State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shakha Prabandhak, Beej Evam Krishi ... vs Pradip Kumar & Others on 14 May, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/25
Instituted on 20.01.12
Shakha Prabandhak, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
R/o: Ghotia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Pradip Kumar, S/o Neturam Chandravanshi,
R/o: Gangpur, P.H.No.13, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
2. Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Beej Bhawan, Pusa Parisar,
NEW DELHI - 110 012
3. Deputy Director, Agricalture Department,
Purana Thana Marg, Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
4. Sr. Agricultural Officer, Thana Marg,
KAWARDHA (C.G.)
5. Branch Manager,
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon,
Branch: Piparia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
6. Society Manager,
Co-operative Society, Piparia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.) ... Respondents.
Appeal No.FA/12/27
Instituted on 23.01.12
Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Beej Bhawan, Pusa Parisar,
NEW DELHI - 110 012 ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Pradip Kumar, S/o Neturam Chandravanshi,
R/o: Gangpur, P.H.No.13, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
2. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department,
Purana Thana Marg, Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
// 2 //
3. Sr. Agricultural Officer, Thana Marg,
KAWARDHA (C.G.)
4. Shakha Prabandhak, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
R/o: Ghotia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
5. Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit,
Rajnandgaon,
Branch: Piparia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.)
6. Society Manager,
Co-operative Society, Piparia, Tah. Kawardha,
Dist. KABIRDHAM (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN BOTH APPEALS: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for Shakha Prabandhak, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam.
Shri L.N. Tiwari, for Pradip Kumar.
Smt. Shilpa Pathak Upadhyay, for Managing Director, National Seeds Co. Ltd.
None for other respondents.
ORDER
Dated:14/05/2012 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of appeal Nos.FA/12/25 as well as FA/12/27, which have been preferred respectively by OP Nos.4 and 1 of Complaint Case No.05/2011, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) vide order dated 24.12.2011, directing thereby both the appellants / OPs to pay the complainant cost of 230.40 Quintals of paddy as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh for procurement of the aforesaid crop, within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 6% p.a., with further direction that in case of failure of payment of the aforesaid amount, the amount will carry interest @ 9% // 3 // p.a. It has also been directed that the amount would first be payable by OP No.4 of the complaint case and in case of its failure, will be payable by OP No.1. Litigation cost, Rs.2,000/- has been quantified and the appellants have been directed to pay this amount also to the complainant. For the purpose of convenience parties will be referred in this order as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case.
2. It is not in dispute that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. had supplied paddy seeds to the Seeds Corporation of the State and in the relevant year KRH-2 hybrid paddy seeds were supplied by the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. to different States including the State of Chhattisgarh.
3. Case of the complainant before District Forum was that he was advised by the OPs to use KRH-2 paddy seeds in his fields for the purpose of sowing, as it is hybrid seeds of paddy and it may give yield of 35 to 40 Quintals per acre of quality paddy. Having impressed with the advice given by the OPs the complainant purchased 72 Kgs of KRH-2 paddy seeds @ Rs.95/- per Kg at the cost of Rs.6,840/- for the purpose of sowing in his fields of 12 acres which was in his possession. On 10.06.10, as per instructions given by OP No.6 i.e. Manager of Cooperative Society Pipariya, Teh. Kabirdham a nursery of the seeds was developed by him and he spent sufficient amount for that // 4 // purpose. Then the plants were transferred to his fields and crop operations were performed thereafter from time to time. But ultimately, it was found by him that growth of the plants was not equal. Some plants were growing fast, some plants were growing up to medium height and some could not grow to a reasonable height. Then in the month of September, he found that only 20% of the plants could have germinated properly and could provide some yield. Remaining 80% plants could not grow and were not in position to have paddy. The Agriculture Extension Officer of the area was contacted by him who inspected the fields and the crop experiments performed by him from time to time on the crop of the complainant and then came to the conclusion that there was excessive loss and it was to the extent of 81% of the crop. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that he has suffered loss of Rs.3,96,000/- as 360 Quintals of paddy crop could not grow and apart from it he was to spent Rs.1,25,640/- in different crop operations and due to less yield he suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- on that count. Therefore, he claimed in all Rs.4,96,000/- as compensation along with interest from the OPs.
