State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sangitaben Jagdishbhai Patel vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd on 15 November, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 15 11 2021
Date of filling 30 01 2015
Duration 16 09 06
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT
AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
COMPLAINT NO. 12 OF 2015
1. Patel Sangitaben Jagdishbhai
2. Patel Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai
3. Patel Mohanbhai Shambhubhai
4. Patel Vishnubhai Mohanbhai
Ta: Talod,
Dist: Sabarkantha-383305 ...Complainants
Vs
1. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Agricultural Business
Sector - 82, Industrial Area
Mohali-160062 (Punjab)
2. Tractor House
Dealer of Mahindra
and Mahindra Ltd. (Mahindra Tractor),
National Highway No.8, Boriya,
Ta: Himmatnagar,
Dist: Sabarkantha, Gujarat
3. Adhvait Agrottale Pvt. Ltd.
Dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
(Mahindrea tractor),
A-1, Mangaltirth Tenament,
Opp. Gokuldham, Kathvada,
Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad
...Opponents
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Ms. Hemkalaben Shah
for the complainants
Ld. Advocate Mr. V.M.Pancholi
for the opponent No.2
Ld. Advocate Mr. Anand Parikh
for the Opponent No.3
No one remained present
for the opponent no1.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 1 of 16
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint u/s. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 due to deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opponents.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
complainant is a farmer and for cultivation they have purchased the potato seeds from the Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 who is dealer of Opponent No.1 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Co. according to complainant case complainant cultivate the farm for maintenance of their family and it is not for a commercial purpose so the complainant is a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
3. The cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this commission, and the complaint is filed in February 2014, which is within 2 years of the cause of action so the complaint is filed within the time limit under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986.
4. It is traced out from the complaint that complainant has purchased the Potato seeds during the Gujarati Month Aasho and collectively the copy of 7/12 extract was produced here with complaint as Annexure-A. B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 2 of 16
5. Representative of the Opponent no.1 came to Sabarkantha and convince complainant that the 'Lokar seeds' will give best result in production and that's why the complainant have purchased the questioned seeds from the Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 who is dealer of the Opponent No.1, according to representative of the company they informed that the questioned seeds are tissue cultured, as they are germinated in laboratory/units. Tissue culture means (Early generation Potato Tuber) which is high technology, disease free, virus free, fungus free and bacteria free which contains genetical purity, and due to this complainant decided to purchase the Lokar Seeds from the Opponent Nos.2 and 3 who is the dealer of Opponent no.1 there were two types of seeds one is Lokar seeds and second was Ledi rusta seeds, ultimately the Lokar seeds were defective and not given the proper results and loss caused to the complainant the submission are given at page no. 5 of complaint.
1. Tractor House (Opponent No.2) Sr. Prise of seeds (in Date Receipt/ Bill No. Rs.) No.
1. 1,00,000/- 24.04.2013 16882 Lokar Advance
2. 1,25,000/- 17.05.2013 17105 Lokar B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 3 of 16 Advance
3. 17,000/- 22.11.2013 19015
4. 2,00,000/- 26.11.2021 19057
2. Adhvait (Opponent No.3) Sr. Prise of seeds Date Receipt/ No (In Rs.) Bill No.
1. 1,87,500/- 06.11.2013 978
2. 1,93,750/- 07.11.2013 980
3. 27,600/- 03.12.2013 246 And actually from Opponent No. 2 in total Rs. 4,42,000/- and from Opponent No.3 in total Rs. 4,08,850/- the questioned Lokar seeds were purchased. The copy of the bills are produced from Annexure-2.
6. Further it is submitted before me that the total expenses for the potato cultivation, fertilizer and insecticide is total of Rs. 17,40,375/- and for that the bills etc. are produced at Annexure -3 here in the complaint.
7. Further it is contended that the season for cultivation of crop of the Potato takes two months to grow and all the required steps for cultivation of the healthy crop is taken.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 4 of 168. Even after all the due care there was no proper out come from the cultivation and so the loss was suffered by the complainant.
9. As per the growth complainant got to know that as the yearly production ratio was of 500 Man instead of that only 100 Man Potato will produce due to the defective seeds and the ultimate loss has occurred.
10. Complainant have correspondence with the District Agricultural Officer about the said situation which is produced here at Annexure-4, and the officer has observed the production and done the Panch-Rojkam, the copy of the Panch - Rojkam is produced here at Annexure -5 the typed Panch-Rojkam is produced here at Annexure- 6 and copy of Photograph is produced here at Annexure-7.
11. The complainant has purchased 750 bags of seeds with all the saving money and borrowed money in complaint according to the expert opinion the 70% loss is caused to the complainant because the crops are not marketable as it was not ideal for the cultivation. Thereby loss is suffered by the complainant as the defective seeds are given to the complainant, so the opponent is liable to B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 5 of 16 compensate to the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant.
