State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarjit Singh Son Of Lashkar Singh vs Jay Cottage Industries on 10 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003.
Date of Institution: 10.9.2003.
Date of Decision: 10.12.2009.
Amarjit Singh son of Lashkar Singh r/o VPO Kheeranwali, Patti Jahangirpur,
Tehsil and District Kapurthala.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Jay Cottage Industries, Shastri Market, Kapurthala through Sh. Chetan
Parkash son of Sh. Chaman Lal.
2. Chetan Parkash s/o Sh. Chaman Lal C/o Jay Cottage Industries,
Shastri Market, Kapurthala.
3. Rinku son of Sh. Chetan Parkash s/o Sh. Chaman Lal C/o Jay Cottage
Industries, Shastri Market, Kapurthala.
4. Vicky son of Sh. Chetan Parkash s/o Sh. Chaman Lal C/o Jay Cottage
Industries, Shastri Market, Kapurthala.
5. Quality Seeds Corporation (Regd) 5-G, Sarabha Nagar, Jagraon road,
Ludhiana.
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
12.8.2003 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Satish Goel, Advocate.
For the respondents No.1 to 4 : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent No.5 : Exparte.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:-
This is an appeal filed by the complainant (in short, "the appellant") against the order dated 12.8.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short "the District Forum"), by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum with First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 2 the observation that the complainant will be at liberty to move the civil court, if he so likes.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an agriculturist and had been sowing the wheat crops in his fields for the last so many years. On 28.11.2002, the appellant had purchased 4 bags of 40 kg each of wheat seed (PB 343 variety) from respondents no.1 to 4 vide cash memo no.44 and 45 for an amount of Rs.1760/- in cash. The appellant had sown the entire quantity of above said seed in 4 acres of his land situated at village Kheeranwali, as per the recommendations of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and Agriculture Department, Punjab. He had also used fertilizer and watered the fields as per the recommendations of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and Agriculture Department, Punjab. However, despite best efforts of the appellant, the germination of the seed was very poor and only 4 or 5% of the seed had germinated in the fields of the appellant. The seed had not germinated due to poor and defective quality of the seed. For the last so many years, the appellant had been getting the yields @ 23 quintals per acre from his land measuring 4 acres. It was further pleaded that the appellant had approached the Chief Agriculture Officer, Kapurthala and on his request Dr. Anil Kumar Sood, Agriculture Development Officer, Kapurthala had visited his fields on 11.12.2002 and reported that only 4 or 5% of the seed had germinated in the fields of the appellant. The minimum support price of the wheat was fixed @ Rs.620/- per quintal for the year 2002 and that price was likely to be increased. Only 4 or 5% of the seed had grown and for taking care of that quantity of crop, the appellant would have to spend the same amount on fertilizers, sprays, watering and labour. The amount spent on fertilizers, sprays, watering and labour would be more than the price of 4 or 5% crop. The respondents sold substandard and poor quality seed to the appellant. On the assurance given by respondents First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 3 no.1 to 4 that the seed was of good quality and it would give very high yield, the appellant had purchased the seed and had sown the entire quantity of the seed in his fields. As the entire quantity of seed was sown, so seed could not be got tested from any laboratory. The appellant suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.60,000/- on account of loss of crop. It was pleaded that the respondents were deficient in rendering services as they sold substandard and poor quality seed to the appellant and prayed that the respondents be directed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- on account of loss of crop along with Rs.20,000/- as damages for supplying poor quality seed and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellant.
