State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Beej Bhandar, vs Gurlal Singh on 12 February, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1157 of 2011
Date of institution: 1.8.2011
Date of Decision: 12.2.2014
1. Surinder Beej Bhandar, Old Court Road, City Police Station,
Mansa, through its Partner Surinder Kumar son of Shri Gopi
Ram.
2. M/s Maha Gujrat Seeds Pvt. Limited, Nagpur-440018 through its
authorised person Sukhmander Singh son of Makhan Singh.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Gurlal Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Vill. Musa, Tehsil and
District Mansa.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Anoop Singla, Advocate for
Sh. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 8.6.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Mansa.
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 The appellants/opposite parties(hereinafter called "the opposite parties") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.6.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 111 dated 1.4.2011 vide which the complaint filed by FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 2 the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 91,775/-, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant alleging that he purchased 5 packets of cotton seed each weighing 450 grams valuing Rs. 925/- each from Op No. 1 and sown the same in agriculture land as per the directions given by Op No. 1. OP No. 1 had assured that it will give yield to the extent of 45/50 maund per acre but it did not give the yield as promised. The crop was inspected by Chief Agriculture Officer, Mansa, who vide his letter dated 16.2.2011 informed that the yield was less to the extent of 1653 per hectare and he accounted for the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,48,000/-. The cost of the Theka is Rs. 16,000/-, cost of the seed Rs. 10,975/-, cost of irrigation Rs. 15,000/-, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation expenses of RS. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,15,775/- has been demanded.
3. The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP No. 1 in his written statement has taken the preliminary objections that he had taken the seed in a sealed packet from Op No. 2, the complainant did not opt for test as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Act; there was no guarantee about the yield; there was no defect in the seed and their can be number of factors for less yield; the Agricultural Development Officer did not inspect the fields in the presence of OP No. 1; the sample was got tested by OP No. 2 from Government Seed Testing Laboratory, Maharashtra; OP No. 1 has licence to sell the seed taken from the Agricultural Department; there is no record with the FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 3 complainant what was the yield and how and with whom it was sold. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant purchased seed packets on 27.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 4625/- but the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. There is no document on which date the land was taken on lease, it cannot be said that the complainant had sown seed according to the instructions given by the Agricultural University. It was denied that any guarantee was given that yield will be 40-50 maunds per acre. OP No. 1 is not responsible in case it gives a less yield because there are some other facts i.e. environmental, care, timely spray of insecticides and pesticides etc. The complainant did not give Rs. 10,975/- to purchase the seeds as alleged by him. Accordingly, it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and the same be dismissed.
4. OP No. 2 in its written statement has stated that OP No. 2 had sold truthful level seeds to OP No. 1 vide bill No. 0007 dated 3.4.2010; the complainant has not got the seed tested as required under Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act; the seed was of best quality; for less yield only quality of the seed is not responsible, other factors i.e. environment, to take care of the crop and other inputs are also responsible; The seed was got tested from Government Seed Testing Laboratory, Maharashtra; OP No. 2 has licence from Registering Authority-cum-Joint Director, Agricultural, Punjab, Chandigarh; OP No. 2 or some other independent person was not called for at the time of inspection by the Agricultural Department. On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated and it has been stated that the seed was of best quality. The less yield was not FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 4 due to defect in the seeds. Other factors may be responsible for the same and 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 affidavit of Bhola Singh Ex. C-1, his affidavit Ex. C-2, bill Ex. C-3, application dt. 6.9.2010 Ex. C-4, report of Chief Agri. Officer dt. 16.2.11 Ex. C-5, Jamabandi for 2004-05 Ex. C-6, Jamabandi of Hadbast No. 84 Ex. C-7, receipt Ex. C-8, photographs Exs. C-9 to C-11, letter dt. 24.5.2011 Ex. C-12. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Pal Ex. OP-1, photocopy of stock register Ex. OP-2, bill dt. 12.5.10 Ex. OP-3. OP No. 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhmander Ex. OP-4, copy of test report of Govt. Laboratory dt. 29.5.2010 Ex. OP-5, copy of sale certificate of Punjab State Ex. OP- 6, copy of seed licence Ex. OP-7.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum in the impugned order observed that the seed Cotton Dhanwan-II ready 5 packets were purchased by the complainant from OP No. 1 supplied to him by OP No. 2 in sealed packets. Vide bill Ex. C-3 issued by OP No. 1 a lot number of cotton seed is clearly mentioned as 2002 and validity of the cotton seed is clearly mentioned as 3/2010, therefore, in the month of April, 2010 seed of expiry date was sold to the complainant. