone was scrutinized by the said Standing Committee and after following the proper First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 9 procedure, it recommended the BT Cotton Hybrids, namely NAMCOT- 616 BG-II and NAMCOT-617 BG-II in the North Zone for commercial release i.e. Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Vide letter Ex.OP-4 of Mahyco Monsanto, appellant no.1 was authorized to approach GEAC for commercialization of Bollgard-II Hybrids-NAMCOT-616 and NAMCOT-617 in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Vide Ex.OP-5, appellant no.2 was given the Accreditation Certificate by the International Seed Testing Association, which was valid for three years, commencing from 14.10.2009 and during this period, the accredited laboratory was authorized to issue ISTA Seed Analysis Certificates.
21. From the above documents, it is proved that the Standing Committee recommended the BT Cotton Hybrids, namely NAMCOT- 616 BG-II and NAMCOT-617 BG-II, for commercial release in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Appellant no.2 is sub- licensee of Mahyco Monsanto and appellant no.2 was accredited to the International Seed Testing Association, for a period of three years w.e.f. 14.10.2009 onwards. As per Germination Certificate Ex.OP-2, the seed with the Lot No. above mentioned was sold to the respondent and it was having the genetic potential upto 91% and GOT percentage was
96. From these documents, it is clear that the genetic potential of the seed sold was not less, as observed by the Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, Mansa and the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir.
22. The growth of crop depends upon various factors. Of course, the quality of the seed and its germination capacity is most important, but in the present case, the germination percentage was not less in any manner and if from the physical verification, poor growth of the cotton crop was found, then the other factors have a role to play, but not the quality of the seed. It is a universal known fact that the First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 10 germination of seeds and the proper plantation and the produce/yield depends upon a number of factors, such as kind of soil, the quantity of pesticides/ insecticides, quality of pesticides/insecticides, proper watering and proper preparation of the land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Sadhu & Anr.", 2005(3) Supreme Court Cases-198(SC), quoting the report of the committee, observed as follows:-
"It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition".
23. The District Forum in its order has not, at all, discussed the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and relied merely upon the letters of the Chief Agriculture Officer Ex.C-3 and Assistant Cotton Extension Officer Ex.C-4, but those two letters cannot weighover the laboratory certificates regarding the quality of the seed. The seeds manufactured by appellant no.2 have been tested and the germination certificates have been issued, which prove the genetic potential of the seeds and the version of the respondent or the letters written by Chief Agriculture Officer or Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, are not sufficient to throw away the evidence led by the appellants. The appellants have sold the seeds to various other farmers vide bills Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-19 and the case of the appellants is further supported by the affidavits Ex.C-22 and Ex.C-23, but the District Forum has altogether ignored the same.
24. The order passed by the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and the District Forum ignored the material documents on record and has passed the order under appeal on flimsy grounds and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 11
25. Sequel of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1093 of 2011:-
27. Similarly, in F.A. No.1093 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Dara Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased five bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.100 dated 27.04.2010 for Rs.4,625/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in 2.5 acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.256 dated 13.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 12 the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 1575 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1,09,305/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,09,305/- as loss of the crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
28. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
29. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.1,09,305/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
30. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 , Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
31. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1093 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Dara Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
32. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 13 appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1094 of 2011:-
33. Similarly, in F.A. No.1094 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Santokh Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased four bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.139 dated 28.04.2010 for Rs.3,300/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in two acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.224 dated 12.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 1315.2 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.91,274/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.91,274/- as loss of the crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
34. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 14
35. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.91,274/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
36. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 , Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-5 etc.
37. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1094 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Santokh Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
38. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1095 of 2011:-
39. Similarly, in F.A. No.1095 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Jasvir Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased seven bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.140 dated 28.04.2010 for Rs.6,475/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in two acres of land and looked after the said crop very First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 15 well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.260 dated 13.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 2234.4 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1,55,067/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,55,067/- as loss of the crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
40. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
41. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.1,55,067/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
42. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 16 Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 , Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
43. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1095 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Jasvir Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
44. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1096 of 2011:-
45. Similarly, in F.A. No.1096 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Satpal Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased two bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.280 dated 05.05.2010 for Rs.1,850/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in two acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 17 Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.252 dated 13.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 464.4 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.32,229/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.32,229/- as loss of the crop and Rs.40,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
46. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
47. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.32,220/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
48. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 , Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
49. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1096 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Satpal Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 18 the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
50. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1097 of 2011:-
51. Similarly, in F.A. No.1097 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Karnail Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased two bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.130 dated 28.04.2010 for Rs.1850/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in two acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.264 dated 13.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 417.6 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.28,981/-. It was prayed that the appellants may First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 19 be directed to pay Rs.28,981/- as loss of the crop and Rs.40,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
52. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
53. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.28,981/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
54. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2, Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
55. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1097 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Karnail Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
56. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 20First Appeal No.1098 of 2011:-
57. Similarly, in F.A. No.1098 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Palwinder Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased five bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.099 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.4625 /-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in 2.5 acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.268 dated 13.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 1035 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.71,829/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.71,829/- as loss of the crop and Rs.28,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
58. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
59. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 21 Rs.71,829/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
60. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2, Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
61. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1098 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Palwinder Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
62. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1099 of 2011:-
63. Similarly, in F.A. No.1099 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Sikander Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased four bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.085 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.3700/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in two acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 22 properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.228 dated 12.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 804 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.55,797/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.55,797/- as loss of the crop and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
64. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
65. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.55,797/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
66. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2, Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc. First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 23
67. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1099 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Sikander Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
68. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1100 of 2011:-
69. Similarly, in F.A. No.1100 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Gurmail Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased nine bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.146 dated 28.04.2010 for Rs.8325/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in 4.5 acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.220 dated First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 24 12.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 2478.6 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1,72,014/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,72,014/- as loss of the crop and Rs.90,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
70. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
71. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to pay Rs.1,72,014/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.20,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
72. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2, Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
73. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1100 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Gurmail Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 25
74. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1290 of 2011:-
75. Similarly, in F.A. No.1290 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Ram Singh), the respondent/complainant purchased eight bags of BT Namcot-617 seed vide bill no.102 dated 26.04.2010 for Rs.7400/-.The respondent after purchasing the seed, sowed the same in four acres of land and looked after the said crop very well and irrigated the same in time as well as used the fertilizers and insecticides as per the recommendations, but the crop did not develop properly and the size of the Narma plant was less and the produce was also less than the declared. The Narma crop was attacked by the insects and the flowers were also less, which showed that the seed sold by the appellants was of inferior quality and was of mixed variety. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellants, but of no use. Thereafter, the respondent complained before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who deputed the Block Agriculture Officer, Jhunir to inspect the spot. The Agriculture Department vide letter no.232 dated 12.01.2011 corroborated the fact that the appellants have given inferior quality of the seed and the same was of mixed variety and due to that, the produce of the crop was less to the extent of 2707.2 kgs. and as per the rate of the Narma crop i.e. Rs.6,940/- per quintal, the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1,87,879/-. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,87,879/- as loss of the crop and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 26
76. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written version on the similar lines of their written version given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011.
77. The District Forum, on its similar findings given in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.07.2011, directing the appellants to pay Rs.1,87,879/- being the loss suffered by the respondent on account of less genetic potential in the cotton seed of variety BT Namcot-617 and to pay Rs.10,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
78. Similar documents, as mentioned in F.A. No.1092 of 2011, have been filed by the appellants in this case, such as Germination Certificates Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2, Office Memo Ex.OP-3, Letter of Confirmation Ex.OP-4, Certificate of Accreditation Ex.OP-6 etc.
79. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1092 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Bora Singh), the F.A. No.1290 of 2011(Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr. Vs Ram Singh) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.07.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
80. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
81. The arguments in all the appeals were heard on 25.07.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.1092 of 2011 27
82. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
83. Copy of the order be placed in the following cases:-
2. F.A. No.1093 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Dara Singh.
3. F.A. No.1094 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Santokh Singh.
4. F.A. No.1095 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Jasvir Singh.
5. F.A. No.1096 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Satpal Singh.
6. F.A. No.1097 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Karnail Singh.
7. F.A. No.1098 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Palwinder Singh.
8. F.A. No.1099 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Sikander Singh.
9. F.A. No.1100 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Gurmail Singh.
10. F.A. No.1290 of 2011 Bharat Super Seeds Corporation & Anr.
Vs Ram Singh.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member August 02, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)