State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, Kisan Beej Bhandar vs Narad Lal Sahu & Ors. on 23 April, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/14/245
Instituted on : 10.04.2014
Prabandhak,
Kisan Beej Bhandar,
Bus Stand, Samoda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Narad Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Chhanu Lal,
R/o : Village - Parsada, Tehsil Arang, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
2. Incharge Officer,
Agri Gold Foods and Farm Product Limited,
Office - 40-1-21/3, First Floor, Surya Tower, M.G.F.
Vijaywada - 520010 (A.P.)
3. Manager,
Agri Gold Food and Farm Product Limited,
C & F Agent, Meul Agro Limited,
Chandak Market, Street No.1, Fafadih,
Raiur (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri N.M. Sonkala, for appellant.
Shri Amit Patel, for respondent No.1
Shri Rajkishore Yadu, for respondent No.2 & 3.
ORDER
DATED : 23/04/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.809/2011. By the // 2 // impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint in part and directed the appellant (O.P.No.3) as well as respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) to jointly and severally pay within a period of one month a sum of Rs.5,250/- which is cost of the seeds purchased by the respondent No.1 (complainant) and amount of fertilizers and medicines etc. Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.1 (complainant). The appellant (O.P.No.3) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) have further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards labour expenses, compensation for mental agony etc., Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation to the respondent No.1 (complainant). The appellant (O.P.No.3) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) have also been directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.08.2011 till realisaiton on amount of Rs.55,250/-.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the respondent No.1 (complainant) purchased the paddy seeds "Vrihi" as advised by the appellant (O.P.No.3). At the time of purchase of the paddy seeds, the appellant (O.P.No.3) told that by cultivating Vrihi paddy the productivity of the crop, is higher and its productivity is 35 qtls. per acre. On being influenced and the assurance given by the appellant (O.P.No.3), the respondent No.1 (complainant) purchased paddy seeds from the shop of the appellant (O.P.No.3) for his two acres agriculture // 3 // land. The respondent No.1 (complainant) sown the above seeds in his field as per procedure prescribed by the appellant (O.P.No.3), respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). Gradually the plants were grown but there are differences in the height of the growing plants. Some plants are growing quickly and some plants are growing slowly. Seeing the condition of the crop, the respondent No.1 (complainant) made complaint regarding poor growth to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and requested to inspect the crop. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) inspected the plants and accepted that the seeds are of substandard quality and orally assured the respondent No.1 (complainant) to give compensation and requested the respondent No.1 (complainant) not to make any complaint anywhere. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) did not give any reply inspite of lapse of 1-2 months then the respondent No.1 (complainant) had taken some plants in the office of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1), then the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) again accepted that the seeds are of substandard quality and assured the respondent No.1 (complainant) that he will provide seeds for next crops to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and will also pay compensation for the loss suffered by the respondent No.1 (complainant) in the current year. But when after some time, the respondent No.1 (complainant) contacted the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) then the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) refused to give any assistance or to pay any amount of compensation.
// 4 // The respondent No.1 (complainant) sent notice through his advocate to the appellant (O.P.No.3), respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) on 26.02.2011 but they did not give any reply to the notice and did not pay any compensation. Therefore, the respondent No.1 (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) have filed their joint written statement and averred that the present complaint is not maintainable due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties and the respondent No.1 (complainant) has only made Incharge Officer and Manager whereas the Agri Gold Foods and Farms Products Limited is a limited company which is represented by its directors. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) are not dealer and sub dealer of the above company whereas they are company dealer and sub dealer. The above company is not dealer of BT paddy and the BT paddy is prohibited by the Government and the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) are not manufacturing and selling the said product. The seeds sold by the appellant (O.P.No.3) are not the seeds which were supplied by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) never supplied BT paddy seeds to the appellant (O.P.No.3).
