State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sardulgarh Cooperative ... vs Thakur Singh on 21 May, 2015
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.1186 of 2011 Date of Institution: 05.08.2011 Date of Decision : 21.05.2015 1. The Sardulgarh Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Sardulgarh (Mansa) through its Chairman/Secretary. 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab Sector 17, Chandigarh 3. Area Manager, Kribhco Company , 22 Ranjit Bagh, Opposite State College of Education, Patiala 147001. 4. Senior State Marketing Manager, Kribhco, SCO No.52-53, Sector 34-A, 3rd Floor, Chandigarh 160022. .....Appellant/Opposite Parties Versus Sh. Thakur Singh S/o Sh.Harbant Singh, resident of Village Nathela, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bhatinda. .....Respondent /Complainant First Appeal against order dated 08.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa. Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None For the respondents : Sh.Abhishek Arora, Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
The appellants (the Opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 08.06.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OPs to pay the compensation amount of Rs.53,438/- jointly and severally to the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- as costs of the litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs now appellants.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he was an agriculturists and OP No.1/Society use to sell cotton seeds to the agriculturists, besides fertilizers and spray and was under the control of OP No.2. The complainant purchased the cotton seeds from OP No.1 on 1.05.2010, vide bill no.5036 through Kribhco Company for total price of Rs.3700/- against cash price. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that cotton seeds were of superior quality and would, thus, give good yield. It was further assured to the complainant that in case there was less yield, then complainant would be compensated accordingly by the OPs. The complainant sowed cotton seeds in his land and found that height of the plants was uneven and some of the plants did not even bear fruits and were stunted in growth. The complainant sowed his cotton seeds in two acres of agriculture land and also used sprays, but found no positive results therewith, despite spending Rs.7490/- therefrom. He lodged the complaint with the Chief Agriculture Department of the area in this regard. It was intimated to complainant by the above authority that the less yield was due to defective seeds supplied to complainant. As per report of the Agriculture Department, the complainant gathered the yield of 4.16 quintal per acre instead of the average yield of 8.1 quintal per acre of cotton. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.45,000/- due to less yield of the cotton crop. The complainant also incurred the expenses of Rs.20,000/- on spray, labour and other incidental charges. He suffered total loss of Rs.85,000/- due to sub-standard quality of the cotton seeds, supplied to him by the OPs. He has, thus, filed the complaint against the Ops claiming compensation of Rs.85,000/- for sub-standard quality of cotton crops supplied to him by OPs.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written reply by raising preliminary objections that complainant has not locus standi to file the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, in as much as Manufacturer Company of the seeds has not been impleaded as a party in this complaint. The good yield of the cotton crop was dependent upon many factors like pesticides, irrigation, fertilizers and so on. The complainant has not got the seeds tested from the recognized laboratory and hence there is no non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Section 13(1) (c ) of the Act. It was further averred that OP No.1 and 2 purchased the BT Cotton seed of Kribhco Raja and Kribhco Ajay from Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd Bathinda through the bills in sealed condition and sold the same to the farmers in the same condition and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP No.1 and 2 do not prepare the seeds and they are prepared and packed by Nuzibeedu Seed Pvt. Ltd and sister concerns M/s Prabha Agri Biotech Ltd. Hyderabad and M/s Kribhco Company is a Cooperative Company of State Level of India and this company sells a good deal of the seeds to the farmers to improve the agriculture system. It was further averred that seeds are required to be sown in the good quality land for good produce and soil was required to be tested from the laboratory as well. OPs controverted the averments of the complaint even on merits on the basis of the above-referred contentions. OP No.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.3 and 4 have filed their joint written reply raising the legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. The jurisdiction of District Forum Manasa is excluded. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacture of the sales because OP No.3 and 4 are the marketing company only. The correct facts are that OP No.3 and 4 are marketing companies. The cotton seeds were purchased through invoice from Kribhco Raja and Kribhco Ajay, Nuzibeedu Seed Pvt. Ltd Bathinda in packed condition. M/s Kribhco Company is a Cooperative Company of State Level of India, which supplied the seeds at high magnitude in the market. The complainant has not got the seeds tested from the recognized laboratory, whereas the production company duly got their seeds tested from Shri Ram Institute, BT Cotton Seeds 450 gm, and Non-BT Cotton Seeds 120 gm and same were purchased in sealed packet and thereafter sold them to the farmers in the same condition by OPs. OP No.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint as filed by the complainant.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of Phoola Singh Ex.C-1, affidavit of Harbans Singh Ex.C-2, affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-3, copy of report of CAO Ex.C-4, receipt Ex.C-5, copy of application Ex.C-6, bill Ex.C-7, copy of legal notice Ex.C-8, postal receipt Ex.C-9. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh , Accountant of Sardulgarh Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Ajaib Singh Ex.C-2, copy of receipt dated 11.5.10 Ex.OP-3, affidavit of Gurnam Singh Ex.OP-4, copy of receipt dated 22.4.10 Ex.OP-5, affidavit of Jaswant Singh Ex.OP-6, copy of receipt dated 26.4.10 Ex.OP-7, copy of receipt dated 1.5.10 Ex.OP-8, affidavit of Virender Singh Ex.OP-9, copy of purchase of bills Ex.OP-10 to Ex.OP-11, test reports of lab Ex.OP-12 to Ex.OP-13, copy of report of seeds Ex.OP-14, pamphlet Ex.OP-15 and Ex.OP-16, copy of seed sale licence Ex.OP-17, copy of list of farmers Ex.OP-18, pamphlet and statements of farmers Ex.OP-19 to Ex.OP-24. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.53,428/- to the complainant for loss of his yield, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- as costs of the litigation due to sub standard quality of seeds sold to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mansa dated 08.06.2011, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs now appellants.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal, whereas none has appeared on behalf of appellants at the time of final arguments in this appeal. In fact, nobody has been appearing on behalf of appellant after 20.11.2014. The appellant has not appeared nor his counsel appeared, hence we propose to dispose of the appeal on the basis of its merits. We have carefully examined the pleadings of the respective parties on the record in this case. The evidence is required to be examined by us on the record to come to the conclusion, whether complainant suffered less yield of the cotton crops due to sub-standard quality of the seeds in this case. Affidavit of Phoola Singh Ex.C-1 is on the record. He has deposited in his affidavit that complainant purchased the seeds from OP No.1 for price and made his land cultivable to sow them. He sowed the cotton crop as per instruction, after putting requisite fertilizers and spraying threin. He further stated that cotton plants did not bear adequate fruits and some of them even remained stunted. He further stated that complainant approached Agriculture Department with the complaint about it and spot was inspected by the Agriculture Officer, where the cotton crop was sown. They stated that less yield was due to defective seeds of cotton sown therein. Similar affidavit has been filed by Harbans Singh, vide Ex.C-2 is on the record. This witness has also sworn that complainant sowed his cotton seeds in two acres of agriculture land and also used sprays, but found no positive results. The complainant Thakur Singh also tendered his affidavit Ex.C-3 on the record in this regard to support his averments. The complainant stated on oath that he purchased the seeds from OP No.1 on 01.05.2010, vide bill no.5036 for total price of Rs.3700/-. He further stated that he was assured regarding good yield of the seeds by OP No.1/Society. He sowed the seeds after preparing his land properly as per instructions, but the crop did not yield good result. He further stated that some of the plants were quite long and some of the plants remained stunted thereof. He further stated the he also sprayed the crops by spending Rs.20,000/-but it was also bootless affair only. He further stated that he suffered loss of Rs.85,000/- for defective seeds supplied to him in this case. He further stated that average yield of other farmers was quite high whereas his average yield of the cotton crop was comparatively on the lower side. Ex.C-4 is report of the Agriculture Officer, Talwandi Sabo to the effect that average yield of the cotton in the block of the area was 8.1 quintal, whereas yield of the complainant was 4.16 quintal. This report of Agriculture Officer has proved this fact on the record that complainant reaped less yield of the cotton crop, whereas average of yield of cotton other adjoining farmers is 8.1 quintal. Ex.C-6 is complaint filed by the complainant to the Chief Agriculture Officer Bathinda in this regard. Ex.C-7 is invoice regarding purchasing the cotton seeds from OP No.1 by complainant against price. Ex.C-8 is legal notice served by the complainant. Ex.C-9 is postal receipt. The complainant based his case on the above-referred evidence on the record.
