State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Asian Agricultural Genetics Ltd. vs Bikker Singh on 24 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1435 of 2010
Date of institution : 13.08.2010
Date of decision : 24.02.2014
1. Asian Agricultural Genetics Ltd., H.No.3-5-821, 1st Floor, Doshi
Squarer, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029 through its Director.
2. Nuziveedu Seeds (P) Ltd., Regd. Office, 905, Kanchanjunga
Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi,
110 001 through its Administrator.
3. M/s Shiva Pesticides, Near Bus Stand, Bhikhi, District Mansa
through its Proprietor Partner.
.......Appellants- Opposite Parties
Versus
Shri Bikker Singh son of Shri Roop Singh s/o Shri Sucha Singh,
resident of Village Kheewa Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
7.7.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri D.S. Adlakha, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Hitesh Sood, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellants-opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 7.7.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Bikker Singh, respondent-complainant, First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the following directions were issued to the opposite parties:-
(a) to pay Rs.38,400/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f.
June, 2009 till the final payment is made;
(b) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for putting the complainant to mental tension, harassment and inconvenience;
(c) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant purchased five packets of cotton seeds; out of which 1 packet was of Dharam Gold and 4 packets were of Simran B.T. Seed, for Rs.3500/-, vide bill dated 5.2.2009; which had been manufactured by opposite party No.3 and purchased by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.2. This seed was sown by him in two and a half killas of land, which was taken on lease by him from Jagdev Ram and Gurbaksh Singh. He followed all the instructions of the opposite parties regarding irrigation, fertilizer etc. and looked after the crops very diligently. However, on account of the defect in the seed the plants so produced were of different kinds and accordingly gave information to that effect to opposite party No.1, who kept on putting off the matter on the plea of visiting the spot. Thereafter he made a complaint on 25.8.2009 to Block Agriculture Officer, Bhikhi, who deputed Major Singh, Inspector, Agriculture, to inspect the spot and he inspected the crops on 2.9.2009 in the presence of about 20 persons, including Bhola Singh, Surjit Singh and Janta Singh. On that inspection, the Inspector found that 12 kanals of land, in which First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 3 Simrant B.T. Seed was sown, had dried plants to the extent of 36% and different plants to the extent of 24%. In the other 6 Kanals of land, in which Dharam Gold B.T. Seed had been sown, there were dried plants to the extent of 34% and different plants to the extent of 30%. Letter dated 22.2.2010 was issued to him by the Chief Agriculture Officer on the basis of that report and he also reported therein that the yield of his land comes to 819 kilograms per hectare against the average yield of 2019 kilograms per hectare. Thus, he suffered loss of 1200 kilograms per hectare and keeping in view the market rate of Rs.3200/- per cwt. he suffered a loss of Rs.38,400/- per acre. Accordingly he prayed in the complaint for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,30,000/- as damage caused to him on account of defective seed, Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered to him, Rs.3500/- as the price of the seed, Rs.5,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.500/- as costs of the complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. They admitted that the seed was so purchased by the complainant. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the necessary instructions issued by the manufacturer of the seed for sowing the same are being supplied in the form of the pamphlet with every sealed packet and even it is being disclosed to the purchaser orally to follow those instructions. In case the seed is being sown and the crop is being looked after properly following those instructions the yield is always good and otherwise the crops are being affected by First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 4 different types of diseases. The complainant did not follow the said instructions and, as such, the crop was affected by the diseases "Jhulas Rog" and the plants dried up. They are selling the seed for the last many years and they have never received any complaint regarding any defect therein. The seed so sold to the complainant was of good quality and there was no adulteration therein. The seed is always sold by them after the same is certified by the competent authority. The report of the Chief Agriculture Officer obtained by the complainant is wrong. The ripening of the crop was at initial stage and nothing could have been said regarding the yield at that time. Such a yield could have been determined only after the crop had fully ripened.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the defect in the seed could have been determined only after the test thereof by the approved laboratory and in the absence of that test, it could not have been said that there was any such defect in the seed. The complainant has relied upon the letter of the Chief Agriculture Officer for proving the defect in the seed. That letter could not have been used against the opposite parties as they were never called upon by the Chief Agriculture Officer at the time of First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 5 inspection of the crop in spite of the mandatory requirement. Moreover that letter talks of some report, which was never proved on the record. No finding could have been recorded by the District Forum on the basis of that derivative evidence. He also submitted that the fall in the yield could have been determined only after the crops had fully ripened and that stage had still not come. The District Forum committed an illegality while issuing the directions against the opposite parties for payment of the amounts contained therein. In support of his submissions, he cited the following judgments:-
i) Revision Petition No.506 of 2013 (Banta Ram v. Jai Bharat Beej Company and another) decided on 17.5.2013;
ii) Revision Petition No.2597 of 2012 (Shamsher Singh v.
