State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harvinder Singh vs M/S Gainda Mal Bishan Dass on 21 August, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.135 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 05.02.2009.
Date of Decision: 21.08.2013.
Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Mohalla Raunta,
Machhiwara Road, Rahon, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. M/s Gainda Mal Bishan Dass, Grain Market, Raikot, District
Ludhiana through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. National Seed Corporation, SCO No.1024-25, 2nd Floor, Sector
22-B, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. National Seed Corporation, C-25, Focal Point, Jalandhar through
its Area Manager.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
03.12.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Arun Chandra, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3.
---------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Harvinder Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 03.12.2008 First Appeal No.135 of 2009 2 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the narrations that he is co-sharer in land measuring 116 Kanals 4 Marlas as per jamanabandi for the year 2003- 04, situated in village Rahon-1, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr. The appellant along with Kulwant Singh and others is also co-sharer in land measuring 150 Kanal 3 Marlas as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 in village Rahon-II, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. The appellant is also co-sharer in land measuring 16 Kanal 0 Marla and 8 Kanals 0 Marla as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01, situated in village Neelowal, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. The appellant cultivating the land for his self employment and livelihood, to the extent of 27 acres out of the above land.
3. The appellant purchased five bags, weighing one and a half quintals of PUSA-44 from respondent no.1 in sealed packed bags and respondent no.1 assured that the seed is of best quality and is duly certified by the National Seed Corporation. On this assurance, the appellant purchased one and a half quintals of seed vide bill No.623 dated 26.04.2005 for Rs.1,950/- and paid the entire amount. The appellant sowed the entire seed firstly for "Paneeri" and then uprooted the same and planted in the fields, but the seed sold by respondent no.1 did not germinate well, as it was of inferior quality. The appellant put hard labour and incurred expenses for irrigation, fertilizers etc. to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per acre, but the paddy crop did not progress. The appellant intimated respondent no.1 and requested him to inspect First Appeal No.135 of 2009 3 the crop and verify that the seed was sub-standard. The crop was sown in approximately 27 acres of land, but the crop totally failed. The appellant made representations to Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr and other authorities and Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr referred the matter to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana and an inquiry was conducted by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana and it was found that the seed sold by respondent no.1 was sub-standard and for that, the appellant suffered the loss. Respondent no.1 told that he has purchased the seeds from respondents no.2 & 3 and he is the main supplier of the seeds. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana vide letter dated 28.11.2005 directed respondents no.2 & 3 to explain their position as to why action should not be taken against them under the provisions of Seed Act, 1966 and the rules framed thereunder.
4. Normally, the appellant used to get 30 quintal of paddy from one acre of land and in the year 2004, in paddy season, the rate of the paddy was Rs.590/- per quintal and the appellant earned Rs.5,26,327-26 from the area of 27 acres and the average output of produce of paddy comes to Rs.19,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre, but in the paddy season of 2005, due to sub-standard seeds, the appellant could get only 5 to 6 quintals of produce and suffered the loss of 24 quintals of paddy per acre. In the paddy season, 2005, the rate was fixed at Rs.600/- per acre and the appellant suffered loss of Rs.3,88,800/-. In the inquiry, it was found that the paddy crop suffered from 'Jhulas Rog' which was due to sub-standard quality of the seed and the disease to the crop was upto 88%. The appellant also spent on the labour, fertilizers etc. and there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the respondents.
First Appeal No.135 of 2009 4
5. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation due to loss suffered, including mental tension and harassment.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is time barred. One and a half quintals of NSC certified paddy PUSSA-44 seed were purchased from respondent no.1 vide bill no.623 dated 26.04.2005 in the originally machine stitched bags, duly labeled and tagged and packed under the provisions of Seeds Act and the rules. The complaint was filed after 660 days and is barred by time. Bacterial Leaf Blight (Jhulas Rog) is not seed borne disease. The seed sold was got certified under the Seeds Act from the State Seed Certification Authority, Jalandhar and each container was marked or labeled as specified and respondent no.1 cannot be held responsible and there is no deficiency ins service. The seed sold was of good quality and earlier also, the complaint was filed. As per inquiry report of Chief Agriculture Officer, Nawanshahr, it was reported that Bacterial Leaf Blight on paddy crop on leaves on all the paddy fields was ranging from 20% to 80% of the area and the disease can spread from one filed to the other and it was informed to the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr that due to rainy season, there is attack of the disease on the paddy crop. There is no technical report regarding the yield obtained from the paddy crop and the complaint is an afterthought.
