State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhmander Singh vs Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. on 8 July, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.406 of 2012
Date of Institution: 03.04.2012.
Date of Decision: 08.07.2015.
Sukhmander Singh son of Sampuran Singh resident of Village
Kingra Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Kanchanjunga Building, 18,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its Manging Diretor.
2. M/s Shiv Narian Periwal and Sons, SCF No.78, New Grain
Market Malout District Sri Muktsar Sahib, through its
Prop./Partner.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
27.02.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sri Mukatsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate. For the respondents : Sh. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate. .............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against respondents herein (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 27.02.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sri First Appeal No.406 of 2012 2 Mukatsar Sahib (in short, "the District Forum"), dismissing the complaint of the complainant.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he being an agriculturist of village Kingra Tehsil Malout District Sri Muktsar Sahib contacted OP no.2 for purchase of wheat seeds for sowing his Rabi Crop in 8 acre of his land. Op no.2 assured the complainant that the seeds of PBW 343 and PBW 502 were best quality of seeds and, thus, promised the appropriate yield of the above said seeds of 20 quintals wheat per acre, if the instructions were complied with as imparted by OP no.2. The complainant purchased 4 bags PBW 343 and four bags of PBW 502, each bag weighing 40 kgs. each, vide bill invoice no.2816 dated 06.11.2010 for an amount of Rs.8000/-. The complainant used the spray and also put the fertilizer of urea DPA and properly watered the crops of 8 acres of land. In the month of December 2010 and January 2011, the complainant noticed that the growth of wheat crop was not good, despite his best efforts. The complainant approached the Agriculture Development Officer, Malout in this regard and moved an application to him for inspecting the spot and to report about the deficient quality of seeds. Mr. Hassan Agriculture Development Officer Malout inspected the fields of complainant on 28.02.2011 and reported that there was uneven height of plants of wheat crop, which was due to substandard quality of seeds and the First Appeal No.406 of 2012 3 percentage of adulterated seeds. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP no.2 and asked them that the yield of crop was not as per their assurance and he suffered a loss due to substandard quality of seed sold to him against price. OP no.2 had not cared about it and rather ignored it. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/- due to supply of substandard quality of seeds by OP no.2 to him. The complainant served notice through advocate Sh. Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Advocate Chandigarh upon the OPs on 05.04.2011 to compensate him, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.1,40,000/- on account of loss of crops due to substandard quality of seeds sold to him and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complainant has not filed any documentary proof that he purchased the seeds from OP no.1 and also sown them in his agriculture land. The complainant has not filed the original bill for purchase of seeds and the proof of ownership of land. The complainant has not proved that the seeds supplied to him against price were of substandard quality. Mere variance of height of plants is not enough to bring the complaint for the complainant. The productivity of the crop depends upon various factors like fertilizers, pesticides, pest & fungal infestation used by the complainant, inadequate rain fall or irrigation and also due to poor quality or First Appeal No.406 of 2012 4 inadequate or over-dose of pesticides/insecticides used by the complainant and due to negligence of the agriculturists. The complainant is at fault due to his own acts. The maintainability of the complaint was questioned by OP no.2. It was further pleaded that complainant merely relied upon the inspection report of Agriculture Development Officer, which is not of any consequence to prove the case of the complainant. The report did not disclose as to on what basis, the Agriculture Development Officer came to the conclusion that there were mixture of 15 to 20% of seeds and they were of substandard quality. It was further pleaded that report is not given by any expert person and report is also silent as to how much seeds were sown and particulars of the land have not been given in it. It was further pleaded that there is no laboratory test report under Section 13(1)(C) of the Act by the complainant to prove the substandard quality of seeds. No sample was sent for analysis to the laboratory. OP no.1 further pleaded that certification of the seeds was done by the