State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Nuziveedu Seeds Limited vs Mukand Singh & Others on 11 June, 2014
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.954 of 2010
Date of institution:28.05.2010
Date of Decision : 11.06.2014
M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, SCF-9, P.S.Sidhu, Railway Road,
Bhatinda through its Area Manager Vijay Singh Bhakar.
........Appellant/Opposite party No.3
Versus
1. Mukand Singh age 42 years son of Pritam Singh, r/o Village
DhabKokrian, Abohar, TehsilAbohar, District Ferozepur.
........Respondent/Complainant.
2. M/s Sawan Traders, Mandi No.1, Abohar District Ferozepur,
through its Prop/Partner Owner/Manager.
3. M/s Super Seeds (P) Limited 32, New Grain Market, Hissar
(Haryana) Mandi No.1, through its M.D./Director/Manager.
4. Gill Seeds Registered Office 545 Vivekanand
Marg, Near Mausima Temple, Bhubaneshwar 751002.
....Performa Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal against order dated
09.11.2009 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ferozepur.
Before:-
ShriJ.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
ShriJasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None
For respondent No.1 : Sh.A.K.Khunger, Advocate
For respondent No.2&3:Ex-parte
For respondent No.4 : Dispensed with.
First Appeal No.954 of 2010 2
J.S.KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated09.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Ferozepur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum'). The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is opposite party No.3 in the complaint. Respondent No.1 of this appeal is Mukand Singh, who is complainant and respondent No.2,3&4 of this appeal are opposite parties No.1,2&4 in the complaint andthey be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. The complainant Mukand Singh brought the complaint against the opposite parties on the allegations that he purchased BT Hybrid cotton seed from the opposite party No.1 on 27.4.2007, vide bill No.670 dated 27.4.2007 for sum of Rs.4560/-. The seeds, so purchased consisted of 4 packing of Super -187 NCS-913 (Ranjeet) BT Lot No.170050 P (developed and marketed by opposite party No.2&3) and two packing of Tez F1-90 Hybrid Cotton Seed Lot No.GS-PO-02-7 (developed and marketed by opposite party No.4). Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the said seeds purchased by him are developed and manufactured by the reputed company. Four packings of Super 187 NCS-913 seeds have been developed and marketed by Opposite parties No.2&3 and two packing of Tez F1-90 Hybrid Cotton Seeds have been developed and marketed by opposite party No.4. When complainant sowed the seeds in his land, there was no flowering or fruition despite hard labour put in by the First Appeal No.954 of 2010 3 complainant. Complainant approached the Agriculture Development Officer of the area through a written application, who visited the spot on 07.10.2007 and made a visual inspection thereof and reported that there was neither any flowers to the plants and the plants were also not of equal size and the same were of small size. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 with regard to supply of defective cotton seeds to him, but to no effect. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,09,560/- due to defective seeds supplied to him by opposite party No.1. Complainant paid Rs.4560/- for the purchase of seeds in cash to opposite party No.1 and suffered a loss of Rs.1,25,000/-, besides labour expenses of Rs.30,000/- and mental harassment to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Opposite parties No.2,3&4 are manufacturers or distributors of the seeds so purchased by the complainant. The complainant has accordingly prayed that the opposite parties be directed to award him the compensation of Rs.2,09,560/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. besides payment of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was served to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 raised the preliminary objections in written reply that complaint is without any cause of action. That there is no report of laboratory regarding the defect in the seeds purchased by the complainant.That there is no report of expert regarding defective seeds having been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 admitted the factum of sale of seeds by it to the complainant. It First Appeal No.954 of 2010 4 was further averred that complainant sowed lesser quantity of seeds as compared to the large area of the land. The complainant has not strictly followed the guidelines for sowing the seeds. Opposite party No.1 refuted the averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.3 filed separate written reply contesting the complaint of the complainant on the similar grounds,whereunder it has been contested by opposite party No.1. The grounds of contest raised by respondent No.3 are identical to the defences of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 was ex- parte and no written reply was filed by the opposite party No.4 before the District Forum.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 & C-3 are the bills and Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 are the postal acknowledgments, Ex.C-6 is the copy of Jamabandi, Ex.C-7 is copies of KhasraGardawari, Ex.C-8 is copy of application dated 01.10.2007 addressed to Chief Agriculture Officer, Abohar regarding damage of crops due to defective cotton seeds. Ex.C-9 is the report of Agriculture Development Officer dated 07.10.2007, Ex.C-10 is legal notice, Ex.C-11 to C-14 are copies of postal receipts. Ex.C-15 & C-16 are brochures for the guidelines. Ex.C- 17 is the affidavit of Nacchattar Singh, Lambardar in support of allegations of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant was closed thereafter. In rebuttal of the evidence tendered by the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of Parveen Kumar Jagga, the Proprietor of opposite party First Appeal No.954 of 2010 5 No.1 vide Ex.R-1, Affidavit of Ravi Kant, authorised Signatory of M/s Naziveedu Seeds Limited of opposite party No.3 the present appellant vide Ex.R-2, Ex.R-3 is the license of the dealer, Ex.R-4 is the authority letter in favour of respondent No.1 authorizing him as sub-dealer of Gill Seeds & entitling him to sell the products in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, Ex.R-5 is the copy of bill by Gill Seeds, opposite party No.4, and Ex.R-6 & R-7 are the copies of instructions as guidelines for sowing the cotton seeds. This was the only evidence of the opposite parties on the record.
6. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the learned District Forum, Ferozepur allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the opposite parties Nos.1,2&3 to pay the amount of Rs.35,200/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from 1.1.2008 till realization. The liability of opposite parties No.1&4 was fixed jointly or severally with regard to further payment of Rs.17,600/- @ 6% per annum from 01.01.2008 till realization. This order passed by the District Forum has been assailed in this appeal by the opposite party No.3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Respondent Nos.2&3 are ex-parte and the service of the Respondent No.4 has been dispensed with in the appeal.
8. We have examined the allegations contained in the complaint of the complainant alongwith evidence of the complainant and the averments of the opposite parties and their First Appeal No.954 of 2010 6 evidence on the record. The complainant has also placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1 to substantiate his allegations. Ex.C-2 is the copy of bill issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of complainant with regard to sale of cotton seeds of Rs.3060/- and Ex.C-3 is the bill dated 05.05.2007 in favour of complainant for the sale of cotton seeds of the sum of Rs.15 00/- Ex.C-4 & C-5 are the postal acknowledgements. Ex.C-6 & C- 7 are copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Gardawari showing the complainant as a cultivator of land. The complainant approached the Chief Agriculture OfficerAbohar, when the cotton seeds did not produce proper yield in his land, vide application dated 01.07.2007. Vide report dated 07.10.2007 of Agriculture Development Officer of the area as Ex.C-9, he inspected the crops and reached the conclusion that the plants did not bear the fruits appropriately. That the cotton seeds sown in the above land appeared to be of mixed quality. On account of defective seeds, the damage to the crop of cultivator has been assessed at the loss of 80%. This report Ex.C-9 of the Agriculture Development Officer, being an expert witness, carried weightage before us. Ex.C-10 is the legal notice, Ex.C-11 to C-14 are postal receipts and Ex.C-15 & C-16 are the brochures. The complainant also relied upon the affidavit of Nachhattar Singh Lambardar as Ex.C-17 to substantiate his allegations. To refute the allegations of the complainant, the opposite parties relied upon the affidavit of Parveen Kumar Jagga, the proprietor of opposite party No.1 vide First Appeal No.954 of 2010 7 Ex.R-1. He admitted the allegations of the complainant regarding sale of seeds by Opposite party No.1 to him. He denied the rest of the allegations on the ground that there was no report of laboratory regarding defective seeds. There was also no expert report to corroborate the version of the complainant. That the complainant sowed lesser quantity of seeds in more area of land than required by the guidelines and complainant himself is negligent on this score. Similar contentions have been sworn in affidavit Ex.R-2 of the present appellant being the authorized signatory of the opposite parties. He has stated in his affidavit that good quality of yield depends upon many external and environmental factors like proper water, climate, fertilizer, pesticides and so on. Ex.R-3 is the license in the name of Gill Seeds. Ex.R-4 is certificate to the effect that opposite party No.1 is the sub dealer of Gill Seeds and is entitled to sell the products of Gill Seeds in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. Ex.R-5 is the copy of bill and Ex.R-6&7 are the instructions.
9. The opposite party No.3, being the appellant, emphatically urged this point in arguments that there is no report of laboratory to prove the defect in the seeds nor there is any expert report on the record to this effect. The opposite party No.3, the present appellant, then referred the law laid down by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case "The Haryana Land Reclamation Development Corporation, Hisar Vs. Shamsher Singh alias Sher Singh & others" 1998(1) CLT 114. This authority is to this First Appeal No.954 of 2010 8 effect that when the seeds in dispute were not tested and analyzed in any laboratory and in the absence of any report of the expert, it is not possible to hold that the seeds in dispute, as supplied by the appellants, were either spurious or of a poor or low quality.On the other hand, there is a judgment of Hon'ble National Commission on this point which is applicable to this case on all fours. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in "Ankur Seeds P. Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao &Ors.", 2008 (3) CLT, 143 that hybrid Chilly seeds-defective growth - expert report - opinion of expert remained unrebutted - petitioner/producer had seed with them which could have been got tested by them in the field and submitted his report to counter experts report. This has not been done and compensation for loss was accordingly awarded to the agriculturist by the National Commission. Hon'ble National Commission has also held in "South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs. R.Shekhar @ Sridhar, reported in 2008 (1) CLT, 600/601, that a farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seeds to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency. On the other hand, if the petitioner/OP could not get the seed tested especially when the lot number is available on record, they being the producer would always have some quantity of seed left with them and which they could have got tested and brought. The failure of the opposite party/producer to perform it is a circumstance which has to be held against the opposite party. The ratio of law in above referred judgments laid down by Hon'ble National Commission has First Appeal No.954 of 2010 9 overriding effect over the law laid down by Haryana State Consumer Commission as relied upon by the opposite party. On the strength of law, we are legally obliged to place reliance on the report of Agriculture Development Officer being an expert witness. He found the size of the cotton plants unequal and less fruition borne by them. He assessed the loss to the agriculturists on the basis of his physical inspection report of the cotton crop of the complainant. It is undisputed fact that complainant purchased the above referred cotton seeds from opposite party no.1 and they were developed and marketed by opposite party No.2,3&4.
10. As a sequitur of above discussions and perusal of above referred evidence of the parties, we have come to this conclusion that the impugned order under appeal in this case does not suffer from any illegality or material infirmity calling for any interference therein. We accordingly uphold the order dated 09.11.2009 of District Forum under appeal in this case. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed.
11. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.22,750/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.22,750/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
12. Remaining amount shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
First Appeal No.954 of 2010 10
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.06.2014 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
June 11, 2014. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
Lb/- Member