State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Anr. vs Bhag Singh on 2 April, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
1.
First Appeal No.256 of 2022
Date of Institution : 30.03.2022
Date of Reserve : 13.03.2024
Date of Decision : 02.04.2024
1. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited having its office at Survey No.69,
Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Gundlaponchampally Village,
Rangarddy District, Andhra Pradesh through its authorized
signatory Dedar Singh, Sales Officer of the Company.
2. M/s Metro Biotech, Opposite Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala-
Chandigarh Road, Bhankharpur, Tehsil - Derra Bassi, District
-SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Proprietor.
....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Bhag Singh son of Ganda Singh, resident of Village Mehmadpur,
Tehsil - Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/complainant
2.
First Appeal No.257 of 2022
Date of Institution : 30.03.2022
Date of Reserve : 13.03.2024
Date of Decision : 02.04.2024
1. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited having its office at Survey No.69,
Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Gundlaponchampally Village,
Rangarddy District, Andhra Pradesh through its authorized
signatory Dedar Singh, Sales Officer of the Company.
2. M/s Metro Biotech, Opposite Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala-
Chandigarh Road, Bhankharpur, Tehsil - Derra Bassi, District
-SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Proprietor.
....Appellants/Opposite parties
First Appeal No 256 of 2022 2
Versus
Ranjit Singh son of Mukkhtiar Singh, resident of Village Bakarpur,
Tehsil-Derabassi, District-SAS Nagar, Mohali.
.......Respondent/Complainant
3.
First Appeal No.259 of 2022
Date of Institution : 31.03.2022
Date of Reserve : 13.03.2024
Date of Decision : 02.04.2024
1. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited having its office at Survey No.69,
Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Gundlaponchampally Village,
Rangarddy District, Andhra Pradesh through its authorized
signatory Dedar Singh, Sales Officer of the Company.
2. M/s Metro Biotech, Opposite Gurudwara Sahib, Ambala-
Chandigarh Road, Bhankharpur, Tehsil - Derra Bassi, District
-SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Proprietor.
....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Avtar Singh son of Rattan Singh, resident of Village Pragpur,
Tehsil-Derabassi, District-SAS Nagar, Mohali.
.......Respondent/Complainant
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 03.12.2021 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SAS Nagar.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member First Appeal No 256 of 2022 3 Present (F.A.No.256 of 2022):-
For the appellants : Sh.Vaneet Mittal, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Ranwinder Singh, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the above noted three appeals, which have been preferred by the same appellants/opposite parties against the orders dated 03.12.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in similar set of complaints, whereby the complaints filed by the respondent/complainant, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act'), was allowed against the appellants/opposite parties and they were directed jointly and severally to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lakhs along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation.
2. Facts are taken from F.A. No.256 of 2022. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and purchased 5 bags of sunflower seeds from opposite party No.1, vide Cash/Credit Memo No.073, dated 19.03.2014. He sowed the seeds on his land and after some days he found that the seeds have not germinated and the seeds remained under soil ungerminated. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and narrated the whole story and requested them to compensate for his loss. He also moved an application on First Appeal No 256 of 2022 4 09.04.2014 to the Block Agriculture Officer, Dera Bassi and a team of Agriculture Development Officer and Agriculture Development Office, Ambala visited the spot and conducted the inspection of the fields and they found that only 4.5% seeds have germinated as remaining seeds were lying under the earth without germination. An inspection was also conducted and premises of opposite party No.1 on 10.04.2014 and it was found that opposite party No.1- dealers has purchased 30 bags of sunflower N.F.S.H., 36 Lot No.054450564 and no license of opposite party No.2 was found over there. When the opposite parties failed to address the grievances of the complainant, he filed the complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite parties on account of financial loss and mental agony.
4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their reply taking preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and cause of action etc. On merits, the rebutted the plea of the complainant and also they challenged the authenticity of the report of the Agriculture Development Officers who gave the report that only 4.5% of the seeds terminated. They further averred that the complainant has failed to lead any expert opinion. They alleged that for germination of seeds various factors are to be taken into consideration such as, quality of seed, proper irrigation, use of fertilizer, pesticides, labour, proper sowing and caring of crops etc. They further alleged that only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such like complaints. They admitted that seeds, in question, were purchased by the complainant from opposite party First Appeal No 256 of 2022 5 No.1. The other averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was allowed, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2021.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 and to allow the appeal.
7. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 5 bags of seeds from opposite party No.1 against cash memo No.073, Ex.C-1. Each bag contained 2 kg of N.F.S.H., 36 seeds, manufactured by opposite party No.2 bearing lot No.054450564. It is also not denied that opposite party No.1 charged Rs.1,450/- per bag from the complainant. The seeds were sowed on 21.03.2014 in 30 bighas of land and after few days it was observed by the complainant that seeds have not germinated properly and they remained under the soil. The complainant also approached Agriculture Development Officer on 09.04.2014 for inspection of the seeds for non-germination of the seeds and Agricultural Development Officer with team accordingly visited the spot and gave a detailed report that only 4.5% seeds germinated. First Appeal No 256 of 2022 6
9. Rebutting to these facts learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties vehemently argued that there was no defect in the quality of seeds but non-germination of seeds were due to the fact that they were not sown properly because the other factors which help in sowing the seeds are watering, pesticides and fertilizers which was not taken into consideration by the respondent/ complainant. He further asserted that the appellant/ opposite party No.2 is a reputed company who deals in manufacturing of seeds under certification of their fully tested in the laboratory before it is being sold to the farmers and this fact has not been appreciated by the District Commission. He further pleaded that the District Commission has failed to take into note of the fact that no expert opinion was produced by the respondent/complainant as required under the Consumer Protection Act and in the absence of that quality of the seeds cannot be challenged merely on the oral assertions. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties further averred that such like seeds were sold to 500 farmers but no complaint has ever been received from any other farmer showing that there was no defect in the quality of seeds but was due to the lack of procedure adopted by the respondent/ complainant for sowing the seeds.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant pleaded that there were genetic defects in the seeds, which was the reason for non-germination of the seeds and this directly reflects the deficiency on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in supplying the low quality seeds to the respondent/complainant First Appeal No 256 of 2022 7 and the District Commission has rightly observed that due to the lack of quality seeds, seeds could not be germinated. No doubt, in order to prove, the seeds sold to the respondent/ complainant were of sub-standard or defective, the same was required to be tested from the laboratory as per the requirement of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. No application was moved by the respondent/ complainant before the authorities for getting the seeds of same batch tested from any laboratory, except the report of the Agriculture Office, Ex.C-3. Then according to this fact, we are of the opinion that several buyers of the seeds cannot be expected to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. Furthermore, in the present case, an application was moved by the respondent/complainant before the Chief Agriculture Officer stating his grievances for non-germination of the seeds and the senior officer had visited the fields and inspected the seeds and gave his report, Ex.C-3, certifying that the seeds were of defective quality and only 4.5% seeds were germinated so, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent/ complainant on the grounds of having not sent the sample of the seeds for testing to the laboratory.
11. On the contrary, it is a case of appellant/ opposite party No.1 that he purchased the seeds from appellant/ opposite party No.2 in the packets and then they further sold the same to the farmers and in that eventuality both the parties are governed under First Appeal No 256 of 2022 8 the provisions of Section 6, 7, 8 & 9 of Seeds Act, 1966 which requires a certification of certified agency or from the Central Certification Board. The provisions of Section 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Seeds Act envisaged as under:
"6. Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc.- The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify-
a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety;
b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which such mark or label may contain.
7. Regulation or sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-
a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;
c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof specified under clause (b) of section 6; and
d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.
8. Certification agency- The State Government or the Central Government in consultation with the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a certification agency for the State First Appeal No 256 of 2022 9 to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification agency by or under this Act."
12. These provisions clearly provides that a certificate is required for the sale of seeds in open market to the customers but no such certificate as well as analysis reports of the seeds, in dispute, of any recognized laboratory is produced by the appellants/opposite parties before denying the claim of the complainant because the presumption cannot be drawn that seeds, in dispute, which were purchased by the respondent/complainant were not of inferior quality. If they would have produced such certificate then the onus would have shifted to the respondent/complainant to prove that seeds, in dispute, was of inferior quality and then the test was mandatory from the appropriate laboratory but in the absence of any such certification, onus remains with the appellants/opposite parties to prove that the seeds sold by them was certified and of good quality. This clearly proves that the seeds which were sold by the appellants/opposite parties to the respondent/complainant were of sub-standard quality, due to which the respondent/complainant has suffered a loss.
13. I also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506 observing that it is probable that that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they were not in a position to send the seeds for analysis. In order to prove that the seeds sold to the complainants were sub- First Appeal No 256 of 2022 10 standard/defective, the petitioner could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory, which it had failed to do so. No adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant on the ground of his having not sent the sample of seeds for testing to the laboratory. The complainant led the evidence of State's Agricultural Department in respect of his case, who also deposed before the District Commission after seeing the crop in the fields. The onus passes on to the petitioner to prove that the seeds, which were used, were not defective, which he had failed to do so."
14. Furthermore, as alleged by the appellants/opposite parties that they sold these package of seeds of number of farmers but nobody had complained against genetic defects, is not sustainable in the eyes of law without any correct evidence on the file because when the appellants/opposite parties were in possession of the packets of the seeds of the similar batches then it was their prime duty to get the same tested from the authenticated laboratory to show their genuineness and power of germination and they lacked in producing any such report on the file and also has not proved their authenticity report that at that time when they were sold, in perfect condition.
15. Sequel to the above discussions, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order of the District Commission. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
First Appeal No 256 of 2022 11
16. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.2,27,375/- in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2022. Both these sums, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/its entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. First Appeal No.257 of 2022
17. This appeal has been filed by the same appellants/opposite parties for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2021 on the similar grounds as averred by the appellant/complainant in F.A. No.256 of 2022, therefore, need not to repeat it again and the respondent/complaint prayed to compensate him by giving directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest for mental agony and financial loss.
18. In view of the findings recorded in F.A. No.256 of 2022, this appeal of the appellants/opposite parties is also dismissed being devoid of the merits. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
19. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.59,275/- in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2022. Both these sums, along with interest accrued thereon, First Appeal No 256 of 2022 12 if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of his/its entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law. First Appeal No.259 of 2022
20. This appeal has been filed by the same appellants/opposite parties for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2021 on the similar grounds as averred by the appellants/opposite parties in F.A. No.256 of 2022, therefore, need not to repeat it again and the respondent/complaint prayed to compensate him by giving directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest for mental agony and financial loss.
21. In view of the findings recorded in F.A. No.256 of 2022, this appeal of the appellants/opposite parties is also dismissed being devoid of the merits. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
22. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.59,275/- in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2022. Both these sums, along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount to the extent of First Appeal No 256 of 2022 13 his/its entitlement and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard, in accordance with law.
23. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER April 02nd ,2024 parmod