State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Malout Beej Bhandar, New Grain Market vs Malkiat Singh Son Of Gurdeep Singh on 9 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1330 of 2008.
Date of Institution : 20.11.2008.
Date of Decision : 09.11.2009.
1. Malout Beej Bhandar, New Grain Market, Shop No.113 A, Malout, District
Muktsar through its Proprietor.
2. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Registered Office : 905, Nanchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi, through its Dy. Regional
Manager.
3. Asian Agriculture Genetics Limited, 9-1-108/1, Flat No.103, Ist Floor, Tata
Chari Compound, S.D. Road, Secunderabad- 500 003, A.P., through its
Marketing Officer.
....Appellants.
Versus
Malkiat Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, Resident of Village Gobindgarh, Tehsil
Abohar, District Ferozepur.
....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 12.8.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
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. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Umesh Kumar, Advocate for
Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of the following two appeals, as both these appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 12.8.2008:-
S.No. F.A. No. Particulars
1. F.A. No.1330 of 2008 Malout Beej Bhandar & Others Vs
Malkiat Singh.
2. F.A. No.1326 of 2008 Malkiat Singh Vs Malout Beej Bhandar
and Others.
F.A. No.1330 of 2009 2
2. The facts are taken from F.A. No.1330 of 2008(Malout Beej Bhandar & Others Vs Malkiat Singh) and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
3. Malkiat Singh respondent was member of the Joint Hindu Family (in short, "the family"). He was an agriculturist. The family was the owner of 25 acres of land as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04 in the area of village Patti Taza and village Burj Mohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. The appellants had arranged a seminar prior to the cotton season to popularize their cotton seed manufactured by appellants no.2 and 3( in short, "the producers") of which, appellant no.1 was the dealer (hereinafter to be described as "the dealer"). The farmers were persuaded to purchase their seeds which would give much more agriculture produce. The respondent was taken in their oily speeches.
4. It was further pleaded that the respondent went to the shop of the dealer, who sold 50 packets of 450 gms each of Dharti Gold Cotton seed vide bills dated 16.4.2007, 19.4.2007 for the total amount of Rs.33,750/-. The respondent also purchased 50 packets of Mahic-6304 and 20 packets of Rashi-134 quality cotton seed vide bill dated 16.4.2007. The rate of ordinary seed in the local market was Rs.120/- per kg. but the appellants had sold the seed saying to be of high quality, charged Rs.675/- per 450 gms.
5. It was further pleaded that on 5.5.2007 and 8.5.2007, the representative of the appellants visited the house of the respondent. Some other villagers were also present there. The family members of the respondent sown the seed @ 2 packets per acre. The respondent spent huge amount to make sure good growth of the cotton crop. He used 50 kgs. per acre DAP and 100 kgs. Urea fertilizer per acre and also spent on cultivation, irrigation, spray and fertilizers etc.
6. It was further pleaded that the growth of the plants was very poor. The matter was taken up with the appellants but there was no response. The respondent filed an application with the agriculture department. The officials of the agriculture department visited the fields of the respondent and found the loss as under:- F.A. No.1330 of 2009 3
S. No. Area Village Loss Per Acre 1. 10 Acre Patti Taza 64% 2. 7 Acre --do-- 50% 3. 7 Acre --do-- 85% 4. 1 Acre --d-- 85%
7. It was further pleaded that the average yield of the cotton crop was expected to be 14 to 16 quintals per acre and the market rate was Rs.2500/- per quintal. As such, the respondent has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/- due to less yield from 25 acres of land. The respondent had spent an average amount of Rs.14,000/- per acre on various components. Therefore, the amount of expenditure on 25 acres of land came to be Rs.3,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.1,40,285/- was spent on fertilizers and Rs.3,00,000/- were claimed as compensation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, "the District Forum"), for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. Costs were also prayed.
