State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswinder Singh S/O Karnail Singh vs Bambhia Pesticides, Hybrid Foundation ... on 9 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.695 of 2008.
Date of Institution : 07.07.2008.
Date of Decision : 09.11.2009.
Jaswinder Singh S/o Karnail Singh R/o Village Gurusar, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District
Muktsar.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Bambhia Pesticides, Hybrid Foundation and Certified Seeds Merchants, Main
Bazar, Gidderbaha, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar.
2. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Registered Office: 905, Kanchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
3. Rallis India Limited, Registered Office at 7th Floor, Apeejay House, 3 Dinshaw
Vachha Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai- 4000 20.
....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 06.05.2008 passed by
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ex-parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of the following 4 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. Therefore, all these appeals are being decided by a common judgment:-
S.No. F.A. No. Particulars
1. F.A. No.695 of 2008 Jaswinder Singh Vs Bambhia Pesticides & Others.
2. F.A. No.696 of 208 Jagga Singh Vs Bambhia Pesticides & Others.
3. F.A. No.913 of 2008 Balvir Singh Vs Zimidara Agro Centre & Others.
4. F.A. No.1337 of 2008 Jagraj Singh Vs Sahara Agro Centre & Others.
F.A. No.695 of 2008 2
2. The facts are taken from F.A. No.695 of 2008 (Jaswinder Singh Vs Bambhia Pesticides & Others) and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
3. The appellant was the agriculturist of village Gurusar, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar. He wanted to sow the cotton seed in his land measuring 3 acres. He was told by respondent no.1(in short, "the dealer") that the top quality of NCS (Ranjit)-913 cotton seed manufactured by Nuziveedu Seeds Limited respondent no.2 would give the highest yield.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant had purchased 5 packets of NCS (Ranjit)-913 cotton seed from respondent no.1 at the rate of Rs.725/- per packet for the total amount of Rs.3625/- vide bill dated 30.4.2007. It was sown in 3 acres of land. However, the appellant did not get any produce from those plants. Although, the plants grew up but there were only 4 or 5 cotton bowls (Tindas). There was leaf curl virus in the fields due to which per acre yield of the crop was very low than the normal produce secured by the other farmers. Moreover black worm (Kali Sundi) also attacked the cotton crop. The appellant took up the matter with the dealer respondent no.1 and requested him to visit the fields but he did not pay any heed to it.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant filed an application to the Block Agriculture Officer, Gidderbaha. He visited the fields of the appellant on 19.9.2007 and reported that 50% of the plants of cotton crop were having no produce. Remaining 50% of the plants of cotton crop were having just 10/12 cotton bowls (Tindas). He also reported that there was excessive leaf curl virus. Due to less height of the plants of cotton, there was less quantity of the produce of the plants.
6. It was further pleaded that the appellant had spent a huge amount on fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation etc., besides spending on the seed. He had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short, "the District Forum"), seeking compensation, interest and costs.
F.A. No.695 of 2008 3
7. Respondent no.1 filed the written reply. It was denied for want of knowledge if the appellant was a farmer or if he was owner of 3 acres of land. It was however admitted that respondent no.1 was the dealer of cotton seed while respondent no.2 was the manufacturer and respondent no.3 was doing the marketing of the aforesaid seed. It was also admitted that the appellant had come to the shop of the dealer on 18.5.2007 and had demanded B.T. Cotton seed. It was sold by the dealer to the appellant. No complaint was ever received about the results of the seed.
8. It was further pleaded that the agriculture produce depended upon a number of circumstances namely preparing of land, climatic conditions, irrigation, fertilizers etc. The appellant had never complained about the less production from the seed. Rather, the respondents provide free inspection services if any complaint was received. The producers try their best for satisfaction of their customers. The manufacturers have spent crores of rupees on their product and their research work. However, defects/lapses in the product cost very heavily to the company. Therefore, they continuously keep a watch over the fruit of their products. The company employ experts and depute them to roam about in the area to check results of the seed and to provide guidance to the users for proper use and care of the crop. This was the free service provided by the manufacturers to the farmers.
9. It was denied if the appellant had suffered any loss or if there was any defect in the quality of the seed. It was also denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. Respondent no.2 also filed the written reply. Almost similar pleadings were made by respondent no.2. It was pleaded that since the leaf curl virus/Mealybug and black worm (Kali Sundi) had attacked the crop of the appellant, therefore, the less production was not because of the inferior quality of seed but because of the crop disease. Legal objections were also pleaded and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
11. Respondent no.3 also filed the separate written reply. Almost similar pleadings were made and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. F.A. No.695 of 2008 4
12. The appellant examined Darshan Singh, Assistant Cotton Extension Officer (in short, "ACEO") Gidderbaha. He tendered himself for cross examination and he was cross examined at length. He proved the documents Exc.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/C. The appellant himself also appeared as a witness and filed his affidavit as Ex.C1. He also proved the documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.