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 5 Further, the bill Ex. OP-3 dated 12.4.2010 reveals that OP No. 1 purchased the seed from OP No. 2 of Cotton BT Dhanwan-II 450 grams Packet of Lot No. M-401/11 and Lot No. 2001/02 vide bill Ex. OP-8 dated 3.4.2010. However, the stock register of Op No. 2 does not bear any lot No. of Cotton seed, which was purchased on 3.4.2010 or 12.4.2010. Further the document Ex. OP-5 of Government Seed Testing Laboratory reveals that they received the sample of cotton seed in the Laboratory of Lot No. MG-2002 on 29.5.2010. The report does not disclose the date of testing. However, batch number does not tally with the Batch number given in sale invoices of Ex. OP-3 and OP-8. It makes it clear that Op No. 1 was receiving from OP No. 2 un-tested and un-certified seed packets without mentioning the Lot Nos. in their stock register and cotton seed of Lot No. M-401/11 and 2001/02 were not got tested and certified, therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Ops have connived to sell un-certified and un-tested cotton seeds to the farmers in this District and accordingly, the complaint was allowed as stated above.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the learned District Forum was wrong in holding that the seed was defective. The learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the Agricultural Officer did not mention the description i.e. Khasra No. of the land in dispute. There is no evidence that the less yield was only FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 6 due to defective seed whereas the complainant/respondent failed to comply with the technical procedure for sowing of the cotton seed. The learned District Forum also failed to appreciate the report Ex. OP-5 of Government Seed Testing Laboratory, Nagpur. Mere non- mentioning of the date of testing does not make the report doubtful. However, inadvertently they produced bill No. 51 dated 12.4.2010 whereas bill dated 3.4.2010 was to be produced. The District Forum has given undue weightage to the Expert Report Ex. CW-1 to fix the liability of the appellants. The Seed Rules specifically provide that when a farmer made a complaint in writing about the failure of his crop due to the defective quality of the seed, the Seed Inspector shall take the sample of the Seeds to investigate the cause of the failure of the crop and send it to the Seed Analyst for analysis with procedure, therefore, the complaint is liable to be set-aside.
11. It is an admitted fact that 5 packets of cotton seed were sold by OP No. 1 to the complainant vide bill dated 27.4.2010 Ex. C-3 and it was sown by him in two acres of land. Copy of Jamabandi showing the possession of one acre land of Rajinder Singh and another of Rajinder Singh and an other writing Ex. C-8 of Joginder Singh vide which a part of field was given by him to his son Gurlal Singh. The photographs were produced on the record. In case we go through the bill Ex. C-3, the first item is of Dhanwan-II, M.G. Seed, Lot No. 2002 valid upto 3/2010, which was sold on 27.4.2010, therefore, the first deficiency of OP No. 1 is that he sold expired seeds to the complainant on 27.4.2010.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 7
12. The next question is whether the seeds were certified and tested by the Laboratory as claimed by the appellants/Ops. The seeds shown in Bill Ex. C-3 of Lot No. 2002, 52491, 240484, 46007, 03103091 whereas the stock register Ex. OP-2 does not bear the lot number. However, OP No. 2 had sold the seeds to OP No. 1 vide bill Ex. OP-3 and its Lot No. are also M-001/02 and M-401/11. Another bill is Ex. OP-8 in which Lot No. of Cotton BT Dhanwan-II is of 2001/02, therefore, firstly these lot numbers have not been reflected in the stock register. As per OP, Lot No. 2002 was tested. This lot when sold to complainant was of expiry date. There is Lab Test Report of other Batch Nos. Therefore, the seeds are not testes seeds as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, the seed sold to the complainant, were not certified and tested as claimed by OP No. 2.
13. So far as the report of the Chief Agricultural Development Officer is concerned, the same is Ex. C-5 shows that the height of the cotton plants was too short and there were no adequate flowers and according to him the yield was less 1653 Kg. per hectare. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that there is no report of the Seed Analyst as according to Rule 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968, which is admissible in evidence. Whereas the report given by Chief Agricultural Officer has not squarely given the findings that less yield was due to defective seeds only. He has stated that other factors i.e. environmental and other inputs are also responsible for the better crop. Even if the report of the Chief Agricultural Officer is taken not to be an exhaustive report but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that according to bill Ex. C-3 had FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 8 sold five packets of Dhanwan-II quality MG seeds to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 4625/- on 27.4.2010 whereas its expiry date was 3/2010, therefore, OP No. 1 had sold the expired seeds to the complainant. Further the seeds sold by OP No. 1 allegedly purchased from OP No. 2 sold to the complainant are not tested and certified seeds from the Seed Laboratory as claimed by OP No. 2. The bill vide which Op No. 2 had sold the seeds to OP No. 1 through OP No. 3 & OP No. 8, there lot numbers are M-401/11 and M-001/02, 2001/02. The stock register of OP No. 1 is Ex. OP-2, in those lot numbers is not mentioned. Whereas the bill Ex. C-3 shown different lot numbers than OP Nos. 3 & 8 allegedly sold by OP No. 2 to OP No.
1. It seems OP Nos. 1 & 2 in connivance with each other were selling un-certified and un-tested seeds to the farmers, which are primarily responsible for less yield, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum was justified to hold that the Ops are practising unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in services on their part to sell expired un-tested and un-certified seeds to the complainant for which the complainant had to suffer a lot and they are required to indemnify the same to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order so passed by the learned District Forum is quite justified. We do not see any illegality in the same and the same is hereby affirmed.
14. Sequel to the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2011 9
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 6.2.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
16. The appellants 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 respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
17. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member February 12, 2014. (Harcharan Singh Guram) as Member