// 5 // The credit / cash memo dated 19.06.2010 produced by the respondent No.1 (complainant) is of Kisan Beej Bhandar, Samoda, from which it is clear that the appellant (O.P.No.3) had not sold the hybrid paddy which were supplied by the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). In the above cash memo it is not mentioned regarding batch no., manufacturing date and date of expiry. It is also not mentioned in the above cash memo regarding the name of the manufacturing company of the above paddy seeds. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has not purchased the paddy seeds from the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) further averred that in the registered notice sent by the respondent No.1 (complainant), he make averment that he purchased the 30 kg paddy seed from the appellant (O.P.No.3) @ Rs.200/- per kg for 3 acres land, whereas in the complaint he averred that he purchased the paddy seeds for 2 acres land and as per cash memo it appears that the value of the 30 kg @ Rs.525 per bags comes to Rs.5,250/-. Thus there is difference in averment in the documents produced by the respondent No.1 (complainant) and the averment made in the complaint. At the time of selling of the hybrid seeds, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) provides important information to their customers in the printed document, according to which per acre 4 to 6 kg paddy is to be sown and as per guidelines various type of chemical // 6 // fertilizers are required to be used at different time. Probably the respondent No.1 (complainant) has not followed the guidelines. The bill which was produced by the respondent No.1 (complainant) regarding purchase of the fertilizer, it was not the chemical fertilizer. It is also essential for the respondent No.1 (complainant) to prove that the fertilizer was manured in the field in the prescribed manner and in time, but the respondent No.1 (complainant) could not follow the instructions given in the literature. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has not made clear that he sown the seeds by following which procedure. There is no defect in the seeds sold to the respondent No.1 (complainant). The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) have not committed any deficiency in service. The respondent No.1 (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2).
4. The appellant (O.P.No.3) filed his written statement and averred that the respondent No.1 (complainant) had purchased paddy seeds BT from the shop of the appellant (O.P.No.3). The crop was damaged due to negligence of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and the appellant (O.P.No.3) has only sold the paddy seeds to the respondent No.1 (complainant) and all the proceedings regarding the crop is related to the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) . The appellant (O.P.No.3) is only seller of BT paddy seeds. The respondent No.1 (complainant) is not entitled to get any // 7 // compensation from the appellant (O.P.No.3), therefore, the complaint against the appellant (O.P.No.3), is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
6. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has filed documents. Documents are Cash / Credit Memo dated 19.06.2010 issued by Kisan Beej Bhandar, Samoda, Cash / Credit Memo No.1404 dated 09.10.2010 issued by Rajesh Khad Bhandar, Cash / Credit Memo No.809 dated 27.08.2010 issued by Rajesh Khad Bhandar, Rajim, Registered notice dated 28.02.2011 sent by Shri B.K. Sinha, Advocate to the OPs, postal receipts and acknowledgements, photographs.
7. Shri N.M. Sonkala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.No.3) has argued that the District Forum committed an error of law. He further argued that the respondent No.1 (complainant) purchased 30 kg. hybrid paddy seeds for 5 acres of land. If the seed was defective then all crops of five acres was damaged. The appellant (O.P.No.3) has only acted as an agent of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) and if any loss was // 8 // suffered by the respondentNo.1 (complainant), then only respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) are responsible for the same. After purchase of the paddy seeds, the respondent No.1 (complainant) did not make any complaint regarding poor growth of the crop to the Agriculture Department or before concerned department and the respondent No.1 (complainant) has not filed any expert report, therefore, the merely on the basis of the photographs, it cannot be held that paddy seeds was defective, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, suffers from inherent irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. Hence the appeal may be allowed and impugned order passed by the learned District Forum be set aside.