12. Further it is stated that the Opponent did not attained the farm of the complainant, only the representative Mr. Sandip Roy has demanded the observation, which is sent them on 24.02.2014 and the copy of that observation is produced here at Annexure-9.
13. Further Mr. Sandip Gupta has appointed to observe the farm, as the growth of plant and the copy of the said observation is produced at Annexure-10.
14. Further opponent has not taken care and nor any compensation given to the complainant as per their demand Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 are dealer of the questioned seeds, and they have submitted reply of the present complaint as they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect and thereby they have no any liability in this circumstances.
15. According to the complainant case the opponent no.1 came to know that seeds were defective and as per the meeting they proposed 30% of the cost of the seeds rate are refunded to the complainant, but how the opponent No.1 came up with 30% to B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 6 of 16 be refunded to the complainant is nowhere clarified or mentioned simply proposal send to the complainant, complainant has not agreed to sign agreement as it was not just and fair compensation suggested to the complainant. The copy of the said agreement is at Annexure-11.
16. Thereby complainant submitted that it is the acceptable fact that the complainant has purchased the questioned seeds from Opponent no. 2 and 3 the dealer of the Opponent No.1 according to the Dist. Agriculture Officer report the loss suffered is of 70% Opponent have also considered the report of the expert as we have discussed herein above and because of that reason opponent has made settlement agreement to the complainant. Thereby, it should be treated and admitted as defect in the seeds in question.
17. Further the seeds were compared to other companies production but it was not up to mark. and thereby complainant suffer a loss in question it is also observed by the expert that the product of the potatoes are not marketable as it is not up to the mark quality thereby this fact is to be accepted.
18. Ld. Advocate for the complainant Ms. Hemkalaben Shah has submitted before me that as per the B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 7 of 16 Consumer Protection Act.-1986 Section 2(1)(R) "Unfair Trade Practice" Means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods, adopts any unfair method or Unfair or deceptive practice including any of the practice namely:
1) The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which:-
i) Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model,
ii) Falsely represents any re-built, second-
hand, renovated goods as new goods.
iii) Represents that the goods have performance which its do not have.
Thereby it is leads to the deficiency in service of the unfair trade practice adopted by the opponent no.1. executed by Opponent No.2 and 3 thereby Opponent is liable to compensate the loss as to complainant ultimately complainant has demanded the loss of Rs. 57,75,000/- loss occurred to the complainant but deducting the expenses of (seeds, farming, and fertiliser) which is Rs. 17,40,375/- the loss suffered by complainant is Rs. 40,34,625/- are prayed for compensation awarded from the Opponent no. 1,2 and 3.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 8 of 1619. Opponent no. 1 has filed reply of the complaint but as the Hon'ble Commission has not accepted the reply filed by the Opponent no. 1 which is at page No. 162 and rejected at page no. 167, ultimately reply of the complaint on behalf of the Opponent no. 1 is not here on record, so this case is to be established as the complaint filed by the complainant.
20. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pancholi appeared on behalf of the Opponent No. 2 has submitted before me that they are only the dealer, they have no responsibility of the manufacturing or quality of the seeds produced by Opponent No.1, the quality of the seeds cannot be assured by the dealer.
21. Ld. Advocate for the Opponent no. 2 Mr. Pancholi has submitted before me that the procedure is to be adopted by the complainant are not performed on their part so whichever the contention raised by the complainant is not tenable in eye of law as the Opponent No. 2 is the dealer of the seeds produced by Opponent No.1 thereby it is natural that the dealer has no knowledge about the quality of seeds whether it was up to the mark or not only Opponent no. 1 has given to sale the article in B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 9 of 16 question to authorised dealer so there is no liability casted upon the Opponent No. 2. Whichever the defect is in seeds the dealer has no personal knowledge about the expert report and observation made by the agriculture officer.
22. Ld. Advocate Mr. Aanand Parikh on behalf of the Opponent No.3 has drawn my attention at page no. 139 wherein stand taken by the Opponent No.2 are accepted by Opponent No.3 and as they have no any personal knowledge about the seeds quality and there is no any liability casted upon to the dealer and thereby opponent No.3 have no knowledge about what was the transaction between the Opponent no. 1 and complainant thereby no any compensation is to be paid by the Opponent No.3 to the complainant.
23. Ld. Advocate for the complainant Ms. Hemkalaben Shah has drawn my attention at the documentary evidence produced at page nos. 21 to 104 Panch-rojkam of the crops were produced at Exh. 88-A thereby complainant case is very well placed on record it is established that the questioned seeds was B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 10 of 16 purchased from the Opponent nos. 2 and 3 who is dealer of Opponent No. 1, the actual producer of the seeds is Opponent No.1 which is well established by way of document.