7. The appellant has stated that he has sown the paddy in approximately 30 acres, whereas as per the recommendations of the Agriculture Experts, 10 kgs. of paddy seed are required to be sown in one acre and the appellant has sown 5 kgs. of seed per acre. The cultivation was done for commercial purpose. The State Seed First Appeal No.135 of 2009 5 Certification Authority, Jalandhar has not been impleaded as party. The germination of the seed can be found out by the seed analyst after testing the same in the laboratory and the procedure as prescribed u/s 13 is not followed. The appellant has sown the less quantity of seed and good yield of crop depends upon various facts such as proper cultivation, timing, irrigation, spray of insecticides and pesticides etc. The paddy has to be sown timely within the transplantation schedule. The appellant did not take necessary precautions. Complicated questions of law and evidence are involved in the present case and the civil court is competent.
8. On merits, it was submitted that no Khasra Girdawri of the revenue record has been attached. Respondent no.1 sold five sealed bags of National Seed Corporation Limited, certified paddy PUSSA-44 seed on 26.04.2005 vide bill no.623 for Rs.1,950/-. Other similar 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.
9. In the written version filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, it was submitted that the appellant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as respondents no.2 & 3 are not liable, as there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the answering respondents. The seeds were sold by respondent no.1, who is dealer of the answering respondents. The answering respondents can only be held liable on account of purity or on account of germination of seeds. The germination of the seed can only be found out by the Seed Analyst after testing the same in the laboratory as per procedure laid down U/s 13 of the Act. As per the specification and First Appeal No.135 of 2009 6 instructions laid down by the Punjab Agriculture University and other Agriculturist Institutes, 8 to 10 kgs. of seed per acre is required to be sown. Respondent no.2 is a company of international standard and repute and it is a Govt. of India Undertaking and stringent quality controls are made throughout the production process. After thorough testing of the seed by the laboratory, the same were packed in the sealed bags and specification of Minimum Seed Certification Standard is affixed on the seeds. The yield of crop depends upon many factors.
10. On merits, similar 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 complaint of the appellant has been thoroughly investigated first by Chief Agriculture Officer, Nawanshahar followed by Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana. The same has been thoroughly enquired by the Director Agriculture, Punjab, which is a responsible body of the State Govt. As per the documents, 'Jhulas Rog' is rarely on account of poor variety of the seed but is due to numerous other facts. For getting good yield of the crop, many factors are responsible i.e. proper cultivation, timing and irrigation, proper spray of insecticide and pesticides as prescribed by the experts of Agriculture department. RW1/A (Ex.C14) is the invoice dated 26.4.2005 issued by the respondent no.1, wherein the appellant has signed the Seed Sale Terms and Conditions and dealer is not responsible. The appellant has signed the said document after getting himself duly satisfied. The First Appeal No.135 of 2009 7 appellant has not placed on record any technical report regarding poor yield of six quintal per acre as claimed by him. The complaint was dismissed.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.12.2008, the appellant has 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. As per the appellant, he has cultivated the land measuring about 27 acres. He purchased five bags of PUSSA-44 variety of paddy seeds from respondent no.1, weighing 150 kgs. vide bill Ex.C- 14/Ex.RW-1/A dated 26.04.2005. As per Ex.RW-1/I, if PUSSA-44 paddy seed is sown then the requirement of seed per acre is given as 8 kgs. to 10 kgs. As per guidelines of Punjab Agriculture University Ex.R1, 10 (ten) kgs. seed is required per acre. Thus, from these two documents, it is clear that for the land measuring 27 acres, the seed required was 216 kgs. to 270 kgs., whereas the appellant has purchased only 150 kgs. of seed which was less than the actual requirement. Respondent no.1 purchased the paddy seed PUSSA-44 from National Seeds Corporation Limited vide bill No.10090 dated 09.04.2005 Ex.RW-1/G. Vide this bill, paddy PUSSA-44 seed weighing 2250 kgs. were purchased by respondent no.1 and five bags weighing 30 kgs. each were sold by respondent no.1 to the appellant on 26.04.2005 vide bill no.623 Ex.RW-1/A. Vide Ex.RW-1/N, the licence for dealing in seeds was renewed by the competent authority upto 01.02.2007. Thus, it is proved that respondent no.1 was holding a valid licence to deal in the seeds of various manufacturers, including the National Seeds Corporation. The Seed Stock Register of respondent First Appeal No.135 of 2009 8 no.1 was duly certified by the Agriculture Development Officer, copy of which is Ex.RW-1/P and in the copy attached, respondent no.1 purchased the seeds from National Seeds Corporation, Jalandhar vide bill No.10090 dated 09.04.2005. Ex.R-2 is the report of Quality Control Laboratory and PUSSA seeds were found to be pure to the extent of 99.9% and the germination was 85%. Ex.R-3 is the Seed Analysis Report of Agriculture Office, Jalandhar dated 22.02.2005 and the purity was 99.50%. Ex.R-4 is the literature regarding the Disease Management.
