State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S New Mehta Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi, ... vs Om Parkash on 23 May, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.343, 344 and 345 of 2007 Date of Institution: 13.02.2007 Date of Decision: 23.05.2011 Appeal No.343/2007 1. M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Tehsil, District Fatehabad through its Prop. Partners. 2. Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Limited, Plot No.206, Road No.14, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 (Andhra Pradesh) (Producer). 3. Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi 110008 (Marketed by). 4. D.M. Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Divisional Marketing Officer, SCF 88, Sector-6, Karnal. Appellants (Ops) Versus Om Parkash s/o Sh. Mani Ram, Resident of Village Baijalpur Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Respondent (Complainant) Appeal No.344/2007 1. M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Tehsil, District Fatehabad through its Prop. Partners. 2. Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Limited, Plot No.206, Road No.14, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 (Andhra Pradesh) (Producer). 3. Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi 110008 (Marketed by). 4. D.M. Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Divisional Marketing Officer, SCF 88, Sector-6, Karnal. Appellants (Ops) Versus Om Parkash s/o Sh. Mani Ram, Resident of Village Baijalpur Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Respondent (Complainant) Appeal No.345/2007 1. M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar, Anaj Mandi, Bhuna Tehsil, District Fatehabad through its Prop. Partners. 2. Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Limited, Plot No.206, Road No.14, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 (Andhra Pradesh) (Producer). 3. Shri Ram Fertilisers & Chemicals, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi 110008 (Marketed by). 4. D.M. Shri Ram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Divisional Marketing Officer, SCF 88, Sector-6, Karnal. Appellants (Ops) Versus Chhaju Ram s/o Sh. Mana Ram, Resident of Village Baijalpur Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Prem Parkash, Advocate for appellants. Shri D.K. Jangra, Advocate for respondents-complainants. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This common order shall dispose of above mentioned three appeals i.e. appeal No.343/2007 titled as M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar and others vs. Om Parkash; appeal No.344/2007 titled as M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar and others vs. Om Parkash; and appeal No.345/2007 titled as M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar and others vs. Chhaju Ram, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these three appeals.
As all the three appeals are similar situated, therefore, we take the facts from appeal No.343/2007 titled as M/s New Mehta Beej Bhandar and others vs. Om Parkash.
Complainant Om Parkash had purchased 20 packets of cotton seed of the variety known as Shri Ram 6488 bearing lot No.NKGT/5378 for a sum of Rs.8,000/- vide bill No.813 dated 2.7.2005 from the opposite party No.1. The complainant shown the cotton seed in his nine acres of land. The crops grown and became fruit bearing. The complainant noticed that the Tinda (cotton balls) on the plants was not giving cotton properly as the cotton from the unfurled cotton balls was noticed in hard shape which could not give proper yield and proper price. The complainant reported the matter to the District Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad upon which the fields of the complainant were inspected by the officers of the Agriculture Department on 10.11.2005 and it was reported by the Assistant Plant Protection Officer and the Quality Control Inspector of the Agriculture Department, Faridabad that the quality of the cotton crops standing in the fields of the complainant was poor and the same could not be sold in the market. On the basis of the above said report, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint No.56/2006 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,44,000/- on account of loss of crops and Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement, they denied any kind of deficiency in service in supplying cotton seed to the complainant and pleaded that the complainant had purchased cotton seeds in sealed packets. They further stated that the complainant did not mention Killa numbers and rectangle number of the land where the cotton crop was sown by him and the inspection of which was conducted by the Agriculture Officers. The yield of the crop depends upon various factors viz quality of soil, facility of irrigation good manure and insecticides etc. The complainant did not get tested the seed from Forensic Science Laboratory and for that reason the seeds of cotton sold to the complainant by the opposite parties cannot be said to be defective or inferior quality. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
Similar is the position in appeal No.344/2007 which has arisen out of the order passed in complaint No.57/2006. In this case the complainant had purchased two packets of cotton seed of the variety known as Shri Ram Narma 6488 bearing lot No.NKGT/5358 and two packets of Beej of the variety known as Shri Ram 6317 bearing lot No.AJBGG/5401 for a sum of Rs.400/- PER PACKET vide bill No.735 dated 10.5.2005 total amounting to Rs.1600/- from the opposite party No.1 and sown the same in two acres of land.
In appeal No.345/2007 arising out of the complaint No.64/2006 the complainant had purchased 20 packets of cotton seed of the variety known as Shri Ram 6488 bearing lot No.NKGT/5378 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- vide bill No.806 dated
2.7.2005 from the opposite party No.1.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum vide orders dated 09.01.2007 accepted all the three complaints by granting following relief:-
Appeal No.343/2007 (complaint No.56/2006):
we accept the complaint of the complainant and award him a sum of Rs.32,000/- in lieu of compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant in his cotton crops, payable by the Ops who are jointly and severally liable for the same. In addition the Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant in lieu of compensation for mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the respondents.
Appeal No.344/2007 (complaint No.57/2006):
we accept the complaint of the complainant and award him a sum of Rs.32,000/- in lieu of compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant in his cotton crops, payable by the Ops who are jointly and severally liable for the same. In addition the Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant in lieu of compensation for mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the respondents.