Punjab Seed Certification Authority after verifying that the seeds conformed to the standards laid down under the Seed Act. It was denied that complainant is the owner in possession of any agriculture land. OP no.1 controverted the averments of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP no.2 filed its separate written reply raising preliminary objections that it is the dealer of seeds in question. It received the seeds in question duly packed and sealed condition from OP no.1. It First Appeal No.406 of 2012 5 sold the seeds to the complainant in the same condition and hence no liability could be fastened on it. It was further pleaded that OP no.2 is only the dealer and holds a valid licence for selling the seeds, duly issued by the Agriculture Department in the State of Punjab. It was further maintained that OP no.2 only sells the superior quality of seeds and the complainant has not followed the terms and conditions and the complainant himself has not sown the seeds, as per instruction and guidelines issued by the OPs. The instant case is covered under the Seeds Act 1966 and no laboratory test report under Section 13 (1) (C) of the Act is produced on the record by the complainant. It was further pleaded that OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the seeds and it has a very well equipped laboratory, where all the lots of products are stringently checked before their release in the market. OP no.1 has also research centre, where field tests of the product are done before their release in the market. On merits, OP no.2 also contested the complaint of the complainant on the ground that no notice was issued to OP no.2 for inspection of the field. OP no.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Mukesh Kumar authorized person Ex.OP-A, copy of authority letter Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Naveen Paidiwal Prop. Ex.OP-2/A alongwith First Appeal No.406 of 2012 6 other documents Ex.OP-2/1 to OP-2/3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Sri Mukatsar Sahib dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order under challenge in this appeal. Dissatisfied with the above order, the complainant, now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant primarily on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (C) of CP Act, as the sample of the seeds was not got analyzed from the recognized laboratory under the above Act. The District Forum observed in the order that there must be report of laboratory under Section 13(1) (C) of the above Act to prove any defect in the quality of the seeds. The District Forum attached weightage to this point in dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The counsel for the OPs, now respondents, submitted that the observation of District Forum is justified, because no defect in the quality of seeds can be proved without the report of the laboratory. It was further argued by counsel for the OPs that complainant has not applied to the District Forum for sending the sample of seeds under Section 13(1) (C) CP Act to prove the substandard quality of the seeds in question. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant, now appellant contended that a farmer is not expected to preserve the costly seeds for future use as First Appeal No.406 of 2012 7 sample, when he purchased the seeds for their use in the fields. The counsel for the appellant relied upon law laid down by the Apex Court in "National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another" 2012(2)CLT-382/383, wherein the Apex Court has held that the reports of agriculture experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds- After examining the reports, the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide sample of the seeds for getting the same analyzed/tested in an appropriate laboratory- The procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Act- The appellant cannot seek annulment of well- reasoned orders passed by the Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1) (C) of the Act had not been followed. It is, thus, evident from the cited authority of the Apex Court that where there is no laboratory report under Section 13(1) (C) of the Act, the procedure adopted by the District Forum in placing reliance on the report of agricultural experts report is in no way contrary to Section 13(1) (C) of the Act. The Apex Court further held that farmers/growers and other consumer of seeds are the consumers and the Act would be applicable to them since, the farmers purchased the seed by making payment. The Apex Court further held that the remedy of the farmer to approach the Consumer Forum has not been taken away by the Seeds Act, 1966 and First Appeal No.406 of 2012 8 complaint is maintainable. A farmer is not expected to preserve the costly seeds as sample for future use, when he purchase them as he could not foresee such eventuality at that time. The contention of OPs is not accepted by us, as the observation of District Forum is not sustainable on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred authority.
