State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, Dhaanya Seeds ... vs Jagat Singh & Ors. on 29 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
2nd Bench
FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2008
Date of Institution: 1.2.2008
Date of Decision: 29.11.2012
The Managing Director, Dhaanya Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 3, KIADB-
4, Phase, Bommasandra, Bangalore-560090. through Sh. Amit Saini
S/o Sh. B.S. Saini, resident of House No. 294, Sector 7, Karnal as
Attorney.
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. Jagat Singh son of Sh. Mela Singh, resident of Village Bhallan,
Tehsil Anandpur Sahib Distt. Rupnagar.
2. Chairman, Markfed Punjab at Chandigarh.
3. The Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab at Chandigarh.
4. The Director, Agriculture, Punjab at Chandigarh.
5. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar.
6. The Bhallan T/Majara C.A.S.S. Limited, Majara, Tehsil
Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Roopnagar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal under Section 15 of
the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against the order dated
12.12.2007 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ropar.
Before:
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Sh. B.S. Sekhon, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate
For the respondent No. 1 : Sh. H.K. Brinda, Advocate
For the respondent No. 2 : None
For the respondent No. 3-5 : Ex-parte
For the respondent No. 6 : None
First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 2 of 16
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This is an appeal against the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called as "District Forum") vide which the complaint of the complainant-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called as "respondent No. 1") was allowed.
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a member of Bhallan T/Majara C.A.S.S. Limited Majara, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib (respondent No. 6) who advertised that it had got purchased maize seeds No. 849 (hybrid) developed by the appellant through the respondent No. 2 with the permission of the Secretary, Cooperative Societies. It was also advertised that the yield of this variety of maize was 20-25 quintals per acre. The said seed was distributed by the respondent No. 2 through A.R. Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib to the respondent No. 6, who further supplied the same to its other members, including respondent No. 1, as per their demand with the assurance that the yield of 20-25 quintal per acre would be obtained.
2. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1, through his son, purchased seeds of the said variety of maize @ Rs. 50 per kg. against the receipt issued by the respondent No. 6 for an area of 22 acres of his land. The respondent No. 1 also purchased Urea and DAP fertilizer and packets of L Turki and medicine from the respondent No. 6 for use on the maize crop as advised. The maize seeds initially grew as were depicted on the packets but failed to give the produce as was assured by the appellant and the respondent No. 2. The plants were in existence with pouches but were without seed crop. While the crops of other First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 3 of 16 varieties of maize had given good yield but the said seed No. DMH 849 had badly failed to give the desired produce. The respondent No. 1 approached the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2 to 6 but nothing was done. It was further pleaded that a team of experts of the respondent No. 2-6 visited the fields and found the version of the respondent No. 1 as correct but still nothing was done. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 suffered a loss of Rs. 15,000/- per acre, which the appellant, the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 were bound to compensate but they failed to do so. The yield obtained was only 4-5 quintals per acre against 20-25 quintals per acre as assured.
3. It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 1 brought the matter to the notice of the District Administration and then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar requested VC, PAU Ludhiana for expert opinion. The VC, PAU Ludhiana appointed a team of experts who, after visiting the fields, gave the opinion as under:-
"This is an untested hybrid and nothing is known about its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction. The role of environment in the poor performance of variety DMH 849 cannot be evidenced as the crop condition of the adjoining fields where farmers have planted other varieties like Hishell at same time was quite good. It has not been approved for cultivation in the State of Punjab by the State Varietal Approval Committee. This hybrid was never tested/evaluated in research trails in the State by the PAU. It is an untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid in this State and concluded that the hybrid failed to meet the standards of the hybrid interms of uniformity of plant stature and maturity which First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 4 of 16 could be because of faulty seed production and admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears)."
4. It was thus, pleaded that the appellant, in connivance with the respondent No. 2, 5 and 6 had adopted unfair trade practice and caused huge financial loss to the respondent No. 1.
5. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2-6 to compensate the respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- in total alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the due date till its payment alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment besides cost of litigation.
6. Upon notice, the appellant filed written statement in which preliminary objections were taken that the respondent No. 1 was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the respondent No. 1 had used the seeds for commercial purposes i.e. for selling maize crop for profit. It was also pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the provision of the Section 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968 which clearly provides the manner in which the action should be taken by a seed inspector.
