State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hazoor Singh vs Goyal Pesticides And Fertilizer & ... on 27 September, 2022
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.300 of 2022
Date of Institution : 19.04.2022
Date of Reserve : 13.09.2022
Date of Decision : 27.09.2022
Hazoor Singh aged about 43 years son of Labh Singh resident of
House No.349, Bamu Patti, Village Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha,
District Shri Muktsar Sahib.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Goyal Pesticides and Fertilizer, Bathinda Road, Doda, Tehsil
Gidderbaha, District Shri Muktsar Sahib through its Proprietor
/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Kamboj Export, Bajaj Market Indri-132041, Karnal (Haryana)
An ISO 9001-2008 and EMS 14001-2004 Certified Company-
Manufacturer Company of the Kamboj Paddy Seeds.
........Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 02.03.2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Ravish Bansal, Advocate For the respondents : Ex-parte HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Complainant-Hazoor Singh against the order dated
02.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No 300 of 2022 2 Commission, Sri Muktsar Sahib whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant-Hazoor Singh was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Instant complaint was filed by the complainant with the facts that he being an agriculturist and earning his livelihood from the agriculture on the land situated in the area of Village Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 for purchasing the seeds in order to grow paddy on his land. On the allurement of the opposite party, he purchased the top quality and best seeds for the paddy from Kamboj Seeds. Assurance of good results was given by the opposite parties. On the given assurance, seeds were purchased by him of brand PUSA 1401, vide Bill No.GPFS00020 dated 02.05.2019 for Rs.3,500/-. A guarantee was given for the originality of the seeds and it was also assured that he will get yield of 30 quintal per acre. He also paid Rs.24,000/- for contractual labour and wages and he also put the fertilizers, spray and DAP etc in the fields and in all this around Rs.40,000/- was spent. The seeds were sown and after sometime he noticed that growth of the plants was not proper and the quality was not good as there was mixed variety of seeds, to which he informed opposite party No.1 who flatly refused to hear any of his request, therefore, an application was moved before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib First Appeal No 300 of 2022 3 complaining about the sub-standard seeds of Kamboj 1401. During the proceeding, spot was inspected by agriculture authorities on 06.09.2019 in the presence of Makhan Singh, Member Panchayat, resident of Doda, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. A report was submitted by them that the complainant has suffered a big agricultural loss due to sowing of mixed seeds as the main plants of paddy did not grow rather 'Munjan' and other plants has come out from the seeds showing that there was mixing of the seeds. During the inspection, it was noticed that there were 40- 45% plants of mixed seeds due to which the complainant has suffered loss of 40-45% of the crop which caused great tension and harassment to the complainant and no response was given by the opposite parties, so the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission and sought the following reliefs:
i) to refund Rs.3,500/- towards the purchase price of seeds;
ii) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as loss of crop;
iii) to pay Rs.24,000/- for contractual labor wages;
iv) to pay Rs.40,000/- for sprinkling pesticides spray etc.;
v) to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment;
and
vi) to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses;
4. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply, whereas opposite party No.2 did not appear despite First Appeal No 300 of 2022 4 service, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 10.02.2021 by the District Commission.
5. Opposite party No.1 filed its written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant purchased the seeds from Kamboj Export, Kamboj Market, Indri, District Karnal, Haryana, vide Bill Nos.120, dated 23.04.2019 and No.246 dated 10.05.2019 in duly sealed and packed condition and sold the same to the complainant in the same condition. These seeds were not got attested from any prescribed laboratory under the Act to substantiate that seeds supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality. No report has been placed by the complainant on record. Until and unless the seeds got attested from the approved laboratory it cannot be ascertained that seeds sold to him was of inferior quality. The complainant also does not qualify under the Consumer Protection Act as he purchased the seeds for commercial purpose for selling his yield in the market and not for self-consumption and the present complaint is filed just to harass the opposite parties. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and the same is not maintainable as the seeds purchased by him fulfilled the requirement of the Certification provided under the Seeds Act and Rules. The seeds, in question, were in accordance with the procedure and standard of Certification Agency. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the seeds were properly packed and sealed in the manner as prescribed in The Seeds Act and Rules and the opposite party has First Appeal No 300 of 2022 5 been wrongly added. As per the said Act, it requires the manufacturer to ensure the prescribed germination of seed and accurate germination capacity of seed is also mentioned on the marked label on the packet. The crop of the complainant not failed due to the quality of the seed but to the fact that all necessary steps for proper yield was not taken by the complainant. At the time of visit of the Agriculture Officer, no notice was issued to opposite party No.1 about the time of inspection of the field so the inspection report is not prepared with the proper procedure. The Khasra Number, Killa Number Girdawari etc. is not mentioned in the report which shows that the Agricultural Officer himself was not sure about his visit of inspection of the land. No sample was taken from the field of the complainant showing that the Agricultural Officer prepared a false report while sitting in his office in connivance with the complainant. It is further pleaded that germination of seed can be effected through various diseases also and the opposite parties are not liable for the same as per Section 7 of the Seed Rules. On merits, the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied by the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 02.03.2022 First Appeal No 300 of 2022 6
7. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for setting aside impugned order dated 02.03.2022 and to allow the appeal.
8. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents/opposite parties through Registered Post but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 06.07.2022.
9. I have heard the contentions of the appellant and have carefully gone through the record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the appellant/complainant is an agriculturist owing the land of 6 acres in the area of Village Doda, Tehsil Giddarbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. He purchased 28 kg PUSA 1401 seed on 02.05.2019 from respondent/opposite party No.1. The appellant/complainant sowed these seeds in his 6 acres of land. Shortly, he came to know that the plants which grew in the fields were not proper and did not yield good crop. He immediately contacted respondent/opposite party No.1 and informed about this matter and requested to solve the problem. He also moved an application before the Agricultural Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib and Committee consisting of ADO, Assa Butter and AEO, Kotli Ablu inspected the field of the appellant/complainant on 06.09.2019 and submitted the report mentioning therein that the First Appeal No 300 of 2022 7 appellant/complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of 40-45% of the crop due to faulty seeds.