3. Respondents no.1 to 4 replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as respondents no.3 & 4 have no concern with M/s Jay Cottage Industries of which appellants no.1 & 2 were sole Proprietors. The complaint was false and frivolous and was filed to harass and defame the respondents. The appellant had no cause of action to file the complaint and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the same. The complaint was not maintainable as nowhere in the complaint, the appellant had alleged any deficiency in service on the part of respondents no.1 to 4. The respondents were not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. It was further pleaded that the seed was sold and supplied in a sealed bag by respondent no.5 which was duly certified by Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, SCO 837-838, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh under Lot No.APR-02-19-OSC51 through certificate no.50997 with date of test as 7.10.2002 and the said certificate was valid upto March, 2003. There was no deficiency in service on part of respondents no.1 to 4. On merits, contents of Paras no.1 to 11 of the complaint were denied. It was pleaded that the appellant had not purchased any seed on 28.11.2002 as alleged in the complaint. As per photocopies of the bills attached with the complaint, 4 bags First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 4 of 40 kgs. each of PBW-343 wheat seed was sold by them vide bill no.44 and 45 dated 20.11.2002 only. It was denied that the appellant had sown entire quantity of seed strictly according to the recommendations of Punjab Agriculture University, and Agriculture Department, Punjab. It was also denied that the appellant used fertilizers and had watered the fields as per recommendations of Punjab Agriculture University, and Agriculture Department, Punjab. It was pleaded that the appellant might not have sown the seed alleged to have purchased by him in Vattar condition which was necessary for sowing of the wheat seed. Respondents no.1 to 4 had purchased 50 bags of PW-343 wheat seed weighing 40 kgs each from M/s Quality Seeds Corporation (Regd), 5G, Sarabha Nagar, Jagraon Road, Ludhiana (respondent no.5) through bill no.00270 dated 6.11.2002. The seed so sold by respondent no.5 were duly certified by the Punjab State Seed Certification Authority as mentioned above. It was further pleaded that the respondents had sold the entire seed to different farmers on different dates through different bills and they had never received any complaint from any of the buyers of such seed. It was also denied that despite best efforts of the appellant, germination of the seed was very poor and only 4 or 5% of the seed had germinated in the fields of the appellant. It was further denied that the seed sold by the respondents was of poor and substandard quality. Remaining allegations of the complaint were also denied specifically and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Respondent no.5 also replied vide separate reply by taking preliminary objections that there was nothing on the file which could provide that alleged seed sold by respondents no.1 to 4 were supplied by respondent no.5. As such, the complaint against respondent no.5 was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed. Provisions of Section 13 Clause 1(c) of the Consumer Protection Act have not been complied with. It was First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 5 further pleaded that the seed which was actually supplied by respondent no.5 to respondents no.1 to 4 had already been tested and passed by the State Seeds Certification Authority, Regional Office, Ludhiana. Moreover, total 50 bags had been supplied by respondent no.5 to respondents no.1 to 4 and out of those 50 bags, allegedly 4 bags were sold by respondents no.1 to 4 to the appellant. There was not a single complaint regarding the remaining 46 bags supplied to respondents no.1 to 4. Hence, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.5 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint with the observation that the appellant will be at liberty to move the civil court if he so likes.
6. Hence, the appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 12.8.3003. The appellant filed the present appeal against the said order on the grounds that the impugned judgment is solely based on surmises and conjectures and against the evidence available on the file.
9. The dispute between the parties is that the appellant purchased 4 bags of wheat seed of 40 Kg. each of PB 343 VARIETY from respondents No. 1 to 4 vide cash memos No. 44 and 45 for Rs. 1,760/- and sown the entire seed in his 4 acres of land situated at Village Kheeranwali. The germination of the seed was very poor and only 4 to 5% of the seed was germinated.
10. To prove his version he tendered into evidence report of Sh. Anil Kumar Sood, Agriculture Development Officer, Kapurthala, who had inspected First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 6 the fields of the appellant on 11.12.2002. In his report, he has mentioned that the germination of wheat seed was only 4 to 5% whereas moisture contents were sufficient in the field for germination.
11. We have perused the inspection report Ex. C-11 dated 11.12.2002 of Sh. Anil Kumar Sood, Agricultural Development Officer, Kapurthala in which he has given the full details of the variety of seed, lot No., percentage of germination, sowing time, seed rate, fertilizer used etc.. Sh. Anil Kumar Sood also appeared as witness AW-I and he was cross-examined by the respondents in detail and he has fully proved his report Ex. C-11 beyond any doubt.
12. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum on the following grounds:-
(i) The appellant did not mention the Khewat No. Khasra No. and Khatoni No. of the land of four acres, in which the alleged seed was sown. He has also not produced the copies of jamabandi and girdawari to prove his ownership as well as possession over the four acres of land.