7. It was further pleaded that the Directorate of Agriculture H.P. Shimla had also analyzed sample of the seeds in question from Himachal Pradesh University, Palampur and found them to be as per required standard. The variety of DMH 849 was also tested by Karnataka Government and the same was also found as per requirement. In fact there was no evidence on record that the respondent No. 1 had actually sown the seeds developed by the First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 5 of 16 appellant or had followed the proper procedure recommended in the packages. The observation of the expert committee that this was an untested hybrid was completely incorrect and there was no provision in the Seeds Control Order, 1983 to conduct any enquiry by the scientists or to inspect the crops, whereas as per provision of law it is only on the basis of the report of the seed inspector any action can be taken which can further be taken only after testing the seeds in the state seed laboratory if found to be sub-standard. But in the present case it has not been done. It was also pleaded that as per the invoice produced by the respondent No. 1 seeds were purchased on 17.8.2006 whereas the sowing season for the same in Punjab was between June and July and not mid August when the seeds were reportedly purchased by the respondent No. 1. The timing of the purchase of the seeds, therefore, is a matter of great concern. The respondent No. 1 either bought and sown the seeds in wrong season or has produced fabricated invoice only for the purpose of arm twisting the appellant to pay hefty compensation. Even if it is assumed that the seeds purchased and sown were DMH 849, the farmer has given no detail of agriculture and crop management techniques adopted by him in land preparation, cultivation, weeding etc. which were so vital for taking good yield. The Punjab Agriculture University in its publication on the package of "practices for maize" has stated that proper drainage of excess rainfall water was essential to get good yield. It further states that extremely high temperature and low humidity during the flowering may damage the foliage, desiccate the pollen and interfere with proper pollination, resulting in poor grain setting.
First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 6 of 16
8. It was also pleaded that the appellant had supplied seeds in 20 blocks all across Punjab and also sold in various other parts of the country. The hybrid had performed well in all parts of Punjab which has been proved from the record. It was further stated that the seeds were biological entity which continuously interact with the external environment for its growth and successful performance. The optimum performance of any seed is dependant upon several factors such as temperature, rainfall, humidity, adequate supply of nutrients, pesticides, etc. The growth of maize crop and yield does not merely depend on the seeds. It also depends on the factors numerated above. All other allegations were denied. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. Respondent No. 2 also filed written statement pleading that complicated question of law and facts were involved and required oral as well as documentary evidence from both the sides and matter can only be decided by civil court after taking evidence of both the parties and evidence of expert witness. It was pleaded that if the yield, was less, it was not only due to the alleged quality of the seeds but could be due to weather as well as improper upkeep of the crop.
10. It was pleaded that as per agreement (Annexure R-1) executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 2, it was the sole liability of the appellant under clause "sampling" mentioned at page 2 of the said agreement. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the replying respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
11. Respondent No. 3 and 4 filed a separate joint written statement in which it was specifically pleaded that the respondent No. 3 and 4 had never recommended to sow this variety i.e. DMH 849 of maize. It was stated that the answering respondents were the licensing authorities First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 7 of 16 under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 which states that no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting or importing the seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of license granted to him under the Order. M/s Dhaanya Seeds Pvt. Ltd., the appellant was registered to sell the seeds under the Seeds Control Order, 1983 through its dealers as per the list of dealers annexed. The respondent No. 2 had not obtained the required permission under the Seeds Control Order, 1983 to sell the seeds of the appellant from respondent No. 3 and 4. It was also stated that after the failure of the crop, farmers requested the District Administration to solve the problem. ADC General, Roopnagar requested Vice-Chancellor, PAU Ludhiana for expert advice of performance of maize hybrid DMH 849 supplied by M/s Dhaanya Seeds Pvt. Ltd. The observation made by expert team of PAU was that it was wrong choice of the hybrid as it was an untested, unapproved and unadopted hybrid and failed to meet the standard of hybrid in terms of uniformity of plants stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production or admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears). It was, therefore, prayed by the respondent No. 3 and 4 that the appellant be directed to pay compensation in the interest of justice.
12. Respondent No. 6 filed a separate written statement in which it was admitted that the respondent No. 6 got the seeds of maize variety No. 849 (hybrid) of the appellant from the respondent No. 2 and apprised, through field officials of the appellant and respondent No. 2 as were deputed by them, regarding quality and yield of the maize seeds to its members. Yield of maize seeds was assured by the field First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 8 of 16 officials of the appellant who accompanied field officials of the respondent No. 2 to the members of the respondent No. 6 between 20- 25 quintals per acre. It was also admitted that the maize seeds 849 hybrid were distributed by the respondent No. 6 to its members on demand. It was further admitted the seed, Urea, DAP and L Turki were sold to respondent No. 1 through his son. It was further pleaded that the said seeds of maize were sold as were received from the respondent No. 2.
