State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharpur Singh vs M/S Prem Brothers on 30 July, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1793 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 17.12.2009.
Date of Decision: 30.07.2013.
Bharpur Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh, R/o Village Hasanpur Prohta,
Tehsil and District Patiala, near Verka Milk Plant, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
.....Appellant.
Versus
M/s Prem Brothers, through its Sole Proprietor, Shop No.83, New Grain
Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.09.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh.Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Bharpur Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 2 against the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called as "the respondent"), pleading that he purchased 22 bags of 40 kgs. each of 502 variety of wheat seeds from the respondent vide bill dated 26.10.2008, for sowing in his fields in the present season. The seeds were to be sown in 22 acres of agriculture land.
3. The respondent sold the above seeds and assured that the same are pure seeds of the said variety and there is no mixing of any seeds of any other variety and the produce will be high. On the assurance of the respondent, the appellant purchased the said seeds for sowing in the 22 acre of land. The appellant took every care and used the good quality of fertilizer and pesticide. The appellant invested Rs.13,200/- on the seeds and about Rs.2.00 lacs on fertilizers, pesticides, diesel and other agricultural expenses and expected to get the yield around Rs.2.25 lacs.
4. The quality of the seeds sold by the respondent was not good quality of the variety 502, rather there was mixing of seeds of other variety as a result of which, some plants have grown taller and some were of smaller height. Taller plants will mature earlier than the plants of smaller height. Had the quality of the seeds been good, then the plants would have been of the same height and would have been matured at the same time. There will be great loss in the produce and difficulty to harvest both the taller and the smaller height plants. This all has happened due to impurity in the variety of seeds and the appellant even after investing so much, is likely to suffer a loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre without any negligence on his part. Due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the appellant suffered a lot of mental tension, financial loss. A legal notice was also served, but no response was given.
First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 3
5. The appellant moved application before the Agriculture Department and the officials of the Agriculture Department visited the fields and gave a detailed report regarding the presence of around 5% mixing of seeds of the other variety. In the report, it was mentioned that 50% of the plants have ripened and the remaining 50% remained un- ripened. The appellant has suffered a loss of Rs.3.30 lacs for the produce in 22 acres of land and is entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment, Rs.5,000/- as deficiency in service, Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses, along with refund of Rs.13,200/- as costs of the seeds, total Rs.3,73,700/-. Accordingly, the prayer was made.
6. The respondent did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and was proceeded against exparte.
7. The appellant led his exparte evidence by way of tendering his affidavit and certain documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Forum observed that as per bill Ex.C-2, the appellant purchased 22 bags of 40 kgs. each of wheat seeds of 502 variety from the respondent for Rs.13,200/-. The appellant moved an application to the Agriculture Department and the Agriculture Department as per Ex.C-5 reported that there was mixing of 5% of other variety of seeds. The appellant has alleged that 50% of the plants had ripened and remaining 50% remained un-ripened, but as per the report Ex.C-5, there was mixing of only 5% and the report does not corroborate the version of the appellant. The said official has not been examined. Mixing of seed can also be deliberate on the part of the appellant, so as to make easy money from the respondent, and dismissed the complaint. First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 4
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.09.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. 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 parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant purchased 22 bags of seed of 502 variety vide cash memo Ex.C-2 from the respondent for a sum of Rs.13,200/-. The said seeds were not of good quality and some other seeds were mixed in it and the appellant approached the Chief Agriculture Department, Sangrur, who deputed Agriculture Officer, Bhawanigarh to visit the spot and to give the report and he submitted the report and the report along with the letter Ex.C-5 was sent to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala for appropriate action. It was contended that the respondent has not contested the case and has not led any evidence and the order passed by the District Forum is against the evidence and material placed on file. Reliance was placed on "National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another", (2012)-2 Supreme Court Cases-506 (SC) and "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors.", (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases-738 (SC).
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no evidence to prove that the seeds of bad quality were sold. The seeds were purchased by the respondent and were sold in the same condition and no expert has been examined nor the report of the Agriculture Officer proves any defect in the seeds and the complaint has been rightly dismissed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 5
13. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully monitored the entire record.
14. The appellant purchased 22 bags of 502 variety of seeds, weighing 40 kgs. each for a sum of Rs.13,200/- from the respondent. The said seeds were sown by the appellant in his fields. The crop did not grow properly and the appellant moved an application to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur and Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur asked the Agriculture Officer, Bhawanigarh to visit the fields and to send the report. The Agriculture Officer, Bhawanigarh vide his letter No.197 dated 16.02.2009 submitted the report and as per the report, about 5% of the seeds were mixed of other variety. Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur, mentioning all these facts in letter Ex.C-5, wrote to Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala, for taking necessary action and the copy of this letter was also sent to the appellant, informing that the next action has to be taken by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala. Although, the appellant has neither filed the copy of his application, nor the report of the Agriculture Officer, Bhawanigarh, but from the letter Ex.C-5, it is clear that he moved the application and the report was sought and as per the report, 5% seeds were mixed. The respondent has not contested the report nor has rebutted the same in the present appeal when the notice of the appeal was given and the respondent appeared. The respondent has also not bothered to produce on record any certificate of the Govt. to show that the seeds sold to the appellant were certified and were analyzed in the laboratory to prove the percentage of germination and the quality. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case 'National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs M. Madhusudhan Reddy' (supra) has discussed the provisions of the Seeds Act and after detailed discussion, held that the farmer is a consumer under the Act First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 6 and can claim compensation under the Act. It was further held that the seed samples are not to be kept by the farmer, nor he is required to send the same to the laboratory and the farmer was held entitled to the compensation. Similar views were taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in case "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy" (supra).
15. As discussed above, it was for the respondent to rebut the evidence led by the appellant, but the respondent did not appear to contest the complaint, nor in the appeal brought any such document on record to prove that the seeds were of good quality. The District Forum has lost sight of all these facts. The argument raised on behalf of the counsel for the respondent that the appellant has failed to prove that he has sown the seeds in 22 acres of land, is not also tenable in view of the fact that the Agriculture Officer visited the fields of the appellant and in the application, it was clearly mentioned that he has sown the seeds purchased from the respondent in 22 acres of land and the Agriculture Officer corroborated this fact and did not contradict that the said seeds were not sown in 22 acres of land.
16. As per the report of the Agriculture Officer, Bhawanigarh, there was mixing of 5% of the seeds. The appellant has filed the complaint, claiming Rs.3,73,700/- from respondent no.1 on various counts, as mentioned above, but in our opinion a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1.00 lac (Rupees One Lac) shall meet the interest of justice.
17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.09.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay First Appeal No.1793 of 2009 7 Rs.1.00 lac (Rupees One Lac) as lumpsum compensation to the appellant within two months from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which this amount shall earn interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.07.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member July 30, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)