24. Further Ld. Advocate for the complainant Ms. Hemkalaben shah has submitted before me that Officer of the Agriculture Department was came to the farm of the complainant and drawn the reports and observation vide panch-rojkam and it is sign by the Gov. Officer A.I.Pathan , H.J. Jindal and M.H. Patel. and 2 panchas Patel Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai and Patel Vasantkumar A. has sing panch-rojkam and signed photograph at the Page no. 89 -95 relied upon as it is observed that crops were not duly developed as per the norms and damages caused to the complainant is 70% wherein it is also admitted and observed that complainant has utilised the Lokar brand and Ledi rusta seeds and ultimately there was loss observed by the expert officer of Agriculture department wherein it is observed that due steps and care taken by the complainant such loss is there whichever the production of the potato was not marketable as their quality is not up to the mark.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 11 of 1625. Further Ld. Advocate Ms. Hemkalaben shah has submitted before me that affidavit of the Gov. officer is produced here in complaint, on page no. 200 wherein complainant side submitted their documentary evidence on affidavit of Talati Mantri disclosed the factual aspect of Gov. reports i.e. 7/12 extract, panch- rojkam and have also supported the document of affidavit of Gov. Agricultural Officer to support the complainants case and Rojkam was prepared and according to the factual aspect which ever narrated in the Rojkam are true and correct.
26. Further ld. Advocate Ms. Hemkalaben Shah has drawn my attention to the proposal from the Opponent Mahindra Tractor House at page no. 232, dated. 24.03.2014 produced and on 20.03.2014 on personal visit of the farm in question and agreement was handed over. Copy of this agreement is submitted and about 223.5 bags of Pokhraj variety are handed over to the complainant as the solution for the same but complainant still not sign the agreement, the proposal itself suggest that the Opponents is aware about the defect in the seeds quality that's why they are ready to give another quality seeds of 223.5 bags to the B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 12 of 16 complainant and thus this agreement also supported to the complainant contention that the question seeds were damaged and not up to the mark and thereby ultimately complainant has suffered a loss about 70% crops.
27. Considering this aspect of the case one thing is very much clear and acceptable that from the record of panch-rojkam by the Gov. Dist Agriculture Officer and Opponent proposal to give some quantity seeds as a solution are on record and therefore according to my view and the documentary evidence disclosed the facts supported to the complainant contention that the seeds in question are not up to mark and so the complainant has suffered the loss
28. Further Ld. Advocate Mr. Pancholi has argued before me that Opponent No.2 is a dealer from where the questioned seeds were purchased and are not producer or manufacturer. Thereby so far as concern whichever the article is supplied by Opponent manufacturer are sold out to the complainant according to the documentary evidence there is no dispute but so far as concern loss is incurred to the complainant for that Opponent No.2 and 3 B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 13 of 16 cannot be treated liable for any kind of compensation to the complainant.
29. Further Ld. Advocate Ms. Hemkalaben shah has submitted before me that Opponent No.2 and 3 have also given the promise to the complainant about the production of the stock of the crops thereby Opponent No. 2 and 3 are also liable to compensate to the complainant as demanded in the complaint.
30. Therefore I am of the opinion that it is trace out form the document that one thing is very much clear that articles seeds were not up to the mark as panch-rojkam drawn by the Dist Agriculture Officer there is 70% loss to the complainant but the Opponent No.1 is not taken any further steps of reply as we have earlier discussed herein above thereby whichever the facts narrated in complaint and the contention and other evidence is not been challenged by Opponent No.1 therefore award is required to be awarded as demanded by the complainant.
31. According to my view that the Opponent No.1 reply is not recorded it is rejected by the Ld. Trial Commission earlier and therefore for the sake of justice we should also looked into B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 14 of 16 interest of the Opponent no.1 thereby on going scrutiny of the documentary evidence on reecord i.e panch-rojkam was prepared by Gov. Agricultural Officer is to be accepted and thereby I am of the opinion that complainant is entitled for 70% loss as observed by the officer only and out of that loss considering all over loss on the ground of the marketable quality I am of the opinion that 60% loss can be awarded to the complainant thereby here complainant have demanded Rs. 40,34,000/- ultimately out of the Rs. 40,34,000/- complainant is entitled to award compensation of Rs. 24,20,775/- are likely to be awarded. Hereby the complaint is partly allowed against Opponent No.1 only, opponent No. 2 and 3 are excluded from the liability in the complaint.
FINAL ORDER
i) Complaint No.12 of 2015 is partly allowed.
ii) Opponent no.1 is directed to pay 60% of the claimed amount i.e. Rs. 24,20,775/- is to be awarded with 7% interest from the date of filing the complaint, and further Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of complaint.
iii) Opponent No. 2 and 3 is excluded from the liability.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 15 of 16iv) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced in the open court on 15th November, 2021.
(M.J.Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi CC-15-12 Page 16 of 16