State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zimidara Seeds Store vs Jasvir Singh on 4 March, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1620 of 2011
Date of Institution: 09.11.2011.
Date of Decision: 04.03.2015.
Zimidara Seeds Store, through its Sole Proprietor Ved Parkash, Gur
Bazar, Gidderbaha, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Appellant/opposite party no.1
Versus
1. Jasvir Singh son Jangir Singh son of Maghar Singh, resident of
village Sheikh, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
....Respondent no.1/complainant
2. Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., (Regd. Office 273, Kamarajanar Road,
Attur, -636102, District Salem, Tamilnadu
....Respondent no.2/opposite party no.2
3. M/s Madan Gopal & Sons, through its Partner/Prop. Near
Punjab and Sind Bank, Gidderbaha, Tehsil Gidderbaha,
District Sri Muktsar Sahib
....Respondent no.3/opposite party no.3
Appeal against order dated
04.10.2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For respondent No.1 : Sh. A.S. Manaise, Advocate
For respondent No.2&3: Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate.
.............................................. First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 2 J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant (the opposite party no. 1 in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent no.1 Jasvir Singh (the complainant in the complaint) and respondent no.2 and 3 of this appeal (OP no.2 and 3 in the complaint), assailing the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Muktsar (in short, "the District Forum"), partly accepting the complaint of the complainant qua OP no.1 now appellant and directing him to pay Rs.40,500/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to recover interest @ 7.5% p.a.
2. The complainant has instituted this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the allegations that he purchased 4 packets Rashi 34 BG-II cotton seeds on 08.05.2010, vide bill no.38 and book no.02 dated 08.05.2010 along with other seeds worth Rs.6860/- from OP no.1. Cotton seeds so purchased out of them the value of Rs.3200/-, the complainant purchased Rasi134-BG-II cotton seeds of 8 packets from OP no.1 on 12.06.2010 for Rs.6400/-, vide bill no.79 and book no.2 dated 12.06.2010. OP no.1 assured the complainant of good quality of seeds with good yield therefrom. The First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 3 complainant sowed the said seeds in his field of 6 acres of land, as per specifications and directions of OP no.1. That complainant duly applied spray and manure/fertilizer etc. in the fields. The crop of the complainant was not upto the mark and failed to give good yield therefrom due to the sub-standard quality of the above seeds. The complainant when approached OP no.1 was rather misbehaved. Complainant also approached OP no.2 through telephone, but no satisfactory reply was received even from OP no.2 by him. The complainant moved an application to Block Agriculture Officer Gidderbaha with regard to above facts, whereupon Jalour Singh, Agriculture Development Officer was deputed for this purpose and he made the spot inspection and recorded the report that the flowers of crops started falling down and the fruits were not being borne thereon. The leaf curl virus affected the cotton crops and the plants of cotton crops became pale and leafs shriveled and the seeds were adulterated. Seeing no other remedy, the complainant filed the consumer complaint against the OPs, praying for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of damage of crops, Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed the written reply, raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not the consumer, in as much as, he purchased the seeds for commercial purposes with aim of earning profit. This fact was admitted that complainant purchased First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 4 the seeds in question from OP no.1. It was further averred that seeds were duly packed and sealed in the packets and were sold to the complainant by OP no.1. OP no.1 is the retailer of the seeds and is not liable in this case. OP no.1 purchased the seeds in question in duly packed and sealed condition from firm M/s Madan Gopal and sons, Near Punjab and Sind Bank Gidderbaha, vide bills dated 26.04.2010, 30.04.2010 and 02.05.2010 and it is also necessary party in this case. That mandatory procedure with regard to laboratory test, as laid down in Section 13(1)(c) of the CP Act has not been followed in this case. The complaint was also contested even on merits by OP no.1. OP no.1 denied any sub-standard quality of the seeds sold by him to the complainant. OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.