13. It was stated that after the receipt of complaints from the farmers regarding the failure of crop of maize seeds 849 hybrid as supplied by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 6 passed a resolution dated 13.9.2006 for the grant of compensation to the farmers. It was, however, pleaded that the respondent No. 6 was merely a distributor and was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent No. 1. It was admitted that the officials of the appellant and respondent No. 2 visited the area after receiving the complaints of failure of maize crop but had not paid any compensation to the affected farmers. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint against the respondent No. 6 be dismissed.
14. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
15. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent No. 1 besides the cost of proceedings, which was assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Compliance of the order was to be made within one month from the date of receipt of the First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 9 of 16 certified copy of the order by the appellant. It was further directed that in case amount was not paid within time, interest @ 9% per annum would be payable till date of payment.
16. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up in appeal.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has held that the appellant was liable for compensation solely on the extract reproduced by the respondent No. 1 in his complaint. The entire report of the expert committee of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana was not produced by the respondent No. 1. The alleged report, which has been relied upon by the District Forum, was based on visual observations made by a team of Punjab Agriculture University who visited the fields of several persons in different villages on 23.9.2006. However, Punjab Agriculture University team did not visit the fields of the respondent No. 1 and this was the reason why the entire report was not produced before the District Forum. Once the team has not inspected the fields of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 could not take the benefit of the report. It was further submitted that the PAU team had made observations regarding DMH 879 seeds as is clear from the report whereas the respondent No. 1 had alleged to have purchased DMH 849 seeds. When the report of the PAU team does not pertain to 849 seeds then the District Forum has committed an error on record in blindly relying upon the extract. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
19. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused. First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 10 of 16
20. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant developed a hybrid variety of maize seeds i.e. DMH 849/DMH 879, which was procured and distributed by the Markfed Punjab (respondent No. 2) through respondent No. 6 to the farmers including Sh. Jagat Singh S/o Sh. Mela Singh (respondent No. 1). The respondent No. 1 also purchased Urea and DAP fertilizer and packets of L Turki and medicine from the respondent No. 6 for use on the maize crop as advised. The respondent No. 1 alleged that the seeds which were sown in 22 acres of his land initially grew as were depicted on the packets but failed to give the produce as was assured by the appellant and the respondent No. 2. It was contended that the plants were in existence with pouches but without seed crop. It was also alleged that the seeds supplied by the appellant failed while the crops of other varieties of maize had given good yield in adjoining fields. The respondent No. 1 approached the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2 to 6 for providing compensation on account of failed maize corp.
21. It has been contended by the respondent No. 1 that the team of experts of respondent No. 2 visited the fields and found the version of the respondent No. 1 correct but still nothing was done to redress the grievance of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the District Authorities and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Roopnagar, reported the matter to Vice Chancellor, PAU Ludhiana and requested for giving the expert opinion. The VC PAU Ludhiana appointed a team of experts who after visiting the fields gave the opinion as under:-
"This is an untested hybrid and nothing is known about its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 11 of 16 disease and insect reaction. The role of environment in the poor performance of variety DMH 849 cannot be evidenced as the crop condition of the adjoining fields where farmers have planted other varieties like Hishell at same time was quite good. It has not been approved for cultivation in the State of Punjab by the State Varietal Approval Committee. This hybrid was never tested/evaluated in research trails in the State by the PAU. It is an untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid in this State and concluded that the hybrid failed to meet the standards of the hybrid interms of uniformity of plant stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production and admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears)."
22. It has been categorically stated in the report that this hybrid was never tested/evaluated in the research trial in the state by the PAU. It was an untested, unapproved and unadopted hybrid in Punjab state and that the hybrid failed to meet the standard of the hybrid in terms of uniformity of plants stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production and admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears). Evidently, the seeds of the crop inspected by the experts of the university i.e. DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture University for sowing in Punjab. This fact is also substantiated from the report dated 19.9.2006 sent by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Roopnagar to Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar in which it has been stated that, after visiting the maize crop in village Jindwari, Golani and Bhallan, it was found that the maize seeds of Dhaanya brand i.e. DMH 849 and DMH 879, which were supplied by the Markfed i.e. respondent No. 2 through Societies, were not giving First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 12 of 16 good produce. The report further states that initially the growth was good but subsequently at most of the places the produce was not upto the mark. It has been further mentioned that the reason for failure of the crop in certain areas of the District has been attributed to lack of adaptability and increased temperature at the time of flowering. It has been categorically stated in this report that both these varieties of seeds DMH 879 and DMH 849 were neither approved by the Agriculture Department of Punjab nor by the Agriculture University, Ludhiana.
