State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kalka Trading Company vs Babu Singh on 19 December, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1612 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 27.12.2006.
Date of Decision: 19.12.2011.
Kalka Trading Company, Handiya Bazar, Barnala, Tehsil Barnala, District
Sangrur, through its Prop./owner.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Babu Singh s/o Bugha Singh, R/o village Pharwai, Tehsil Barnala,
District Sangrur.
2. Manufacture of Seed (Address to be disclosed by Appellant/OP no.1).
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
23.11.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Kalka Trading Company, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Babu Singh, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that he is consumer of the appellant and he purchased 40 kgs. of seed of paddy of PUSA-44 from the appellant vide bill no.246 dated 29.04.2004. The appellant supplied the said seeds from different bags and First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 2 assured that the said seed was of a good quality and will give production. The respondent no.1 sowed the same in seven acres of land in village Pharwai. The crop was looked after as per the directions of the appellant. After some time, it was seen that 10% to 12% crop of the paddy gave 'sittas' and 10% to 12% was ready to give 'sittas' and the rest of the crop was not in a position to give 'sittas'. The respondent no.1 intimated the appellant and requested to visit the spot, but it was refused.
3. Mangat Singh @ Mangatjeet Singh son of the respondent no.1 made an application dated 02.08.2004 to Agriculture Officer, Barnala for inspection of the spot and to take action against the appellant. The officials of the Agriculture Department, Barnala inspected the spot and gave the report that the seed was not of good quality and was of different quality and was not a product of PUSA-44. The Seed Inspector, Barnala also inspected the spot and found that the seed was not of good quality i.e. PUSA-44 and 20% crop was ready to be harvested and the rest of the crop was not ready for harvesting and he submitted his report to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sangrur vide letter no.382 dated 31.08.2004. The respondent no.1 suffered a loss of 100 quintals per acre due to sub standard quality of seed supplied by the appellant. The Soil Testing Officer, Barnala also inspected the spot and he also gave the report. The respondent no.1 requested the appellant to compensate him, but the appellant refused and there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to adjust the amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss suffered by the respondent no.1 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental torture and harassment.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the respondent no.1 has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint and the same has been filed only to harass and humiliate the appellant. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The appellant is not the manufacturer of the alleged First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 3 PUSA-44 seeds, nor he is the dealer of the manufacturer. The paddy seeds were purchased by the appellant from firm Dhanu Ram Ram Ditta Mal, Sadar Bazar, Barnala vide bill no.018 dated 05.04.2004 and vide bill no.045 dated 14.04.2004 and the appellant is not, at all, at fault and he has been unnecessarily dragged in the present complaint.
5. On merits, it was pleaded that no name of the proprietor/owner of the firm has been mentioned and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was admitted that 40 kgs. of paddy PUSA-44 seeds were purchased vide bill no.246 dated 29.04.2004. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 purchased one full bag of paddy which was sealed and was having original trade mark of the manufacturer and the bag was weighing 30 kgs. and the remaining 10 kgs. paddy seed was given from other bag which was duly sealed and was opened in the presence of respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has not mentioned any date or day or month when he sowed the paddy, nor he has mentioned any kila number. No report of the Patwari has been attached and the complaint is totally false. It is pertinent to mention here that vide bill no.45 dated 14.04.2004, paddy weighing 5 x 30 kgs. and vide bill no.018 dated 05.04.2004, bags 40 x 30 kgs and 5 bags x 30 kags seeds were purchased by the appellant from the firm Dhanu Ram Ram Ditta Mal, out of which respondent no.1 purchased the paddy seeds. The remaining paddy seeds were also sold in the market to the farmers, but no one made any complaint. The respondent no.1 is habitual of filing false complaints, in order to blackmail the firms. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum relying upon the expert report Ex.C2 of Seed Inspector, Barnala, Ex.C7 of Dr. Hardial Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Barnala and the First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 4 report Ex.C4 made to the SDM, Barnala by Soil Testing Officer along with assessment of loss Ex.C6, observed that due to poor quality of seeds, respondent no.1 sustained a loss of Rs.46,020/- , and allowed the complaint, directing the appellant to pay Rs.46,020/- in lieu of compensation on account of loss of crop, Rs.3000/- on account of mental agony, pain and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.11.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties.
10. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, nor it was proved that the seeds were defective. Complainant/Respondent no.1 is Babu Singh, whereas as per record Ex.C7, it was Mangat Singh, who made the complaint to agriculture department with regard to defective seeds and no complaint was filed by Babu Singh. Vide Ex.C4, Soil Testing Officer assessed the loss of one Mangatjit Singh. No affidavit of Agriculture Development Officer, Seed Inspector, Soil Testing Officer or of SDM was filed before the District Forum. The report of the Agriculture Development officer dated 20.08.2004 is defective and no detail has been given by the officer about the ownership of land or the khasra numbers and is a vague report. It does not relate to respondent Babu Singh. As per report of the Agriculture Development Officer, 10 kgs. seeds were of different quality and he has not stated that the seeds were defective or otherwise. The Seed Inspector never inspected the fields, but on the basis of the report given by the Agriculture Development Officer, assessed the loss of 25% of the crop. Soil Testing Officer has also not visited the fields and he gave the wrong conclusion that the loss is 40% and also added his own rate as Rs.590/- per quintal without any proof and the reports on the basis of hearsay evidence, are not First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 5 admissible. There is no laboratory report as required u/s 13 (4) of the Act. There is no document to prove that the seeds sold by the appellant were defective of or poor quality. The manufacturer of the seeds has not been impleaded. No name of the purchaser is mentioned in Ex.C3 and respondent Babu Singh never filed any complaint before the agriculture department. Soil Testing Officer was not competent to assess the loss. There is no evidence to prove that respondent no.1 suffered a loss to the tune of 78 quintals. There is no evidence to prove that how much paddy was sowed by respondent no.1 and he has failed to prove any loss. The appellant sold the seeds to other farmers also and they have executed affidavits Ex.R14 and Ex.R15, stating that there was no complaint. The order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble National Commission and the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
11. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent-Babu Singh, it was submitted that the appellant has not disputed the sale of seeds vide bill Ex.C3 and to prove that the seeds were defective, the respondent no.1 has placed on record the report of Seed Inspector, Barnala Ex.C7, his own affidavit Ex.C1, report Ex.C6 made by SDM, Barnala, to assess the loss and on the basis of expert reports Ex.C2, Ex.C7, Ex.C4 and the loss assessment report Ex.C6 made by the Soil Testing Officer, the District Forum awarded Rs.46,020/- as compensation for loss of crop, Rs.3000/- for mental pain and Rs.1000/- as litigation costs and it is on the lower side. The appellant has raised the point of non-joinder of the manufacturer, but the appellant failed to disclose the name of the manufacturer of the seeds, which is a clear malafide on the part of the appellant and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. We have considered the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties and have carefully examined the entire record. First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 6
13. Mangat Singh is son of Babu Singh and Mangatjit Singh is also son of Babu Singh and the respondent no.1 is Babu Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applications were moved by different persons and the complaint was filed by another person.
14. Vide bill/cash memo Ex.C3, PUSA-44 seeds weighing 40 kgs. were purchased by respondent no.1 from the appellant and the appellant has purchased in bulk 40 bags of 30 kgs. each from Dhanu Ram Ram Ditta Mal, Sadar Bazar, Barnala vide cash/credit memo Ex.R1 as well as five packets of 30 kgs. each vide bill Ex.R2 and the appellant sold the same to various farmers vide bills/cash memos Ex.R3 to Ex.R12 and there is no document on record to prove that the said seeds were certified or sent to laboratory before packing and sealing. The appellant has not disclosed the name of the manufacturer of the seeds, although respondent no.1 in the complaint itself mentioned that the address has to be disclosed by the appellant of the manufacture of seeds. The appellant has purchased the seeds from Dhanu Ram Ram Ditta Mal, Sadar Bazar, Barnala vide Ex.R1, Ex.R2, but again the fact is missing as to who manufactured the said seeds. It was for the appellant to bring on record the name of the firm/company, which manufactured the seeds and further it was for the manufacturer to show that the seeds were duly certified and were tested in the laboratory. Respondent no.1 has relied upon the report of Seed Inspector, Barnala and Agriculture Development Officer, Sekha, Block Barnala, Gurtej Singh, Soil Testing Officer, Barnala. The perusal of these reports show that the seeds were sold to respondent no.1 from two different bags and there were two different kinds of seeds and the crop did not mature at the same time.
15. As discussed above, it was for the appellant to prove that he sold the seeds which were manufactured by a firm/company and the seeds were certified and they were tested in the laboratory, but nothing such has come on record. Although, there are many factors which have to be considered when a crop is adversely affected, but those factors are to be First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 7 considered only when it is established that the seeds supplied were of good quality and were properly certified and tested.
16. There is no dispute about the identity of the seeds as the above officers have visited the crops while it was standing in the fields and Soil Testing Officer assessed the loss and submitted the report. The affidavits produced by the appellant of Vijay Kumar, Sita Singh, Sada Ram, seems to be procured and there is no evidence that the seeds sold to them were given from two different bags. The respondent no.1 has no enmity with the appellant and he and his sons have been running from pillar to post and filing applications before the various authorities and after visiting the spot, the reports were given and the same cannot be ignored.
17. The presumption also is against the appellant, because as stated above, the appellant has neither disclosed the name of the company, who manufactured the seeds, nor led any evidence to prove that the seeds were of good quality and were duly certified and tested. Resultantly, there is no illegality in the order of the District Forum, nor there is any ground to interfere with the same.
18. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
19. 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 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent no.1/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 appellant.
20. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1 within two months of the receipt of copy of the order.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.12.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1612 of 2006 8
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 19, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)