11. The respondent/Opposite party No.1 before the District Commission admitted the sale of seeds, in question but they asserted that they purchased the seeds from respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 i.e. Kamboj Export, Bajaj Market, Indri, Vide Bill No.120 dated 23.04.2019 and 246 dated 10.05.2019 and sold the same to the appellant/complainant in the same condition. He alleged that respondent/opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer and supplied the seeds in sealed packets. He asserted that the complaint of the appellant/complainant is not maintainable as the appellant/complainant has not got tested the seeds from approved laboratory as provided under the Act so it cannot be ascertained that the seeds was of inferior quality.
12. The District Commission rejected the complaint of the appellant/complainant on the ground that the Technical Report was given on 06.09.2019, Ex.C-7 whereas application for inspection was moved by the appellant/complainant on 09.09.2019, vide Ex.C-6 and disbelieved the report of the Committee of ADO by stating that how they inspected the field prior to the complaint of the appellant/complainant and the ambiguity about the date has not been explained by the appellant/complainant or the witness at any time. Although, the appellant/complainant has annexed the photographs of the officials of Agricultural team dated 25.09.2019 timing 1:37 p.m. but finding the fact that in the technical report the First Appeal No 300 of 2022 8 date has been mentioned as 06.09.2019 then these photographs does not even proves and justifies the visit of the team at the spot and has not relied upon this technical report and dismissed the complaint.
13. I disagree with this finding of the District Commission because the Members of the team who are from Agricultural Development are the government officials and they need not to tell the lies before the authorities just to help the appellant/complainant who is a simple villager. Even if they visited the land of the appellant/complainant prior to the application does not go against the complainant because as informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that a number of complaints are pending against the respondents/opposite parties regarding sale of spurious seeds and these teams are regularly visiting the agricultural land to assess the loss of the crops and in that very process technical team had also visited the fields of the appellant/complainant on 06.09.2019 and gave their proper report mentioning that the condition of the crop in the fields of the appellant/complainant was a result of mixed seeds which cannot be brushed aside just due to the discrepancy of the dates mentioned therein which can be typographical error also.
14. Moreover, respondent/opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the seeds and the same fact is also admitted by respondent/opposite party No.1 that they used to purchase the seeds from respondent/opposite party No.2 in the packets. In that First Appeal No 300 of 2022 9 eventuality, both the parties are governed under the provisions of Section 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966 which requires a certification of certified agency or from the Central Certification Board. The provisions of Section 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Seeds Act envisaged as under:
"6. Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc.- The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify-
a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;
b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which such mark or label may contain.
7. Regulation or sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-
a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;
c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof specified under clause (b) of section 6; and
d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.
8. Certification agency- The State Government or the Central Government in consultation with the State First Appeal No 300 of 2022 10 Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a certification agency for the State to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification agency by or under this Act."
15. These provisions clearly provides that a certificate is required for the sale of seeds in open market to the customers but no such certificate as well as analysis reports of the seeds, in dispute, of any recognized laboratory is produced by the respondents/opposite parties before denying the claim of the complainant because the presumption cannot be drawn that seeds, in dispute, which were purchased by the appellant/complainant were not of inferior quality. If they would have produced such certificate then the onus would have shifted to the appellant/complainant to prove that seeds, in dispute, was of inferior quality and then the test was mandatory from the appropriate laboratory but in the absence of any such certification, onus remains with the respondents/opposite parties to prove that the seeds sold by them was certified and of good quality. This clearly proves that the seeds which were sold by the respondents/opposite parties to the appellant/complainant were of sub-standard quality, due to which the appellant/complainant has suffered a loss.
16. I also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506 observing that it is probable that that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by First Appeal No 300 of 2022 11 them and they were not in a position to send the seeds for analysis. In order to prove that the seeds sold to the complainants were sub- standard/defective, the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it had failed to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on the ground of his having not sent the sample of seeds for testing to the laboratory. The complainant led the evidence of State's Agricultural Department in respect of his case, who also deposed before the District Commission after seeing the crop in the fields. The onus passes on to the petitioner to prove that the seeds, which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so."
17. Sequel to the above discussions, I am of the view that the District Commission is not justified in disallowing the complaint of the appellant/complainant only on some technical error or some typographical error. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is set aside.
18. The appellant/complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as loss of crop. As alleged, the complainant owns 6 acres of land and he sown the paddy in this 6 acres of land and approximate 30 qtl. paddy grows in 1 acre. As per the Assessment Report 40% of the crop were affected due to the mixed seeds. The Minimum Support Price of the paddy in the year 2019 was Rs.1750/- per qtl. and accordingly the average of 1 acre of paddy comes to Rs.52,500/- and for 6 acres Rs.3,15,000/-. As per the Assessment Report, the crop of the appellant/complainant was First Appeal No 300 of 2022 12 affected upto 40% of the total crop. Accordingly, the appellant/complainant is entitled to 40% compensation on account of loss occurred to the crop due to mixed seeds.
19. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is partly allowed and following directions are issued to the respondents/opposite parties:
i) to refund an amount of Rs.3,500/- paid against the bill Ex.C-2 along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 03.06.2020 till realization;
ii) to pay Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.3,15,000/- - Rs.1,89,000/-) for agricultural loss of paddy along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 03.06.2020 till realization;
iii) to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
20. The compliance of the above order shall be made by the respondents/opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER September 27,2022 parmod