State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harcharan Singh vs Friends Seeds Corner on 27 February, 2013
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.998 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 10.09.2008.
Date of Decision: 27.02.2013.
Harcharan Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh Gill, Resident of Village Sikhanwala Road
Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Friends Seeds Corner, Bathinda Road, near Tinkoni Kotkapura, Tehsil
and District Faridkot through its Prop./Partner.
2. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 905, Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba
Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
24.07.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Surinder Gaur, Advocate, for Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Pankaj Sahota, Advocate, for Sh. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Harcharan Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (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"), on the grounds that he is an agriculturist and purchased two packs of NCS-913 First Appeal No.998 of 2008 2 Ranjit BT Cotton vide invoice no.416 dated 04.05.2007 @ Rs.750/- per pack and paid Rs.1500/-. He also purchased one pack of Ranjeet-913 Cotton Seed vide invoice no.537 dated 09.05.2007 from respondent no.1 which was manufactured by respondent no.2 and paid Rs.740/- in cash. The said seeds were sown as per the instructions given by the respondents and proper fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides were used and proper watering was done.
3. At the time of reaping the cotton crop, the same was only about 30% and the remaining 70% was damaged. The appellant reported the matter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot and Inspector Agriculture V. Hari Nau of Kotkapura reached the spot and reported that the loss is about 70% of the cotton crop. At the time of selling the seeds of cotton crop, the respondents gave full assurance/guarantee to the appellant. The appellant approached the respondents to pay the claim for the damaged cotton crop, but they refused. The appellant suffered lot of mental pain, harassment and agony and there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the appellant is entitled to recover Rs.1.50 lacs as compensation and Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation along with interest @ 18% p.a. and accordingly it was prayed.
4. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.2, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is without cause of action and the appellant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The appellant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(i) (c) of the Act and the Seeds Act. The fields of the appellant were not inspected by the competent and duly authorized person. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the State of Punjab and Govt. of India are necessary parties, as they have permitted respondent no.2 to deal with the seeds in question and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no proof that the seeds purchased by the appellant were of inferior quality. The complaint involves complex questions of law and facts and the matter is liable to be referred to the civil court. The seeds in question were not sown in the proper and First Appeal No.998 of 2008 3 requisite weather. The report of the Agriculture Development is procured in connivance with the appellant.
5. The seed manufactured and sold by the respondents were not of inferior quality and the alleged loss, if any, may be due to the disease of leaf curl virus/Mealy bug and Black Worm. As per the literature of the respondents, there is flowering time of 45 days regarding the seeds in question, but the appellant after purchasing the seeds, never approached the respondents nor reported any defect in the crop. There is no deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the sale printed on the bill and admitted and agreed by him at the time of purchase of the seeds. The story put forward is concocted. No warranty whatsoever was given as the result of the crop is based on numerous factors which are beyond the human control. 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.
7. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.1, similar preliminary objections as taken by respondent no.2 were repeated. On merits, purchasing of NCS-913 Ranjit BT Cotton vide invoice dated 04.05.2007 @ Rs.750/- per pack and payment of Rs.1500/- as well as purchasing one pack of Ranjeet-913 Cotton seed vide invoice dated 09.05.2007 is stated to be matter of record. All other similar pleas as raised by respondent no.2 were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. 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 appellant kept quiet for about five months and has First Appeal No.998 of 2008 4 not reported any defect in the growing of BT cotton crop. The Agriculture Development Officer has also not reported specifically if there was defect in the seed. The growing of cotton crop plants depends upon various factors, like season, fertilizers, rain etc. The non-produce of the full required quality of the cotton/Narma crop cannot be attributed to the seed only. As per the record on the file, the respondents have floated the seed in North India as per permission Ex.R-3 given by the Govt. of India on 20.04.2006. There is also a letter Ex.R-4 from the Registering Authority-cum-Joint Director Agriculture (HYBP), Punjab, Chandigarh dated 20.03.2007 with regard to inclusion of BT cotton varieties in seed licence no.142. The respondents have not supplied the spurious seeds, and dismissed the complaint.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. 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.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum has not considered the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, who clearly stated that there was loss of 70% of the crop. It has been argued that the seeds sold were of inferior quality and of some other quality. The appellant has sown the seeds as per the instructions and took all precautions and used proper insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers etc. and the order passed by the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the seeds sold were of good quality and the produce of the crop depends upon various factors and the seeds were certified and approved by the Govt. of Punjab. The order passed by the District is correct and legal and the appeal may be dismissed.
First Appeal No.998 of 2008 5
14. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the record.
15. The appellant purchased Ranjit-BT seeds vide retail invoice Ex.C-4 for Rs.740/- from respondent no.1 and cotton NCS-138B seeds for Rs.750/- vide invoice Ex.C-5 as well as NCS 138 Kissan Early BT seeds vide invoice Ex.C-6 for Rs.3700/-. Vide Ex.R-3, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, CS Division granted the permission for commercial release of BT cotton hybrid NCS-913 BT and NCS 138 BT in the North Zone by M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. The period of validity of the approval was three years i.e. from April, 2006 to March, 2009. The Registering Authority-cum- Joint Director, Agriculture (HYVP), Punjab, Chandigarh vide Ex.R-4 wrote to M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited regarding inclusion of BT cotton varieties in seed licence No.142. The permission/addition regarding BT seeds sale was valid upto 31.12.2007. The perusal of the invoices Ex.C4 to Ex.C-6 shows that the respondent no.1 sold the same seeds of Nuziveedu which was approved by the Govt. of India as well as Agriculture Department of Punjab. The appellant mainly relied upon the report of Sh. Surjit Singh, Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C-3. The perusal of the same shows that he mentioned in the report that the farmer has sown Ranjit-913 in three acres of land. The growth of the plants was not proper and the same were of different sizes. The fruit was also not as required and the loss was reported 70% while the crop of Kissan Early Seed was proper.
16. The said witness was also examined by the District Forum and in his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot tell about the inputs required for the crop and used by the appellant. The report was prepared by him in the office. He has not joined any respectable person from the village to witness the inspection. He cannot tell if the appellant has sown the seeds of required quantity for one acre. There are so many other conditions for failure of the crop.
First Appeal No.998 of 2008 6
17. Thus, from the statement of this witness also, the loss cannot be attributed to the seeds. The Agriculture Development Officer was an expert and he was supposed to give a detailed report, giving the details of the fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides etc. used, care and caution taken by the farmer, but he simply gave the report that the loss was about 70% and in his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he cannot tell about the inputs required, nor he joined any respectable person from the village. He also mentioned about other conditions for failure of the crop. Even he has not given clear report that the seeds were defective. The appellant has failed to prove that the failure of the crop was due to spurious or inferior quality of the seeds. He has sown three varieties out of which one was proper. Had the seeds been of spurious quality, then all types of seeds should have failed, but Kissan Early seed was found proper by the Agriculture Development Officer. The order passed by the District Forum is based on correct facts and evidence on record and does not require any interference.
18. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 24.07.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.02.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member February 27, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)