8. Shri Amit Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (complainant) has supported the impugned order and argued that the respondent No.1 (complainant) contacted the appellant (O.P.No.3) several times, but the appellant (O.P.No.3) did not give any response. The respondent No.1 (complainant) sown the above seeds as per procedure prescribed by the appellant (O.P.No.3) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). Gradually, the plants were grown, but there are differences in the height. Some plants are growing quickly and some plants are growing slowly. Seeing the condition of the crop, the respondent No.1 (complainant), made complaint regarding poor growth, to the // 9 // respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) and requested to inspect the crop. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) inspected the plants and accepted that the seeds are of substandard quality and orally assured the respondent No.1 (complainant) to give compensation and requested the respondent No.1 (complainant) not to make any complaint anywhere., but the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1), respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) and appellant (complainant) did not give compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) and thus they committed deficiency in service. The respondent No.1 (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the appellant (O.P.No.3) and respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) & respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
9. Shri Rajkishore Yadu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.1) and respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2), has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.
10. In the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another, 2013 (3) CPR 589 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"37. In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, // 10 // but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below :
"Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to // 11 // any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.
* * * * * It is clear from the letter of Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in-spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds."
"38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gaurishankar and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ
96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :-
// 12 // "There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case ? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. By the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Body' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13(c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement."
// 13 //
11. In the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. v Sadhu and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198, Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-
"12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission deserve to be set aside. From the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an Expert Committee. The said Committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. It conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent". It further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seeds. The Committee stated :
Hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand."
13. In the operative part, the Committee concluded :-
"It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."
12. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. The Report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by Counsel for Petitioner, // 14 // in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so-called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. Respondent's action in not informing the Petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569."
13. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. vs Subhash Shrihari Devkore & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, has observed thus :--
// 15 // "17. These Panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of Jawar seeds. Both Panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. Moreover these Panchanamas reflect that as per the say of the complainants the Jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth.
Panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray Biozyme and D.A.P. pesticides. Further Panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by Revenue Circle Inspector, Petwadaj clearly reflects that Jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. Thus, on any count both the Panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. On the contrary, both these Panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that Jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
18. Lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the District Consumer Forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. According to him as per the Government Circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the Guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground complainants should not suffer. But for the forgoing reasons that Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal, submission of Mr. Lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. As far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of National Commission in the case of J.K. Agri-Genetics & Ors. V. Siddula Ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) CPR 42 (NC) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this Commission in M/s Nirmitee Biotech v. Shri Anandrao Namdev Patil. But with due respect both these citations of National Commission as well as these State // 16 // Commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. In the present cases, as sample of disputed Jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. Considering the facts of the present cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to District Consumer Forum. Therefore, submission of Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered."
14. It is not expected that every farmers, who purchased seeds from Seed Corporation or from any other authorized shops, set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing, but it is expected that if the seeds was not germinating properly or the growth of the crop is below standard and not satisfactory, then the agriculturists can move an application before competent authority for inspecting the field and they can make complaints before the competent authority for inspecting the field. But in the instant case, undisputedly, the respondent No.1 (complainant) had not got the seeds tests from any laboratory as required under the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even the respondent No.1 (complainant) did not move any application before the Revenue Authority or Agriculture Development Officer for inspecting his field. Even, no complaint was made by the respondent No.1 (complainant) before the Gram Panchayat regarding poor growth of the crop and report from the Sarpanch was also not obtained by the respondent No.1 (complainant).
// 17 // The Agriculture Development Officer did not visit the field of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and no Panchnama was prepared by the competent authority and the respondent No.1 (complainant) did not issue notice to the appellant (O.P.No.3), respondent No.2 (O.P.No.1) or respondent No.3 (O.P.No.2) for inspection of the field as and for preparing Panchnama. Therefore, merely on the basis of photographs, it cannot be held that the growth of the crop was poor and paddy seeds sold by the appellant (O.P.No.3) to the respondent No.1 (complainant) was defective and of substandard quality. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has not been able to prove that the paddy seeds purchased by the respondent No.1 (complainant) from the appellant (O.P.No.3), were of substandard quality or growth of the crop was poor, hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is not sustainable in eye of law.
15. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal of the appellant (O.P.No.3), deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (O.P.No.3), is allowed, impugned order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the District Forum, is set aside and the consumer complaint shall stand dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /04/2015 /04/2015 /04/2015 /04/2015 // 18 //