8. The dealer filed the written reply. It was denied for want of knowledge if the respondent and his family members owned 25 acres of land or if they were joint or if they owned any land in village Patti Taza and village Burj Mohar. It was however admitted that the appellants used to arrange a seminar at Abohar and used to visit a number of villages in Tehsil Abohar and distributed pamphlets advertising their cotton seed. It was denied if the appellants had persuaded the respondent to purchase the seed in question. Rather, every farmer wanted to sow this seed in his fields, the seed being of good quality.
9. It was admitted that the dealer had sold the seed to the respondent at Malout for which bills were issued. It was denied if the rate of sold seed was higher than the rate of seed available in the open market. It was pleaded that the appellants had recommended the dosage of packets as was recommended by the producers. It was denied if the appellants had made any promise about the yield. The yield F.A. No.1330 of 2009 4 depended upon so many external as well as environmental factors. Therefore, no such express guarantee of the yield could be given. It depended upon the seed rate, climatic conditions, water intervals, sowing of seed in depth, attack of pests and diseases, fertilizers/pesticides dosages, soil and water etc.
10. It was further pleaded that the respondent has nowhere stated if he had taken sufficient precautions and skilled labour while sowing the seed. There is no pleading if the insecticides were sprayed on proper intervals and as recommended. It was denied if the seed was of inferior quality. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the dealer. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
11. Appellants no.2 & 3 had almost made identical pleadings as pleaded by appellant no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The respondent has filed his affidavit as Ex.C1. He also proved the documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C22.
13. The dealer appellant no.1 filed affidavit of Surinder Singh its Proprietor as Ex.R1. Ravi Kant, Authorized Signatory of Nuziveedu Seed Limited appellant no.2 has filed his affidavit as Ex.R2.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 12.8.2008 and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
15. Hence, the appeal.
16. The prayer of the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 12.8.2008 be set aside.
First Appeal No.1326 of 2008:-
17. The prayer of the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the amount of compensation be increased.
First Appeal No. 1330 of 2008:-
F.A. No.1330 of 2009 5
18. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
19. The appellants have denied for want of knowledge if the respondent constituted a Joint Hindu Family of if he along with family members owned 25 acres of land. But the respondent has proved a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2001-02 as Ex.C20 according to which, Gurdeep Singh (father of the respondent) is the owner in possession of the land measuring 119 Kanals 12 Marlas. Malkiat Singh respondent has been shown to be the owner of 28 Kanals 10 Marlas and Kuldeep Singh (brother of the respondent) is shown to be the owner of 29 Kanals 11 Marlas. He has also produced a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as Ex.C19. As per this jamabandi, Sukhpal Kaur mother of the respondent was owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanals 10 Marlas and Jaspreet Singh son of Gurdeep Singh was the owner of 8 Kanals 10 Marlas of land. Therefore, the family is proved to be the owner of 25 Killas of land.
20. It has been admitted by the appellants that they had held a seminar for advertising the quality of seed produced by appellants no.2 & 3. Copy of advertisement is proved as Ex.C4.
21. It is also not denied that the respondent had purchased this seed from the shop of the dealer. Otherwise also, copies of the bills have been proved as Ex.C2 to Ex.C3. The respondent also proved other bills Ex.C5 to Ex.C18 by which he had purchased other components like fertilizers, insecticides etc from various shops for getting good produce from the cotton seed which was sown by him in his fields after purchasing the same from the appellants.
22. It is also proved that the cotton seed had not grown up properly on which, respondent had filed an application before the Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Abohar for inspection of his fields. This application was forwarded to the S.D.O.(Civil), Abohar, vide letter dated 8.10.2007 Ex.C21. This application was marked by the Sub Divisional Officer, Abohar to the Assistant Plant Protection Officer for doing the needful. Chaman Lal, Assistant F.A. No.1330 of 2009 6 Development Officer inspected the fields of the respondent along with Sukhdev Singh Brar, Assistant Plant Protection Officer (APPO), Abohar and submitted their report Ex.C22. They found that the seeds have sprouted but the plants had less flowers but the fruit (Tindas) were highly inadequate. They also reported that the seed was of mixed quality and these plants were of uneven size. The loss was assessed as discussed above.