4. OP No.1 in its reply has refuted the allegations of selling defective seeds. It has been averred in the written version that hybrid paddy seed was duly tested and certified under the Seeds Certification Act 1966 by the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency and // 5 // Officers of that Agency as well as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. minutely inspected the growth of seeds at different stages. They found that the growth was appropriate and as per the standards fixed by the Certification Agency and so, certificate was provided by that Agency. The seed was giving full results as per the standards prescribed and thereafter, it was packed, which was sent for sell to different States. So, the allegation of selling defective seeds was baseless. It has also been averred that the total yield depends upon the biological and geographical conditions of the area and performance of different crop operations in time. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that crop operations were duly performed in time and geographical and biological condition of that area was suitable for the purpose of growing of that crop. It has also been averred that National Seed Corporation Ltd. had never given any guarantee of specific yield and so no case of awarding compensation against OP no.1 is made out.
5. OP Nos.2 & 3 in their separate reply has refuted all the allegations of the complainant and averred that the complainant was not their 'consumer'.
6. OP No.6 in its separate reply has also raised similar pleas and averred that it has simply supplied the seed bags received from the // 6 // National Seed Corporation Ltd. It was merely Distributor and has not committed any deficiency in service.
7. None appeared for OP no.4 before the District Forum and the case proceeded ex-parte against it.
8. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it by all parties came to the conclusion that OP Nos.1 & 4 were deficient in service and had supplied defective seeds and so they have been directed to pay compensation to the complainant.
9. We have heard arguments of all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
10. First and foremost question for consideration is whether the complainant is 'consumer' of any of the OPs ?
11. In the complaint it has been stated in paragraph No.5 that the complainant purchased from OP No.2 to 6, KRH-2 type of paddy seeds at the cost of Rs.6,840/- for the purpose of sowing the same in his fields of 12 acres, which was in his possession. In paragraph No.2 also it has been stated that the complainant is a farmer of village Gangapur and in that village Gangapur he performs agricultural operations on // 7 // the agricultural lands in his name as well as in the name of his father, mother and brother and that is the source of livelihood for him. But the documents which have been filed by the complainant tell some other story. Document Annexure A-2 shows that Neturam S/o Ramanand of village Gangapur was the person who was member of the Society and who purchased hybrid paddy seeds and the cost of which was Rs.6,840/- was also paid by him. In this document the name of complainant has not at all been referred anywhere. Another document Annexure A-3 is inspection report of Rural Agriculture Extension Office, which also shows that name of farmer is Neturam Chandravanshi S/o. Ramanand Chandravanshi belonging to Gangapur village and who purchased 0.84 Quintals of KRH-2 seeds from the Cooperative Society of Pipariya, which was produced by National Seed Corporation Ltd. The nursery was developed on 10.06.10 and then sowing was done on 30.06.10 by that farmer. On inspection it was found that in the first experiment 20% plants were big, 40% plants were medium and 40% plants were of small size. In second experiment the performance became 25%, 35% and 40% respectively and in the third experiment it was respectively 22%, 40% and 37% and thus average was calculated as 23%, 42% and 45% respectively of big, medium and small plants. Their heights have also been mentioned and ultimately it was found that the estimated loss in the crop was 81%, which is in average and the yield in Kgs., on the // 8 // basis of crop experiment was found as 2.50 Kgs. as an average. This document was signed by Neturam Chandravanshi as the farmer, who purchased seeds and sowing operations were also performed by him. In this document also the complainant has not at all been referred anywhere. Merely in the certificate issued by the Member of Janpad, Annexure A-4, it has been stated that the complainant is also a farmer and to him also seeds of KRH-2 paddy was provided, which was sowed by him and loss in crop was found.