M/s Bagri Beej Bhandar and another) decided on 11.9.2013; and
iii) Revision Petition No.1451 of 2011 (Syngenta India Ltd.
v. P. Chodaiah and others) decided on 31.7.2013.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that whole of the seed was sown by the complainant and he was not left with any seed, which could have been got tested from the laboratory. Therefore, he resorted to the other evidence, which was in the form of the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer. The concerned Agriculture Officer after visiting the spot found that 34% of the plants had already dried and some of the plants were of different quality. It can easily be inferred from that report that the First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 6 seed was defective and adulterated. The complainant proved on record affidavits of other farmers also, who had purchased the seed from the opposite parties, which was found to be defective and had not given the required yield. From the evidence produced by the complainant, it stands proved that he duly followed the instructions for sowing the seed and had been properly looking after the crops by timely irrigating the same and using the insecticide and herbicide. After properly appreciating the evidence produced on the record, correct findings were recorded by the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting the same.
8. The complainant substantiated the averments made in the complaint by means of his affidavit Ex.C-1. He deposed therein that he had been irrigating the crops, using the manure and fertilizer as per the instructions of the opposite parties and also properly looked after the crops. It was on account of the seed being sub-standard that different kinds of plants had germinated regarding which he gave information to opposite party No.1 but kept on putting off the matter on the pretext of inspecting the spot. No doubt, the complainant proved on record the affidavit of one Jagdev Ram Ex.C6 in which he deposed that he had purchased the cotton seed from opposite party No.1 and that on account of the defect therein the yield was below the normal. However, it is pertinent to note that this deponent did not state in his affidavit as to what type of seed was purchased by him and whether the same was of the same Company and same kind which was so purchased by the First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 7 complainant. So the deposition of this deponent is of no use to the complainant.
9. In Banta Ram's case (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission while recording the findings against the purchaser of the seed took into account the fact that he had not got the seed tested from the laboratory nor moved any application before the Consumer Forum for getting the same tested from the laboratory. However, on the same point, the following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506 (NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED v. M. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY AND ANOTHER):-
"Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 8 farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naïve to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory."
10. Therefore, the complaint could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that the complainant failed to get the seed tested from the laboratory or failed to move any application before the District Forum for getting the same tested from the approved laboratory.
11. The question to be decided is, whether on the basis of letter Ex.C-2, it can be held that the seed so sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was defective? It is incorporated in this letter, which has been addressed to the complainant by the Chief Agriculture Officer, that for the verification of his application, Major Singh, Deputy Inspector was deputed and on the basis of the inspection conducted by him and on the basis of the experience, the Block Agriculture Officer sent report, vide his report dated First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 9 26.11.2009. As per that report, the damage was caused to him on account of the defective seed purchased by him from opposite party No.1. According to Major Singh, on inspection of the fields it was found that 36% of the plants had dried and 24% plants were of different quality, so far as the seed of Dharti Gold was concerned. 34% of the plants had dried and 30% of the plants were of different types so far as the Simran B.T. seed was concerned. It was also mentioned in that letter that on the basis of the experience and the statistics provided by the Statistical Officer, Mansa the average yield per hectare comes to 819 kilograms against the average yield of 2019 kilograms per hectare.
12. In Banta Ram's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the report of the Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of the field for associating the opposite parties regarding the inspection was given. It was held in Syngenta India Limited's case (supra) that before conducting the inspection of the fields of the farmers on 6.12.2006 and 13/14.2.2007 no notice was given to the producer of the seed to join the inspection. Whatever inspection was conducted on those two dates was done at the back of that producer. In addition to that there was nothing on record to show that the notice of those reports was ever supplied to the producer so as to give him an opportunity to present his view. Under those circumstances it was held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice.
13. In the present case also, no evidence has been produced by the complainant for proving that before moving the application to the First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 10 Chief Agriculture Officer, he ever sent notice to the opposite parties that he was going to move such an application for inspection of his crops. No evidence has been produced by him for proving that before inspection by the Agriculture Sub Inspector notice was given by him to the opposite parties to come present at the time of inspection. Even the report of that Sub Inspector was not sent to the opposite parties. This amounts to violation of the rules of the rules of the natural justice and such a report cannot be used against the opposite parties, which was received at their back and without associating them in the inspect of the fields. It is also pertinent to note that the inspection was done by Major Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector and the report was given by him. No such report was made part of the report Ex.C-2. This letter is just derivative evidence and on the basis thereof it cannot be recorded that there was any such defect in the seed. Wrong findings were recorded by the District Forum by ignoring the legal aspects of the case and the same are hereby set aside.
14. In the result, this appeal is accepted, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
15. The appellants/opposite parties deposited the sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal on 13.8.2010. They deposited another sum of Rs.34,429/- on 23.9.2010 in compliance with the order dated 24.8.2010. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to First Appeal No.1435 of 2010. 11 the opposite parties by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
16. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) February 24, 2014 MEMBER Bansal