State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Pal Singh And Company (Regd.) vs Balraj Singh on 26 July, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1016 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 11.08.2006.
Date of Decision: 26.07.2011.
Surinder Pal Singh and Company (Regd.) opposite Punjab Agricultural
University Gate No.2, 5-G, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Amrik Singh;
2. Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh;
Both residents of Village Chappa Ram Singh, Mehta Road, Tehsil
and District Amritsar.
....Respondents.
3. The Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana through its Registrar.
...Proforma Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.05.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.S. Kahlon, Advocate.
For respondents no.1&2 : Exparte.
For respondent no.3 : Sh. Arun Abrol, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Surinder Pal Singh and Company (Regd.), appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Balraj Singh and another, respondents/complainants (hereinafter called as "the respondents") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 2 "the Act"), pleading that the 'Farmer Training Camp" (Kisan Mela) was organized by the Punjab Agricultural University on 25.03.2004 at Gurdaspur and the respondents participated in the same. Proforma respondent-Punjab Agricultural University (hereinafter called "proforma respondent") staged a stall for the sale of the seeds recommended by the proforma respondent at the said camp. The respondents purchased 1 quintal and 20 kgs. of recommended paddy seeds for consideration of Rs.1800/- from the said stall. The variety of the paddy seeds sold to the respondents was named as 'Govinda' which was sold by the appellant and the representative of the company assured the respondents that the seeds are the recommended variety by the Punjab University Ludhiana and are of very good quality and it will yield a bumper crop and thus the respondents purchased the seeds from the appellant on the recommendation of the proforma respondent.
3. Believing the recommendations of the proforma respondent, respondent no.1 sowed the seeds in 13 acres of land and respondent no2 sowed the seeds in his 12 acres of land with the hope of getting good crop of paddy. The respondents took utmost care and sprayed pesticides and fertilizers as recommended by the Agriculture Department from time to time, but only 50% of the paddy crop ripened, 40% of the crop sprouted after ripening of the other 50% crop and 10% crop did not sprout at all. The respondents came to know that the paddy seeds sold to them by the appellant were actually a mixture of three varieties. Had the respondents waited for ripening of the entire crop, then 50% of crop should have been destroyed as the same would fall and in case 50% of the fully ripened crop is harvested, then other 50% would be destroyed along with. The Govt. agencies like Food Corporation of India or the Rice Sheller will not purchase or lift such mixed variety.
4. The respondents had to suffer further monetary loss because they were unable to sow the crop of potatoes and vegetables due to non- ripening of the paddy crop in time. The respondents spent more than First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 3 Rs.6,000/- per acre on the labour for sowing the crop, fertilizers and spray of pesticides. Had the respondents sown any other normal variety of paddy, it would have fetched more than Rs.15,000/- per acre.
5. The respondents approached the proprietor of the appellant and narrated him the entire problem, but he refused to listen anything and asked the respondents to do whatever they like. On seeing the conduct of the proprietor of the appellant, the respondents filed a complaint before the Chief Agricultural Inspector regarding the sale of sub-standard seeds by the appellant and the loss suffered by the respondents. The Chief Agricultural Inspector deputed Agricultural Development Officer, Circle Wadala Johal, Block Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar, to inspect the standing crop of the respondents and to conduct the inquiry and he submitted the detailed report, giving therein a categorical opinion that the paddy seeds sold by the appellant to the respondents were of sub-standard quality and were mixture of three varieties. He also corroborated the version of the respondents, stating that 50% of the paddy crop was ripened, 40% crop sprouted and 10% was not, at all, sprouted. Copy of report was also sent to the authorities of the Punjab Agricultural University, for necessary action but no action was taken. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay compensation of Rs.4.00 lacs for the loss of crop of entire Kharif season and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that respondent no.2 is not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The District Forum at Amritsar had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The appellant and proforma respondent are carrying on their business/functioning at Ludhiana and the alleged camp was organized at Gurdaspur and thus the District Forum has no jurisdiction. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Respondent no.2 has not purchased any goods from the appellant and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of respondent no.2. The appellant is First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 4 only a dealer of the goods in question and the producers of the same are M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited, Bhona Biraha Road, Bazpur and the said producers are the necessary parties. The complaint is not legally maintainable. The transaction in question is of commercial nature and no cause of action has arisen. The civil court is competent to decide the complicated questions of law and facts. The respondent has not sown proper quantity of seed in his fields as per the requirements and recommendations. Farmer is required to sow 8 kgs. of seed per acre, whereas the respondent has sown 120 kgs. of seed in 25 acres i.e. less than 5 kgs. per acre and for that reason, could not claim the desired yield and he himself is responsible for the same.
7. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant never held any stall in the alleged camp for sale of the seeds recommended by proforma respondent. In fact, on 25.03.2004, respondent no.1 came at the business premises of the appellant at Ludhiana and purchased paddy seeds "Govinda" vide bill no.1148 dated 25.03.2004, but the seeds were not recommended by the proforma respondent, rather the same were duly certified by the Indian Agriculture Rice and Research Institution, Delhi, and were certified and packed under the supervision of Uttranchal State Seed and Organic Production Certification, Bazpur. The seeds were tested before packing and appellant never gave any guarantee to respondent no.1. The appellant purchased the packed material and sold the same in packed condition and the manufacturers are M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited, Bazpur. It was duly mentioned in the bill that it should be checked by sample before opening the bag and to purchase 5 days before sowing the seed and after opening the bag, company is not responsible for any complaint about any seed and the crop because the method of sowing is not in company's hand and the company is not responsible for any complaint of loss of crop and disease etc. Respondent no.1 accepted the conditions at the time of purchase and the appellant is not responsible. The stock register of the appellant shows that same type of seeds were sold to different farmers, but no such complaint was First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 5 received. The appellant in the bill has not promised about any yield because the producer is the only authority who is to confirm the yield per acre and in the present case, the producer M/s Pant Nagar University declared that the yield comes to four and a half tones per hectare if all other factors such as preparing of the filed, using of inputs in proper quantity, proper watching, environment condition etc. are as per the recommendation of the authorities concerned. According to the conditions of the proforma respondent, the harvesting had to take place on October, 2004 but in this case, the harvesting was not done in October, 2004 and due to that reason also, the crop of the respondent might have sprouted. Proper procedure was neither adopted by the respondents nor by the Agriculture Development Officer and the said report has no value in the eyes of law. No notice was given to the appellant at the time of inspection nor the appellant was associated at the time of inspection. There is no unjust and unprofessional conduct on the part of the appellant nor the appellant has committed any act of causing mandatory loss or mental agony to the respondents. All other allegations were denied being wrong and incorrect and 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 report of the Chief Development Officer has fully corroborated the version of the respondent against the appellant. The appellant by supplying sub-standard paddy seeds to the respondent, has committed an act which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also indulgence in unfair trade practice. Loss suffered by the respondent is to the extent of 50% of yield, and partly allowed the complaint, directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation to respondent First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 6 no.1 only and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. No relief has been granted against respondent no.2.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.05.2006, 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 appellant.
12. The respondents no.1 & 2 have not contested the appeal and were proceeded against exparte.
13. No argument has been advanced on behalf of proforma respondent no.3.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is only a dealer and he sold the seeds to respondent Balraj Singh vide bill Ex.C2. The seeds were duly certified by Uttranchal State Seed and Organic Production Certification Agency and the certificate is Ex.R5 and the seed analysis report is Ex.R6. The said seeds were purchased by the appellant from M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited vide bills Ex.R8 and Ex.R9. As per recommendations of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 8 kgs. of seeds are sufficient for one acre of land, whereas as per the respondents, 120 kgs. of seeds were sown in 25 acres and that also resulted in loss of yield. The matter was reported to the Chief Agricultural Officers, Ludhiana vide Ex.C3, who deputed the Agricultural Development Officer to inspect the spot and report and the said Agricultural Development Officer submitted his report Ex.C4 as per which, 50% of the paddy crop had ripened, 40% had just sprouted and 10% of the crop had not, at all, sprouted. It was contended that the appellant was not, at all, responsible and respondent no.1 had not sown the seed as per the recommendations of the proforma respondent. No expert was examined. Respondent no.1 sowed different verities of paddy crop which proves that he mixed up the paddy seeds. Reliance has been placed on the authority of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 7 Co. Ltd. Vs Parchuri Narayana", 2009(1) Consumer Protection Cases- 471(NC). It was, thus, argued that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and the same may be set aside.
15. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have scanned the entire material minutely.
16. The District Forum relied upon the report of Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C4 wherein, the said Agriculture Development Officer has observed that 50% of the paddy crop has matured, 40% paddy crop has just sprouted and 10% paddy crop has not, at all, sprouted and there is mixing of three varieties of paddy. He has further mentioned in the report that there was loss of crop sown in 13 acres of respondent Balraj Singh and 12 acres of respondent Jaswinder Singh.
17. The questions to be decided by this Commission is whether the seeds were good quality seeds and the crop was sown as per the recommendations of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana?
18. To answer first question, the evidence on record brought by the appellant proves that respondent Balraj Singh purchased the seeds from the appellant vide bill Ex.C2. Perusal of bill Ex.C2 shows that paddy seeds "Govinda" were sold in three bags weighing 30 kgs. and the total weight was 90 kgs. and another bag of 30 kgs. was also sold vide this bill. Certificate Ex.R5 was issued by Uttranchal State Seed & Organic Production Certification Agency, as per which the certified seeds were sold to M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited of the quality of "Govinda" on 19.03.2004 and the Seed Analysis Report Ex.R6 was issued on 19.02.2004 and the said M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited sold the same to the appellant. Paddy seeds certified "Govinda" was sent by M/s Goyal Seeds (P) Limited to the appellant vide Ex.R9.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the seeds were duly certified on the basis of analysis report and the same were purchased by the First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 8 appellant and were sold to respondent no.1 Balraj Singh and there was no question of mixing of three kinds of seeds on the part of the appellant.
20. As per the recommendations of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana 8 kgs. of seeds were sufficient for sowing paddy in one acre of land, but the respondents purchased 120 kgs. of seeds which were sown in 25 acres of land, whereas 200 kgs. of seeds were required and this negligence is on the part of the respondents and not on the part of the appellant. The Agriculture Development Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the seeds were not of good quality and for that reason, 50% of the paddy crop ripened, 40% just sprouted and 10% not sprouted. Rather, he has mentioned that there is mixing of three varieties. The respondents have miserably failed to bring on record any evidence to show that the mixing of the seeds was done by the appellant. The respondents have not examined any expert to find out the quality of the seeds and in such a situation, the liability cannot be fastened on the appellant. In case Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs Parchuri Narayana (supra), in Para No.12 (relevant portion), it was observed as follows:-
"Question regarding quality of seeds produced by the petitioner ought to have been determined following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not on the basis of assumptions or presumptions as have been done by authorities below.
21. In view of above discussion, the order of the District Forum is palpably wrong and against the facts and evidence on record and cannot be sustained.
22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 22.05.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants is dismissed. No order as to costs.
23. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest First Appeal No.1016 of 2006 9 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
24. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.07.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member July 26, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)