Appeal No.345/2007 (complaint No.64/2006):
we accept the complaint of the complainant and award him a sum of Rs.32,000/- in lieu of compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant in his cotton crops, payable by the Ops who are jointly and severally liable for the same. In addition the Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant in lieu of compensation for mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months, failoing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the respondents.
Hence these three appeals before us.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the District Consumer Forum while granting relief to the complainants in all the three cases has mainly relied upon the reports of the Assistant Plant Protection Officer and the Quality Control Inspector of the Agriculture Department, Faridabad Annexure A-1 wherein it was reported that the quality of the cotton crops standing in the fields of the complainant was poor and the same could not be sold in the market. Shri Prem Parkash learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in the above said report it is not mentioned that the variety of the cotton seed was different than that of the seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainants. It has also not been reported in the above said report that the growth of cotton crop was not proper. Rather in the report it has been clearly mentioned that the growth of the plants was appropriate, Tinda (cotton balls) on the plants was also appropriate but those Tindas (cotton balls) were not unfurling very well and the cotton which was coming out from the cotton balls, was in hard shape and the same was not saleable in the market. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the District Forum has erred in relying on the above said cryptic report in as much as it is not in dispute that the Agriculture Officers did not examine the seeds. The proper growth of the cotton balls and the production of cotton from the same not depend upon the seeds but on the kind of soil, proper preparation field, fertilization, pest and disease control, proper irrigation, climatic and seasonal condition conductive to the crop sown etc and merely the crops are not good one, that cannot jump to the conclusion that the seeds are not good. It is further argued that in order to prove that the seeds supplied to the complainants were defective, the procedure as provided under The Seeds Act, 1966 have to be followed which provides that Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of the said Act should take action as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act and Rule 23A of the Seeds (Amendment Rules), 1974 by taking samples of the seeds either from the complainants or from the opposite parties and got them analyzed by the Seed Analyst who has to give report as per Section 16 of the Act. But in the instant case the above said procedure has not been followed, for which the opposite parties cannot be blamed.
In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on case law cited as SONEKARAN GLADIOLI GROWERS versus BABU RAM, II(2005) CPJ 94 (NC), wherein the Honble National Consumer Commission has observed as under:-
5. It cannot be disputed that what the complainant purchased was Gladiola bulb. The dispute will hinge around the quality of material supplied. We have very carefully gone through these two reports which are reproduced earlier as also the examination of Mr. S.P.S. Rana and his cross-examination which is on record. There is not even a whisper about the quality of bulb supplied one way or the other. As per cross-examination of Mr. Rana, the germination of this crop was all right, hence till germination stage no fault could be found. The flowering is a function of several agriculture cropping practices as also the use of inputs, climate, watering etc. There is no material brought on record to say that the prescribed practices was following and inputs used from the very beginning. It appears that the complainant was aiming on the quality of seeds and one of point taken up, related to the bulbs not having been kept under the controlled conditions (cold storage) or otherwise..
On the other hand learned counsel learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-complainants has supported the findings recorded by the District Forum while accepting the complaints and granting relief in view of the reports of the Assistant Plant Protection Officer and the Quality Control Inspector of the Agriculture Department, Faridabad.
Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties. It has been clearly mentioned in the report Annexure A-1 produced in each of the case that the growth of the cotton plants was proper, the Tindas (cotton balls) on the cotton plants was appropriate but the cotton coming out from those Tindas was in hard shape. The report of Assistant Plant Protection Officer and the Quality Control Inspector of the Agriculture Department, Faridabad has nowhere reflect that there was any defect in the cotton seed sown by the complainant. The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to SONEKARAN GLADIOLI GROWERS versus BABU RAMs case (Supra) that The flowering is a function of several agriculture cropping practices as also the use of inputs, climate, watering etc. There is not even an iota of evidence that the cotton seed supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant was of different variety. The report submitted by Assistant Plant Protection Officer and the Quality Control Inspector of the Agriculture Department, Faridabad in no way support the case of the complainants, which is reproduced as under:-
The proper produce of cotton from the Tindas (cotton balls) depends upon type of soil, climatic condition, watering, proper preparation of fields, fertilization, pest and disease control etc. In the instant case there is no evidence on behalf of the complainants that the cotton seeds supplied to them by the opposite parties was defective or different quality. The germination of the seed was proper, the growth of plants and growth of Tinda (cotton balls) on the plants was appropriate. Thus, the opposite parties cannot be connected with any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate all these aspects while deciding these complaints. It is well settled principle of law that while deciding controversy between the parties, rights of both the parties have to be kept in mind in view of the evidence available on record. In the instant cases the evidence produced by the parties, favour the case of the opposite parties.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, the complainants have not been able to prove their cases that the cotton seeds supplied by the opposite parties to them was of inferior quality or the appellants-opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and as such the impugned orders passed by the District Forum in all these three complaints cannot sustain.
Hence, these three appeals are accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaints are dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.18,500/- deposited at the time of filing in each of the appeals be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original judgment be attached with appeal No.343/2007 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.344/2007 and appeal No.345/2007.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 23.05.2011 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member