(ii) The appellant had miserably failed to establish that fields shown by him to Agricultural Development Officer, Kapurthala were the same fields where the alleged seed was sown, which was purchased from respondents No. 1 to 4.
(iii) The seed bags were sold in a sealed condition bearing the tag, containing the lot No., Certificate No., date of test, best before, so there was no deficiency in service on their part;
(iv) Since the Punjab State Seed Certification Authority had tested the seed and found it to be used as seed as such, there was no possibility of poor germination as alleged by the appellant.First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 7
The alleged seed supplied by respondent No. 5 to respondents No. 1 to 4 was not defective and there was no deficiency proved on the part of the respondents.
13. The appellant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Gurbax Singh Ex. C-2 and Davinder Singh Ex. C-3 to prove his version that the appellant had sown the wheat crops after using fertilizer and water as per the recommendations of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and Punjab Agricultural Department. But despite best efforts of the appellant, the germination of the seed was very poor and only 4 to 5% of seed had germinated in the fields of the appellant.
14. The Agriculture Development Officer, Kapurthala has specifically reported that he visited the fields of the appellant. Therefore, there was no ambiguity about the fields which were inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer even if Khasra No., Khatoni No. and Khewat No. of the agricultural land of the appellant are not given in the complaint as well as in the report of Agriculture Development Officer. It has been specified by the Agriculture Development Officer, Kapurthala that he had inspected the fields of the appellant on 11.12.2002. Therefore, even if Khasra No. and Khewat No. was not specifically given in the complaint or in the report that does not affect the identity of the land, which has been otherwise proved. However, the respondents have nowhere specifically mentioned that the appellant had not sown the seed of wheat in his fields, which was purchased by him from the respondents and it was also not denied by the respondents in their reply nor produced any evidence to rebut that the fields which was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer were not belongs to the appellant or he had not sown the same seed in the said fields which was purchased by him from respondents No. 1 to 4.
First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 8
15. Respondents No. 1 to 4 sold the seed to the appellant bearing lot No. APR-02-19-OSC-51. Sh. Chetan Parkash respondent No. 1 in his affidavit Ex. R-3 has stated that the seed sold by him to the appellant was bearing lot No. APR-02-19-OSC-51 which was duly certified by Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, S.C.O. No. 837-838, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh under same lot No. APR-02-19-OSC-51 through Certificate No. 50997 with date of test as 7.10.2002. This certificate was valid till March, 2003. Each and every bag of Wheat Seed was stitched with the tag bearing above said lot number, certificate number, date of certificate and expiry. To prove his version he also tendered into evidence tag regarding certification of seed Ex. R-5 and tag of the manufacturer Ex. R-6.
16. Respondent No. 5 has tendered into evidence certificate of Punjab State Seed Testing Authority, Ludhiana as Ex. R-2.
17. We have perused the tags Ex. R-5 and Ex. R-6 as well as certificate Ex. R-2 by which the State Seed Certification Authority, Ludhiana certified the seed of respondent No. 5 but the lot nos. of the seed mentioned in certificate Ex. R-2 is APR-02-19-QSC-01 and the lot No. of the seed mentioned in tag No. Ex. R-5 is APR-02-19-OSC-51. As such, it is proved that the lot no. of the seed, which was sold after certification by respondent No. 5 to respondents No. 1 to 4 was not the same, which was sold by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant.
18. From the perusal of Ex. R-5, the date of test of the seed is mentioned as 1.10.2002 but the seed of respondent No. 5 as per vide letter Ex. R-2 was tested on 9.9.2002.
19. So from the above, two different dates of the test of the seed also proves that the seed, which was purchased by respondents No. 1 to 4 from respondent No. 5 was not the same, which was sold by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant.
First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 9
20. The version of respondent No. 1 is that the seed sold to the appellant was certified by Punjab State Seed Certification Authority, S.C.O. No. 837-838, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh but no certificate of the said authority was produced by the respondents No. 1 to 4 to prove their version.