12. Patwari documents, kistbandi khatauni (form B-1) and khasara have also been filed which shows that the land was in the joint name of Liladhar, Pradeep, Netram and Umabai. There were three survey Nos. in the name of aforesaid persons, having No.266, 304/3 and 313/2. Thus, it appears that the land was in the joint names.
13. From this document it is clear that there is land of joint ownership, of his father, mother and brother, which is in joint possession of all the Bhumiswamis. Neither there is any pleading nor proof that any partition has been effected in respect of ownership or possession of land which is of joint ownership of four persons. In fact in document Annexure A-1, which is an application moved by the complainant to Deputy Director Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Kwardha, on behalf of his father, a note has been added at // 9 // the bottom to the effect that the land is in the name of father of the complainant Mr. Neturam and purchase permit was also in the name of Naturam, but then it was stated that the complainant performs all the works on behalf of his father and family. So, it appears that declaration in favour of the complainant was made by himself, but no written authority, or power of attorney executed by other family members, has been filed. Nor there is statement of any other family member or father of Netram in support of the case put forward by the complainant before the District Forum.
14. Thus, from all documents it is clear that seeds were not purchased by the complainant and the land was also not belonging exclusively to him only, but was a joint holding of others also. Other Bhoomi swami of joint holding agricultural land, the members of family of the complainant, have not been made party in the complaint nor any authority was given by any of them in favour of the complainant, so it appears that the complaint was defective right from the very beginning.
15. Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" for short) provides the manner in which complaint shall be made, which is as under : -
// 10 //
12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.-(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by-
(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided.
(b) --- --- ---
(c) --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---."
Similarly Section 13 of the Act in Sub-section 6 says that:-
"(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions of rule 8 of Order I of the First schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon."
Section 2 of the Act in sub-section (1)(b) defines the "complainant" as under : -
"(b) "complainant" means-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association
registered under the Companies Act 1956 (1
of 1956) or under any other law for the time
being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State
Government; or
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are
numerous consumers having the same
interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir
or representative; who or which makes a
complaint;"
Section 2 (1) (d) defines "consumer" as under : -
"(d) "consumer" means any person who,-
// 11 //
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];"
Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment;"
From the aforesaid definitions under the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the seeds regarding which the complaint has been made were neither purchased by the complainant nor the complainant was the only beneficiary or user with the approval of such purchaser and if // 12 // it is presumed that the seeds were purchased for the benefits of the family and have been used in the agricultural lands in the name of more than one user, then the provisions of Section 12 and 13 (6) come in operation and all these facts were required to be stated in clear terms in the complaint and those persons were also required to be made party in the complaint, which has not been done. So, the complaint was defective right from the very beginning.
16. However, it appears that National Seed Corporation Ltd. has refunded the cost collected for the seeds which was purchased by the State Government and so indirectly it has been admitted that there was some defect in the seed manufactured and supplied by that Corporation. So, keeping this aspect in mind, at the place of dismissing the complaint, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the District Forum with a direction to provide opportunity to the complainant for moving appropriate application for adding names of all the parties or for clarifying the position as to how he is claiming compensation in respect of the seeds which was purchased by his father, who is very well alive and who has sowed those seeds in his field.
17. As the matter is being remitted back to the District Forum, so opportunity is also provided to the OP No.4 to file its written version // 13 // and put forward its case before District Forum. It is worth mentioning that earlier reply could not be filed on behalf of this OP and the case could not be contested. Now, as the case is remitted back so reasonable opportunity to contest the matter is also needs to be provided to this party.
18. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we allow both these appeals and set aside the impugned order. Case is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the complainant, the OP No.4 as well as OP No.1 to file necessary applications, documents and affidavits. If any party is added in the array of complainant or OP, then that party be also provided proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter the matter be decided afresh on merits without being influenced by anything which has been held earlier by the District Forum in its previous order. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 08.06.2012. No order as to cost of these appeals. The original of this order be retained in the file of appeal No.FA/12/25 and its copy be placed in the file of appeal No.FA/12/27.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/05/2012 /05/2012