16. All these documents prove that the seeds were tested and analyzed by the respondent National Seeds Corporation before marketing the same.
17. Ex.RW-1/B is the letter written by Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana to respondent no.1 in which it was mentioned that as per the report of Agriculture Officer, Nawanshahr, in Rahon area, "Jhulas Rog"
was found 15% to 20%, whereas in the seeds supplied by respondent no.1, the attack was 70% to 80%. Through this letter, a show-cause notice was issued as to why the said licence should not be cancelled and the legal action taken. Respondent no.1 vide Ex.RW-1/C, replied the said letter in detail and gave the reasons. Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahar marked the inquiry to Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana, on the complaint of the appellant and Jagjit Singh S/o Avtar Singh. The Inquiry Report Ex.RW-1/B was submitted to Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana and it was found that only the appellant has purchased paddy seeds PUSSA-44 from respondent no.1 and the said seeds were certified and the seller firm was not at fault. In case, the paddy crop has been attacked by "Jhulas Rog", for that there can be various other reasons. As per the Chief First Appeal No.135 of 2009 9 Agriculture Officer, Nawanshahr, the paddy crop was attacked by "Jhulas Rog" from 20% to 80%, from which it is clear that this disease spread because of the bad weather. After the inquiry, it was clarified that the dealer firm has sold the certified seed of the National Seeds Corporation in original bags and there is no fault of the dealing firm. It was further clarified that due to late receipt of the complaint and without sufficient evidence and keeping in view that the seeds were certified, it is very difficult to say that the crop was damaged due to seed and there can be so many other reasons for this disease and no action can be taken.
18. From the above discussion, it is clear that the certified seeds, which were properly analyzed as provided under the Seeds Act, were sold by respondent no. 3 to respondent no.1, who further sold the same in the sealed bags to the appellant. As stated above, the quantity sown was also not as per the guidelines issued by the Punjab Agriculture University and others. The attack of "Jhulas Rog" was also due to bad weather. The photographs Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-28 produced on file by the appellant show that the crop has grown well and germination was proper, but the damage was caused due to "Jhulas Rog" only and the said disease cannot be attributed to the quality of the seed. Even as per the literature Ex.R-4. Rice Sheath Blight (ShB) is caused by five fungicides. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel," III (2011) CPJ-433(NC), in Para-9 (relevant portion) observed as follows:-
"It is well acknowledged that germination depends on factors like the type of irrigation, fertility of the soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers etc. In the instant case, in view of credible evidence that First Appeal No.135 of 2009 10 there was no defect in the seeds, the onus to prove otherwise including the fact that proper agronomic practices had been adopted by the Respondent was on the Respondent as held in several judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Commission. The respondent failed to do so. Even the 'panchnama' produced by him is not of any help to the Respondent. The District Forum on the basis of credible evidence and defects has given clear and convincing reasons for concluding that there was no credible evidence that the seeds were of inferior quality. The State Commission erred in not appreciating the above facts in partly accepting the appeal of the Respondent. We, therefore, uphold the order of the District Forum and set aside the order of the State Commission."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Sadhu & Anr.", 2005(3) Supreme Court Cases-198(SC), 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".
20. In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference.
First Appeal No.135 of 2009 11
21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 03.12.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.08.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member August 21, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)