7. The complainant specifically pleaded in the complaint that there was no proper growth of wheat crop in the month of December 2010 and January 2011 and he applied to Agriculture Development Office Malout for inspection of his affected fields. Mr. Hassan Agriculture Development Officer Malout after inspection found 15-20% adulteration of seeds. The complainant also placed on record his affidavit in support of his averments Ex.C-1, which can be duly taken into account by us. It is the version of the complainant on oath in this regard. Ex.C-2 is the retail invoice regarding the purchase of above referred seeds by the complainant from OP no.2 against price, as detailed in it. Ex.C-3 is the application moved by the complainant to the Agriculture Development Officer Malout complaining mixtures of seeds sold to him by the OPs. Mr. Hassan Agriculture Development Officer inspected the crop of the complainant on 28.02.2011 and the report Ex.C-5 is on the record. From perusal of this report, it is evident that the complainant had sown the wheat crop with above seeds in 8 acres of land. The Agriculture Development Officer Malout found the growth of the First Appeal No.406 of 2012 9 plants uneven as some were tall and some were stunted in height. He found 15-20% mixtures of the seeds, proving that they were of substandard quality. The report of above said officer Ex.C-5, who is also an officer of Punjab Government in Agriculture Department, cannot be discarded from the purview of evidence on the record. The Agriculture Development Officer Malout has no enmity with any of the party, nor has any motive to help any party. He is wholly disinterested official witness and his report carries weightage in our opinion. It is proved on the record that there were 15-20% contaminated seeds of wheat supplied to the complainant, which were sown by him in his field. Ex.C-5 is a material document, which cannot be discarded lightly by us. We also rely upon law laid down by the National Commission in "M/s Dharam Pal & Sons & others Vs. Som Parkash" 2014(3) CLT-186/187, wherein it has been held by the National Commission that Officers of Agriculture Department inspected the fields and submitted their report. Complaint accepted on the basis of report of Agriculture Department. Plea of OP that laboratory test was not got done by the complainant is not tenable. It was held by the National Commission that the report of Agriculture Officer is clear that complainant suffered loss in his paddy crop to the extent of 50% on account of substandard quality of seeds sold to him by the OP in the above case. The complainant also served legal notice upon the OPs, which is Ex.C-6 on the record in this regard. Ex.C-7 is the copy of Khasra gardwari proving that complainant was in possession of the land recorded in it. Ex.C-8 is the jamabandi for First Appeal No.406 of 2012 10 the year 2006-2007 of Village Kingra, Tehsil Malout District Muktsar proving that the complainant is recorded as joint owner of 1/3 share out of 29 kanals 4 marlas of land in Khewat no.64/52, khautoni no.140. There is another jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 of Village Kingra, Tehsil Malout District Muktsar proving his ownership over the land. The complainant Sukhmander Singh is recorded as joint owner of 5/18 share out of 38 kanals of land in Khewat no.63/63.51, khautoni no.139. From perusal of copy of jamabandi which consist of two pages, we find that complainant has been proved to be the owner in possession of 20 kanals of land, which approximated about 3 acres of land. The photographs of the crops are Mark-A to Mark-D showing uneven growth of the plants of wheat of the field of complainant. OP no.1 relied upon the affidavit of Mukesh Kumar on behalf of OP no.1 that seeds were of certified quality and they were not adulterated. Mere difference of height of crop is no ground to prove them to proof of substandard quality, as submitted by the OPs. Affidavit of Navin Periwal partner of OP no.2 is Ex.OP-2/A on the record in support of pleas of OP no.2. He stated in his affidavit OP no.2 held a valid licence for selling the seeds duly issued by the Agriculture Department and it sold the superior quality of seeds only. Ex.OP-2/1 is the copy of licence to carry on the business of a dealer in seeds dated 12.03.2010 of OP no.2. Ex.OP-2/2 is the copy of delivery challan for purchase of seeds by OP no.2 from Hariyali Kisaan Bazaar.
First Appeal No.406 of 2012 11
8. From perusal of above referred evidence on the record and hearing the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is evident that the version of the complainant has been corroborated by the report of official witness Ex.C-5 to the extent that the seeds sold by OP no.2 to the complainant were of substandard quality to the extent of 15-20%. The complainant has been proved to be the owner of near about 3 acres of land. The complainant is not proved to have grown the wheat crop in 8 acres of land. Copy of khasra gardwari and jamabandi placed on record do not support it. The yield per acre of wheat approximately comes to 20 quintals and the yield from near about 3 acres of land would not be more than 60 quintals. Even if there was substandard quality of seeds to the extent of 1/5 share, then the complainant is expected to have suffered the loss of 12 quintals of wheat crop only and not more than that. The wheat crop is in the range of Rs.1500/- per quintal and even by calculating it at the rate of Rs.1500/- per quintal, the loss to the complainant comes to Rs.18,000/-. The complainant is held entitled to Rs.18,000/- for loss of his wheat crop due to 15-20% mixtures of seeds sold to him by the OP no.2. In addition to that, the complainant is also entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. The order of the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib dismissing the complaint of the complainant cannot be sustained in this appeal and the same is hereby reversed. First Appeal No.406 of 2012 12
9. As a result of our above discussions, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 27.02.2012, we hereby accept the complaint of the complainant, now appellant and award the compensation of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant for loss of yield of wheat crop, besides compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. OP nos.1 and 2 are directed to make the payment of the above referred amounts to the complainant within a period of 45 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to receive the interest on the awarded amount @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint before District Forum till actual payment.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER July 08, 2015.
(MM)