4. OP no.2 filed separate written reply and also contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in the preliminary objections by OP no.2 that complaint of the complainant is misconceived and is unsustainable. The complex questions of facts and law are involved and the matter cannot be entertained and decided by the Consumer Forum in summary proceedings. The seeds act is applicable in the case and hence the complaint does not lie. There is no expert report of the laboratory to prove any contaminated seeds sold to complainant, as contemplated by Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. There could be other causes for less yield of the cotton crop like, lack of care in storage of seeds, First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 5 improper storage of seeds, fungal infection of soil, attack of pests and diseases other than leaf curl virus. The cotton crop could be affected by external causes like environmental condition, unfriendly weather for long time, insufficient humidity and moisture in the soil and so on. It was vehemently denied by OP no.2 that the seeds were of sub-standard quality. OP no.2 also contested the complaint of the complainant, even on merits on the above referred grounds. It also pleaded that report of Agriculture Development Officer is not provided to OP no.2 and he is not competent to give the report. OP no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP no.3 filed its separate written reply, raising preliminary objections that it is the only distributor of the seeds in question. That it sold the seeds to OP no.2. That it holds a valid license for selling the seeds duly issued by the Agriculture Department of the State. That there is non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, as there was no test report of laboratory for sub- standard quality of seeds. That the Agriculture Officer is not expert witness and his report cannot be given any weightage. That complainant never visited OP no.3 in this regard at any time. The complaint was also contested even on merits on the above referred grounds. OP no.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.CW-2/A and affidavit of Nishan Singh Ex.CW-3/A and documents CW-4/A to CW-4/E and First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 6 further tendered documents Ex.C-1 to C-6 and another documents Ex.C-A to C-D and closed the evidence. As against it, the OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ved Parkash Ex.OP-1/A along documents Ex.OP-1/B to OP-1/E and closed the evidence. OP No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavits of Lakhwinder Singh and Mukesh Kumar as Ex.OP-A & OP-B along with documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-7 and closed the evidence thereafter. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Muktsar, partly accepted the complaint of the complainant, as stated above. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Muktsar, the OP No.1 now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents, as none appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of hearing the final arguments of this case. We have also carefully examined the record of the case. The pleadings of all the parties, as contained in their respective cases have been duly examined by us on the record. We have also carefully gone through the affidavit of Jasvir Singh complainant Ex.CW-1/A on the record regarding sub-standard quality of the seeds sold to him in this case. Similarly, we have also examined the affidavit of Ved Parkash, the sole proprietor of OP no.1 on the record. The affidavit of the witnesses relied upon by complainant, vide affidavit of Kulwant Singh Ex.CW-2/A, affidavit of Nishan Singh Ex.CW-3/A have also been considered by us on the record. On the other side, the affidavit of contesting OP nos.2 and 3 First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 7 tendered on the record, vide affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh Ex.OP-A, affidavit of Mukesh Proprietor of M/s Madan Gopal and sons Ex. OP-B have also been examined by us. From perusal of documents on the record and going through the pleadings of the parties and going through the submissions of counsel for the respondents in this appeal, we find that complainant is proved to be an agriculturist. He is dependent upon agriculture for his sustenance in life. Copies of khasra gardwari Ex.C-A to C-D are on the record to substantiate this fact. There is also no dispute between the parties about it that complainant purchased the seed in question from OP no.1, as alleged in the complaint. There is ample document on the record to substantiate this point. We are fortified on the record in this regard, vide bill Ex.C-1 bearing no.38, book no.2, dated 08.05.2010 issued by OP no.1 and another bill dated 12.06.2010 Ex.C-2, vide bill no.79 for Rs.6400/- issued by OP no.1 in favour of complainant on the record. Ex.C-3 to C-6 may also be referred to in this regard. The above referred bills issued by OP no.1 in favour of complainant have established this fact on the record that complainant purchased the above referred cotton seeds from OP no.1. There is no dispute between the parties even on this point. The dispute boils down in this case between the parties to this extent as to whether the seeds purchased from OP no.1, who purchased them from OP no.2 and OP no.2 further purchased them from OP no.3 are of sub-standard First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 8 quality and the less yield of the crop was entirely due to sub- standard quality of the seeds of cotton in this case or not.