23. As per this report, the respondent had also told that he had sprayed the insecticides/pesticides for 10 times. He had used 50 kgs D.A.C. and 100 bags urea fertilizer per acre and he had spent about Rs.4000/- per acre and he suffered a huge financial loss as cotton crop was damaged in 25 acres of land.
24. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the seed was not got tested by the respondent from the Laboratory as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act or as per the provisions of the Seeds Act. Therefore, the defect in the seed is not proved.
25. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment 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 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 F.A. No.1330 of 2009 7 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)."
26. 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 hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective."
27. Similar submission was advanced before the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment reported as "National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. P.V.Krishna Reddy and others, 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC)" and it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under : -
"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers- respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati F.A. No.1330 of 2009 8 Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
28. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Killa Numbers and Khasra Numbers were not given by the Assistant Plant Protection Officer in his report Ex.C22. This report cannot be made the basis of a judgment. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula reported as "Narender Kumar v. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007 (2) CLT, 683".
29. Submission has been considered.
30. In the present case, the Agriculture Development Officer has specifically reported that he had visited the fields of the respondent Therefore, there was no ambiguity about the fields which were inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer even if killa number or khasra number of the agricultural land of the respondent are not given. In the judgment in Narender Kumar's case (supra), it was not stated by the Agriculture Development Officer if he had inspected the agricultural land of the complainant of that case and he had also not given killa number and khasra number of the land which he had inspected. In these circumstances, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was pleased to hold that the identity of the land was not established. But, as discussed above, in the facts of the present case it has been specified by the Agriculture Development Officer that he had inspected the agricultural land of the respondent measuring 25 Killas. Even the loss of crop in this land is also stated. Therefore, F.A. No.1330 of 2009 9 even if killa number and khasra number was not specifically given in the report that does not affect the identity of the land which has been otherwise proved.
31. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that so many factors are responsible for less production of the crop namely violations of the instructions in the sowing of the seed, lack of attention in maintaining the plants, lack of fertilizers, inadequate rain fall or irrigation, poor quality or inadequacy or over dose of pesticides/insecticides. Hence, it was submitted that it was not only the inferior quality of seed which could lead to less production of the crop.
32. This submission has been considered.
33. It has no merits. It was not the question of germination or non- germination of the seed. In the present case, the situation was that the plants had grown up but the size of the plants was uneven. The plants had born less flowers but the fruit (Tindas) were not developing and the loss was assessed as discussed above. Therefore, it indicates the bad quality of the seed. If the other factors had been responsible, the seed could not have germinated or the plant could have died in the bud stage.
34. In the present case, although the respondent had alleged that the average production per acre would have been 14 to 16 quintals but this production appears to be highly exaggerated. The average production would have been 8 to 10 quintals per acre.
35. The rate of the cotton crop has been pleaded by the respondent to Rs.2500/- per quintal but even this rate has been exaggerated. The rate would have been Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- per quintal, depending upon the quality of the cotton crop.
36. Keeping in view the loss assessed by the Agriculture Development Officer and Assistant Plan Protection Officer in their report Ex.C22, the learned District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre including the amount of loss and compensation for mental tension etc. This rate appears to be proper and reasonable.
F.A. No.1330 of 2009 10
37. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. The costs shall be payable by the dealer appellant no.1 while the main amount of compensation shall be payable by the producers appellants. 38- The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 20.11.2008. 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.
39. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a period of 2 months after the receipt of a copy of this order. If the appellants fail to do so, they would be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% on the outstanding amount of compensation with effect from today.
F.A. No. 1326 of 2008:
40. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant has been awarded interest as discussed above, if the amount is not paid as specified above.
41. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 26.10.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
42. The appeals 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 November 09, 2009.
(Gurmeet Singh)