13. On the other hand, the respondents proved the affidavit of Dharmendra Panwar, their (Authorized Person) as Ex.OPA, affidavit of Ravi Kant Sharma (Area Manager) as Ex.OPB. They also proved the documents as Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP14.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 6.5.2008, by holding that the crops could not come up as it was affected due to leaf curl disease.
15- Hence, the appeal.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2008 be set aside and the appellant be awarded compensation.
No.696 of 2008:-
17. Similarly, the appellant had purchased four packets of NCS (Ranjit) 913 cotton seed vide bill dated 18.5.2007 for a total sum of Rs.3000/- from respondent no.1, manufactured by respondent no.2. The appellant had sown this seed in 4 acres of his land. He gave proper fertilizer, pesticides, insecticides, watering etc. However, the produce of cotton crop was only much less and the crop was damaged due to inferior quality of the seed. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.
18. The case was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement.
19. The learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint by passing the impugned order dated 6.5.2008.
20. Hence, the appeal.
F.A. No.695 of 2008 5
21. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2008 be set aside and the appellant be awarded compensation.
F.A. No.913 of 2008:-
22. Similarly, the appellant was the owner of 7 acres of land and had purchased B.T. cotton seeds namely NCS (Ranjit) 913 and Kisan Early (NCS)-138 BT seed vide bill dated 15.5.2007 for a total sum of Rs.6000/- from respondent no.1, manufactured by respondent no.2. The appellant had sown this seed in his land. He gave proper fertilizer, pesticides, insecticides, watering etc. on which he spent more than Rs.70,000/-. However, the produce of cotton crop was only much less and the crop was damaged due to inferior quality of the seed. He claimed total compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-.
23. The case was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement.
24. The learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 30.4.2008.
25. Hence, the appeal.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2008 be set aside and the appellant be awarded compensation.
27. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there is no merit in the present appeal and that the same be dismissed. F.A. No.1337 of 2008.
28. Similarly, the appellant was the owner of 15 acres of land. He had purchased B.T. cotton seeds namely (Ranjeet)-913 and Kisan Early (NCS)-138 BT seed vide bill dated 8.5.2007 for a total sum of Rs.35,500/- from respondent no.1, manufactured by respondent no.2. The appellant had sown this seed in his land. He gave proper fertilizer, pesticides, insecticides, watering etc. However, the produce of cotton crop was only much less and the crop was damaged due to inferior quality of the seed. He suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.28,000/- per acre. He claimed total compensation to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/-.
F.A. No.695 of 2008 6
29. The case was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement.
30. The learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 17.9.2008, by holding that the cotton crop could not come up as it was affected due to leaf curl disease.
31. Hence, the appeal.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2008 be set aside and the appellant be awarded compensation.
33. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 was that there is no merit in the present appeal and that the same be dismissed. F.A. No.695 of 2008:-
34. The appellant has placed on the file a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as Ex.C3. It reveals that the appellant was the owner of the land measuring 22 Kanals 18 Marlas. He has also proved a copy of Khasra Girdawri for Kharif 2007 as Ex.C4 which reveals that the appellant had sown cotton crop in 22 Kanal 9 Marlas of land. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant was the owner of 22 Kanals 18 Marlas while he had sown cotton crop in the land measuring 22 Kanals 9 Marlas which comes to 2 acres 6 Kanals 9 Marlas.
35. It is also proved that the appellant had purchased the cotton seed from respondent no.1 on 30.4.2007 for an amount of Rs.3625/-. This fact is admitted by respondent no.1 in the written statement. The respondent has given the date of sale as 18.5.2007 but the bill Mark-A reveals that the seed was purchased by the appellant on 30.4.207.
36. It is also proved by the appellant that the cotton crop had not given much yield on which, the appellant had filed an application dated 17.9.2007 to the Block Development Officer, Gidderbaha, Ex.CW1/A in which he had stated that he had sown NCS Ranjit-913 B.T. Cotton Seed but the crop was totally damaged and had not borne any fruit (Tindas). This application was supported by the affidavit dated 17.9.2007 F.A. No.695 of 2008 7 Ex.CW1/B. The fields of the appellant were inspected by Dalbeer Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector, Gidderbaha on 19.9.2007, who submitted his report Ex.CW1/C.
