State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds vs Jagjit Singh on 14 July, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.96 of 2017
Date of Institution : 13.02.2017
Order reserved on: 11.07.2017
Date of Decision : 14.07.2017
M/s Shakti Vardhak hybrid seeds Pvt. Ltd., New Rishi Nagar,
Hisar through one of its Directors Ved Parkash.
.....Appellant/Opposite party No.2
Versus
1. Jagjit Singh son of Harbans Singh, aged 35 years, resident
of Village Chak Maujdeen Wala, Tehsil Jalalabad District
Fazilka.
.....Respondent/complainant.
2. M/s Dhamija Trading Company, SCF-1, Kanda No.2, Grain
Market, Fazilka through its authorized Signatory.
.......Performa respondent/Opposite Party No.1
Appeal against order dated
16.12.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. P.K. Chugh, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate with Sh. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate For respondent No.2: Ex-parte ............................................F.A. No. 96 of 2017 2
SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 16.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur, directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.22,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual realization and further, to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The appellant of this appeal is opposite party No.2 in complaint before District Forum Ferozepur and respondent No.1 of this appeal is complainant therein and respondent No.2 of this appeal is OP No.1 in the complaint and they be referred, as such, hereinafter for the sake of convenience.
2. Complainant Jagjit Singh has filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 'Act') against OPs on the averments that vide invoice No.2557 dated 11.02.2016 bearing Lot No.SVHS-KR-130115, he purchased seven packets of Virat Moong Seeds for an amount of Rs.2800/- from opposite party No.1, which gave the assurance of plenty of produce with the above seeds. He sowed the said seeds in his fields as per instructions and specifications of OPs, but was astonished to notice that seeds had not grown up properly, despite taking all precautions by him. He along with Pankaj Malhotra Lambardar and Harbhajan Singh s/o Sona Singh, his immediate neighbours, contacted OP No.1 and informed it the inferior quality of seeds sold to it, but all in vain. OPs even F.A. No. 96 of 2017 3 misbehaved with him. OPs supplied misbranded seeds to him to cheat him. He moved an application to Chief Agricultural Officer Fazilka to inspect the fields, who forwarded the complaint to Agricultural Development Officer Jalalabad for needful, who inspected the fields of complainant on 28.03.2016 in the presence of Pankaj Malahotra and other respectable persons. The above ADO submitted the report to the effect that there was no germination of alleged moong seeds in the fields of complainant and they were lying vacant. This act of OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their parts by selling misbranded seeds to him. Hence, complaint was filed before District Forum seeking following prayers by directing OPs;
i) to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation to
complainant for financial loss and mental
harassment for no germination of seeds.
ii) to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to
him.
3. Upon notice, OPs filed joint written reply by raising preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, as no cause of action had arisen to him against OPs. He had not approached the District Consumer Forum with clean hands. No deficiency in service on their parts is involved in this case. OP No.2 is a reputed manufacturing company and it had received number of awards in its field of activity and OP No.1 is authorized dealer. Complainant filed the F.A. No. 96 of 2017 4 frivolous complaint just to extort the money and unnecessarily dragged OPs into litigation. All the products and lots of the seeds were got duly tested from the State Seeds Testing Laboratory, Karnal. Even the seeds purchased by the complainant out of the lot No.SVHS-KR-130-115 had also been duly tested by the Seeds Analyst State Seed Laboratory Karnal, vide report dated 31.12.2015. Agriculture Universities/ Agriculture Departments had recommended 15 KG seeds for 1 Killa of land, whereas complainant had sown only 14 Kg seeds for 1 ½ acres of land. He had sown very less quantity of seeds for 1½ acres of his land, whereas the quantity should be 22 KG of seeds for 11/2 of land. Chief Agriculture Officer Fazilka, deputed Gurmeet Singh Cheema, Agriculture Development Officer to get sample of the stock lying with dealer OP No.1, but he found that there was no stock lying in the shop of OP No.1 and he annexed the copy of stock register of OP No.1 and thereafter, gave report that the field was lying vacant. Usually, seeds germinate within 5 to 7 days from the date of sowing in the fields. It was further averred by OPs that complainant deals in commercial activities and is not consumer. On merits, all the preliminary objections were reiterated and the other allegations of complaint regarding any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OPs were denied OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-9 and closed the F.A. No. 96 of 2017 5 evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Vinod Malathia, area Marketing Manager as Ex.OP1, along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, District Forum Ferozepur, accepted the complaint of complainant, vide above said order dated 16.12.2016. Aggrieved by order of the District Forum Ferozepur, OP No.2 now appellant preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record of the case.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 that District Forum allowed the complaint without appreciating the controversy, whereas, as per the report of Agricultural Development Officer Zalalabad, there was no germination of alleged moong seeds in the fields and they were lying vacant. Complainant had not complied with Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, as no lab test report has been placed on record to show that seeds were of defective quality. The appellant prayed for reversing the order of District Forum in this appeal.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submitted that District Forum rightly appreciated the controversy and allowed the complaint by finding OPs deficient in service. He F.A. No. 96 of 2017 6 submitted that no ground is there to reverse the order of District Forum in this appeal.