21. Sh. Hardev Singh, Partner of respondent No. 5 has averred in his affidavit that the seed supplied by him to respondents No. 1 to 4 was tested and passed by the State Seed Certification Authority, Regional Office, Ludhiana.
22. The above version of respondent No. 1 as well as of respondent No. 5 are self contradictory regarding the certification of the seed in dispute.
23. So from the above version of the respondents, it is clear that the seed supplied to the appellant was not certified one from any seed testing authority and was of sub-standard quality. Due to this reason, the germination of the seed was not 85% as assured by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the appellant vide tag Ex. R-6.
24. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that no report of the laboratory has been produced to prove that the seed, which was sold by them to the appellant was of sub-standard quality. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudan Reddy" 2004(2) CLT 301 that even if the seed is not got tested in the laboratory, as it was not possible, relief cannot be denied to the poor farmer. It was held as under:-
"10. In view of the above discussion on the two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner our clear view is that it is only under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that remedy lies for the farmer to be compensated for defective seeds as also the fact that when the provision of Section 13(1)(c) becomes unimplementable then one has to resort to alternative methods, which in this case was the report of First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 10 Commissioner who was a retired Assistant Director of Agriculture. It cannot be the case of the petitioner to implement an unimplementable proposition, it is not the case of the petitioner that either under the Seeds Act or on the label of the product or under any other provisions of law, that the farmer is expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, for the farmer to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirement of Section 13(1)(c)."
34. The same view of law has been adopted by the Hon'ble National Commission in R. Shekhar @ Sirdhar's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in which the Hon'ble National Commission has been pleased to hold as under:-
"A very untenable plea has been taken before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the procedure under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, has not been adopted by the lower Fora in getting the seeds tested. We have held in catena of judgments that, a farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency like the one we are facing in the case."
35. Reference can also be made to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "INDIA SEED HOUSE v. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR." III(2008) CPJ 96 (NC) in which it was held as under:-
"Secondly, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand, a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 11 hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective."
25. In view of the above discussion, we reject the plea of respondents No. 1 to 4 that in the absence of laboratory report, the appellant has failed to prove that the seed was defective. The fields of the appellant was inspected by Sh. Anil Kumar Sood, Agricultural Development Officer, Kapurthala on 11.12.2002 and he mentioned in his report Ex. C-11 full details of the seed and averred that the germination of the seed used by the appellant was only 4 to 5% and due to that reason the crop of the appellant has not given the required yield. The appellant had proved his allegation regarding the quality of seed in dispute beyond doubt that the seed was of sub-standard quality.
26. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted at Bar that respondents No. 1 to 4 are only a dealer and they sold the insecticides to the appellant in a sealed condition as the same were supplied by the manufacturer to them. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that the seed was of sub-standard quality then only the manufacturer is liable to pay the compensation.
27. We find force in this submission of counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 that only the manufacturer is liable to pay the compensation for the sub- standard quality of the seed.
28. We have also perused the photocopies of the bills Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-30 issued by respondents No. 1 to 4 to the customers/appellant, who purchased the seed but no name of any customer is mentioned in such bills, which is also unfair trade practice on the part of respondents No. 1 to 4 as per Section 2(c)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.
29. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is against the evidence and documents on the file, as such, First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 12 the appeal of the appellant is accepted and we set-aside the order of the District Forum.
30. No details of the expenses incurred by the appellant has been given in the complaint and only Rs. 60,000/- on account of loss of crop has been prayed.
31. There is no dispute that the appellant had sown the wheat crop in his four acre of land and the germination of the seed was only 4 to 5%. As such, we are of the opinion that Rs. 40,000/- as compensation would be sufficient to the appellant due to the loss of his crop and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses to meet the ends of justice.
32. As held above, the manufacturer is liable to pay the amount of compensation for the supply of defective seed, as such, respondent No. 5 shall pay Rs. 40,000/- to the appellant and Rs. 5,000/- is payable by respondents No. 1 to 4 jointly to the appellant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
33. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.12.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
34. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N. Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 10, 2009.
As/- Gs/-
First Appeal No. 1197 of 2003 13