7. The OPs relied upon the affidavit of Ranjit Singh, Accountant of Sardulgarh Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ex.OP-1 is on the record. He stated that they purchased the BT Cotton seed of Kribhco Raja and Kribhco Ajay from Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited Bathinda through the bills in the sealed condition. They sold the same to the farmers in the same condition and there is no deficiency on their part at all. He further stated that seeds were prepared and packed by Nuzibeedu Seed Pvt. Ltd and sister concerns M/s Prabha Agri Biotech Ltd Hyderabad and M/s Kribhco Company. He further stated that OPs are fully authorized to sell the seeds to the farmers under the Cooperative Law. That no such complaint was received from any other person regarding sub-standard quality of cotton seeds purchased by them from the OPs. Affidavit of Ajaib Singh S/o Gurmukh Singh Ex.OP.2 is on the record that he had gained good crop. Ex.OP-3 is copy of invoice, vide which Ajaib Singh purchased the seeds. Ex.R-4 is affidavit of Gurnam Singh S/o Sahib Singh. Ex.OP-5 is copy of invoice. Ex.OP-6 is affidavit of Jaswant Singh S/o Sh.Hajura Singh. Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8 are copies of invoice. Ex.OP-9 is affidavit of Varinder Singh Area Manager of M/s Kribhco Company. Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 are the document of Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OP-12 is Test Certificate from Shriram Institute for Industrial Research Center. Ex.OP-13 is production certificate. Ex.OP-14 is office memorandum on the record. Ex.C-17 is letter of Registering Authority to M/s Kribhco and other documents on the record have also been considered by us.
8. From the above-referred evidence on the record and hearing submissions of the counsel for respondents in the appeal, we find that it is an undisputed fact that complainant purchased the seeds from OP No.1 and 2. OP No.2 sold 4 packets of cotton seed of variety Kribhco Raja Lot No.5002638 and Kribhco Ajay Lot No.5001711, vide bill Ex.C-7 dated 1.5.2010. They stated that they purchased the seeds from manufactured and packed by Nuzibeedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd and sister concern M/s Prabha Agri Biotech Ltd Hyderabad and OP No.3 and 4 i.e. M/s Kribhco Company, which is a Cooperative Company of the State Level of India. Sale invoices are Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 of Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited reflected against lot no.5001711, 5002638, whereas rest of the columns inclusive total amount of purchase is not recorded. The District Forum rightly drew inference that no quantity of the cotton seeds of these two lots were sold by the Manufacturing Company. Second invoice Ex.C-11 dated 1.04.2010 divulge that quantity of the lot no.5002638 is shown as 80, whereas invoice shows that manufacturing company referred to above, sold 200 packets of lot no.5001711 for an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- to OP No.3 and 4. From examination of Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 further reflected that facts of lot no. 5002638 have been shown to have been sold i.e numbering 219 and 80, but in fact no amount was paid with regard to purchase of these packets have been shown thereon. No invoice of transfer voucher is produced by OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 and 4 to prove that any pact of these two lots of BT Cotton seeds were in fact transferred to OP No.1 and 2 . OP No.1 and 2 later on sold it to the complainant. The District Forum also rightly came to the conclusion that except Ex.OP-12, there is no test certificate available on the record or produced by the OPs in order to show that the seed which were supplied to the complainant and other farmers were properly certified., tested and approved by the competent authority before their sale in the market. The testing authority has specifically mentioned in the test certificate that : sampling was not carried out by the representative of Shriram Institute for Industrial Research. The samples details were provided in the test certificate on the basis of the declaration by the parties alone. The District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that Manufacturing Company after getting production certificate have to get the recommended seeds products tested from the referral laboratory i.e Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) Nagpur , which has not done in the present case. The District Forum rightly concluded that test report Ex.OP-12 on the record with regard to lot no. 5001711 as well as lot no. 5002638 was tested on 23.06.2010 and that too samples were not collected by the representative of the Shriram Institute for Industrial Research Delhi and hence there is no proper evidence to come to the conclusion that whether sampling was proper or not and hence not much reliance can be placed upon document Ex.OP-12 by this Forum. Even stock register has not been produced by the OPs on the record to substantiate their contention. The Agriculture Officer has proved that complainant received less yield of the cotton crop, which was due to defective seeds only in this case and for none else. The order of District Forum, thus, calls for no interference in this appeal by us. The finding of the District Forum are affirmed in this appeal. We affirm the order of the District Forum in this appeal.
9. As a result of our above discussion, appeal of the appellant is found without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.
10. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.26000/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants/opposite parties to the respondent/complainant after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.
11. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 21 2015.
(ravi)