8. Having gone through the entire evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of the counsel for parties, we proceed to decide this matter on its merits with the aid of evidence on the record. OPs relied upon the report of Agriculture Development Officer Zalalabad Ex.C-6, who submitted his report to Chief Agricultural Officer Fazlika, stating that complainant had sown the alleged moong seeds in 12 kanal of land and on inspection, it was found that there was no germination of alleged moong seeds and fields of the complainant were lying vacant. OP also submitted that no lab test report under Section 13(1)(c) regarding defective seeds were produced on record by complainant. Majority of the farmers in the country are illiterate. They are not aware of the provisions Seeds Act 1966 and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government Agencies in such matters. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds of sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop of less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In normal cases, a farmer would use the entire quality of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time, he F.A. No. 96 of 2017 7 discovers that crop has failed, because the seeds purchased by him were defective, nothing remains with him, which could be got tested in the laboratory. Even otherwise, costly seeds are not preserved by the poor farmers after sowing season. Rule 13(3) of Seed Rules 1968 cast a duty on every person keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety under Section 7 of the Act to keep it over a period of three years as a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded after one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity and potency thereof. Hon'ble National Commission in EID Party (I) Ltd. Vs. Gourishankar & Anr reported in IV(2006) CPJ 178 (NC) held that "Since petitioner company is engaged in subsisting of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to respondent No.1 to the effect that it was not sub-standard/defective, so that the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory." Such sample could have been easily made available to the District Forum for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test by the dealer or manufacturer of the seeds. Why the F.A. No. 96 of 2017 8 appellant did not adopt this course has not been explained away during arguments of this appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and anr. reported in 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 838 observed that Seed purchased by the farmers from seed corporation found to be defective. Farmers are unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained. Complaint could not be rejected, to prove defect farmers could not be expected to keep a sample before sowing. Defective sample otherwise proved by the Horticulture and Agriculturist experts.
9. We have examined the report of Agriculture and Development Officer on the record, vide Ex.C-12. It is stated in the report that moong crop did not sprout and the seed was purchased from Dhamiza Trading company Fazilka and sowed in the field on 13.02.2016 in 12 kanals of land. No moong crop sprouted there, despite purchase of moong seeds by complainant from Dhamiza Trading Company Fazilka. Hon'ble Apex Court M. Madhusudhan Reddy(Supra) observed that Agriculture Development Officer can prove the defective quality of the seeds as well. He is a disinterested public servant and his evidence carries weight age. He has no motive to submit a biased report to favour a party.
10. In view of our above said discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of District Forum Ferozepur. F.A. No. 96 of 2017 9 The order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 16.12.2016 is, thus, affirmed in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
11. The Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.15,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Remaining amount, if any, remained due thereafter, shall be paid by OPs to complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
12. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.07.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Surinder Pal Kaur) MEMBER July 14,2017 DB