8. The entire case of the complainant is based upon on the report of Agriculture Development Officer Jalour Singh, which he made after the spot inspection in this case. The complainant moved application Ex.CW-4/A to Block Development Agriculture Officer, Gidderbaha regarding poor quality of seeds supplied to him and hence it became the cause of inadequate yield of cotton. The affidavit Ex.CW-4/B submitted by the complainant coupled with the report submitted by the Agriculture Development Officer Gidderbaha Ex.CW-4/C is on the record to prove it. It is proved by Jalour Singh ADO that he accompanied by Bhagat Singh, fieldman reached the field of the complainant on 27.09.2010 with the other farmers. He checked the bills produced by the complainant with regard to the cotton seeds, so purchased by the complainant, which complainant grew in his 6 acres of land. He observed that complainant spent Rs.10,000/- per acre for this purpose. The land is leased out @30,000/- per acre in the village. The complainant complained the loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre due to above unsatisfying yield of the crop. The Agriculture Development Officer found the cotton crop of complainant affected with leaf curl virus, which was virtually near the dead point. The cotton plants had become yellow and, thus, the leaves were shriveled. The fruits of the plants were falling down and fruits were not staying properly on the plants. He found that the yield First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 9 would be 50 kg to one quintal per acre at most. He reported that the shopkeeper sold the leaf curl virus affected cotton seeds variety to the complainant. He also recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.CW-4/D and Ex.CW-4/E on the record. This is the sheet-anchor of evidence on the record. On the other hand, submissions of the counsel for the OPs are that there is no report of the laboratory to prove the sub-standard quality of the seeds. That even, the report of Agriculture Development Officer, which was at the back of the OPs, found the crop affected by the leaf curl virus is not binding on them. The submission of the counsel for the OP no.1, now appellant is that there is no evidence on the record to prove that the leaf curl virus was inherent in the seeds or it developed in the cotton crop later on due to some other circumstances. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that even final report regarding the yield of the cotton crop has not been placed on record.
9. The District Forum relied upon, the report of Agriculture Development Officer in this case. We have to examine the statement of Jalour Singh Agriculture Development Officer Gidderbaha, which was recorded before District Forum in this case. His statement was recorded in the District Forum and it would be quite helpful in arriving at the correct conclusion in this case. Jalour Singh, ADO admitted that he has not submitted any date on the report nor the name of father of the complainant therein. He further admitted that leaf curl virus could be caused due to various natural factors. He volunteered First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 10 that these type of variety (Rasi 134) is basically affected with leaf curl virus. He further stated that he is B.Sc. only and have not the degree regarding the seeds. He admitted this fact in his report that he only submitted the report regarding leaf curl virus and not regarding the seeds. He further submitted that he could not say regarding the quality of the seeds without any analysis in the lab. In this view of the statement of Agriculture Development Officer Jalour Singh before District Forum, we are of this view that his report, as admitted by him in his statement, is not conclusive to prove this fact that the seeds, so supplied to complainant were of sub-standard quality. He admitted that he could not say about the quality of the seeds without any analysis in the lab. He admitted that he is not expert in the analysis of the seeds. He admitted that the leaf curl virus could be due to some other factors also. In the circumstances of the case, the report of the lab under Section 13(1)(c) should have been on the record to prove this fact as to whether cotton seeds supplied by OP no.1 to complainant were of sub-standard quality of seeds or of the superior quality of seeds.
10. The District Forum only went by the loss undergone by the complainant in the crop. We have reached this conclusion that the connecting link, which is complainant is required to establish in this case that he suffered the loss in the crop entirely due to bad quality of seeds is not proved on record by him. There is neither any report of the laboratory to prove the sub-standard quality of seeds, First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 11 supplied to the complainant by OP no.1. Even Jalour Singh Agriculture Development Officer in his cross-examination also revealed that his report is not conclusive to place any reliance thereupon regarding this fact that seeds were of sub-standard quality. The affidavits on record of both sides should rebutted by each other.
11. The conclusion arrived at by us, after appraisal of the evidence on the record, is that District Forum reached the conclusion in accepting the complaint of the complainant erroneously. The order of the District Forum Muktsar cannot be sustained in this appeal by us. Consequently, we hold the order of the District Forum Muktsar order dated 04.10.2011, under challenge in this appeal, as erroneous and unsustainable in this appeal.
12. As sequitur of our above discussions, we accept the appeal of the appellant, opposite party no.1 in the complaint and by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Forum Muktsar dated 04.10.2011, the complaint filed by the complainant now respondent no.1 in this appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,250/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant, who deposited them, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1620 of 2011 12
14. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. 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 March 4, 2015.
(MM)