23. The appellant has contended that the report of the experts of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana studied the seeds variety DMH 879 and not DMH 849, which were reportedly sown by the respondent No. 1. However, the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer discussed above clearly states that the seeds of both the varities i.e. DMH 849 and DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture Department and Agriculture University, Ludhiana. Moreover, the respondent No. 3 and 4 in their written statement have also stated that the Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab (respondent No. 3) and Director, Agriculture, Punjab (respondent No. 4) were the licensing authority under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 which states that no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting and importing the seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license granted to him. Thus, the seeds supplied by the appellant and distributed by the respondent No. 2 to formers through respondent No. 6 were not duly approved by the competent authority as provided under the Seeds Act nor the same were got tested from the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. It has also been stated in the report of expert committee that the "seeds have First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 13 of 16 not been approved for cultivation in the State of Punjab by the State Varietal Approval Committee".
24. It has been contended by the appellant that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Agriculture have also analyzed the sample of the seeds in question from the Himachal Pradesh University, Palampur and found them to be as per standard requirements. It has been further contended that the maize varieties were also tested by the Karnataka Government and the same were also found to be as per standard requirements. This contention of the appellant is not tenable because the quality of seeds tested and approved by a particular agency for a particular state cannot be assumed to be suitable for any other state. Expert committee of PAU has, in fact, found this variety of seeds not suitable for State of Punjab. It is surprising that the appellants got the seeds approved from Himachal Pradesh University as well as from Karnataka University of Agriculture Sciences, but the same has not been got approved from the PAU before distribution of seeds in Punjab. It was because of this deficiency on the part of the appellant that the seeds varities were not declared as adaptable in the environment of Punjab specially in the District of Roopnagar.
25. The appellant has contended that the experts of the Agriculture University had not visited the fields of the respondent No. 1 and has only analyzed the crop of the seeds of DMH 879, therefore, the benefit of the report of experts of Agriculture University, Punjab cannot be given to the respondent No. 1. But the report of the District Agriculture Officer, Roopnagar clearly states that both the varieties of the DMH 849 and DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture University as well as from Director Agriculture. Moreover, it is not possible for an First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 14 of 16 expert team to visit each and every field of the affected farmers. The sample study carried out by the University clearly shows that the hybrid failed to meet the standard of hybrid in terms of uniformity of plants stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seeds production or admixture. The appellant has not placed on record approval, if any, obtained from the respondent No. 3 and 4 for distributing the seeds for sowing in Punjab. In fact the appellant has failed to show any document to support its version that the seeds were approved and adaptable in the climate of Punjab.
26. Once it has been proved that the seeds itself were not approved for cultivation in State of Punjab and have also failed to meet the standards of hybrid, it cannot be said that the compensation cannot be granted to the affected farmers just because their fields could not be inspected by the team of experts. The contention of the appellant that in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Seeds Rules, in case of failure of crop due to defective seeds, action can only be taken on the report of seed inspector after getting the unused seeds tested from the seed analyst is practically un-implementable because normally farmer will keep unused seeds with him only when he apprehends in advance that the crop will fail. There is sufficient evidence on record that farmer used the seeds supplied by the appellant which were not at all approved for cultivation in Punjab.
27. Purchase order of the respondent No. 2 (Ex. R-4) placed on record by the appellant shows that the maize varities of both DMH 849 and DMH 879 were procured by the respondent No. 2. The "sampling" clause of this purchase order states as under:-
First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 15 of 16
"Each invoice will be accompanied by their Laboratory Test report batchwise or certificate to the effect that M/S Dhaanya Seeds Ltd. is responsible for the quality of Maize & Paddy seed. For any complications arising due to the failure of samples, non germination of seed or failure of crop, the entire responsibility shall be borne by the supplier for the same. Any claim made by the farmers/consumers on this account will be paid by M/S Dhaanya Seeds Ltd."
28. Thus, the appellant is directly responsible for payment of any compensation or claim made by the farmers/complainants on account of non germination of seeds or failure of crops.
29. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is upheld. The appellant has filed a frivolous appeal and the same is dismissed with special costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).
30. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 1.2.2008 and Rs. 25,000/- on 1.4.2008 per the order of this Commission. Amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and the appellant.
31. The interest on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellant had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be what has First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 Page 16 of 16 accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
32. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondents immediately as per order of District Forum.
33. The arguments in the appeal were heard on 22.11.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
34. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member November 29, 2012 VINAY