37. It is reported in the technical report submitted by the Dalbeer Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector that the plants were of uneven size. 50% of the plants had not borne any flower or fruit and on the remaining 50% plants, there were 10 to 15 fruits (Tindas). These Tindas were very bleak in size and the expected agriculture produce could be only 4 to 5 Maunds against the agriculture produce obtained by other farmers from their fields to the tune of 20 to 25 Maunds.
38. Darshan Singh, ACEO was examined as witness by the appellant, who proved the application of the appellant as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of the appellant as Ex.CW1/B and the report of Dalbeer Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector as Ex.CW1/C.
39. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the cross examination, Darshan Singh, ACEO has admitted that the jamabandi and khasra numbers of the fields visited were not mentioned in the report. Dalbeer Singh Agriculture Sub Inspector was only a matriculate. He has not passed any diploma. He was promoted from the post of Beldar. Notice of the date of inspection was not given to the respondent. Sample of seed was not taken. The crop was suffering from Bacterial leaf curl, bacterial leaf blight and white fly. Leaf Curl disease was caused by white fly. Such disease could be controlled by the use of pesticides/fungicides. The appellant had not consulted them (Darshan Singh, ACEO and other agriculture officers) for use of any pesticides. No wrapper of the seed was taken. B.T. Seed was resistant only to Heliothis Armigera.
40. On the basis of statement of Darshan Singh, ACEO, it was submitted that the cotton plants in the fields of the appellant were spoiled by the diseases and not because of poor quality of the seed.
41. This submission has been considered.
42. The technical report given by Dalbeer Singh, Agriculture Sub Inspector, Ex.CW1/C is duly attested and verified by Darshan Singh, ACEO. He has deposed in the cross examination that he was taken by the appellant himself to his fields. He has also deposed that leaf curl disease was caused by white fly and white fly attacks only on F.A. No.695 of 2008 8 susceptible varieties. Moreover, Darshan Singh, ACEO, has not deposed anywhere if the cotton crop of the appellant was damaged only because of the leaf curl disease or by bacterial leaf blight or by white fly and not because of the defective seed. The mere fact that the plants were not of even size, some of the plants had given the flowers and the fruit while the other plants had not given the flowers or fruit, clearly leads to the conclusion that there was some defect in the seed also. Darshan Singh, ACEO had not deposed if the bacterial leaf curl disease or bacterial leaf blight had affected only some of the plants and not the whole of it. Therefore, the report Ex.CW1/C clearly reveals that some loss may have been caused by the diseases also but the whole loss of crop could not be attributed to the diseases alone.
43. It was stated in the report Ex.CW1/C that the expected yield from the fields of the appellant was only 4 to 5 Maunds while the other farmers were getting 20 to 25 Maunds per acre. If the maximum crop of the appellant is taken to be 5 Maunds and the minimum agriculture produce of the adjoining fields is taken to 20 Maunds, the conversion come to 8 quintals by the other farmers and 2 quintals produced by the appellant. Therefore, the loss comes to 75%. If 50% loss is attributed to the diseases also, at least 25% loss can be attributed to the defective quality of the seed.
44. The next submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the seed was not got tested by the appellant from the Laboratory as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act or as per the provisions of the Seeds Act. Therefore, the defect in the seed is not proved.
45. This submission has been considered.
46. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment reported as "National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. M. Madhusudan Reddy" 2004(2) CLT 301 that even if the seed is not got tested in the laboratory, as it was not possible, relief cannot be denied to the poor farmer. It was held as under:-
"10. In view of the above discussion on the two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner our clear view is that it is only under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that remedy F.A. No.695 of 2008 9 lies for the farmer to be compensated for defective seeds as also the fact that when the provision of Section 13(1)(c) becomes unimplementable then one has to resort to alternative methods, which in this case was the report of Commissioner who was a retired Assistant Director of Agriculture. It cannot be the case of the petitioner to implement an unimplementable proposition, it is not the case of the petitioner that either under the Seeds Act or on the label of the product or under any other provisions of law, that the farmer is expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, for the farmer to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirement of Section 13(1)(c)."
47. Reference can also be made to another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "INDIA SEED HOUSE v. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR." III(2008) CPJ 96 (NC) in which it was held as under:-
"Secondly, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds 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. On the other hand, a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective."
48. Similar submission was advanced before the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment reported as "National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. P.V.Krishna Reddy and others, 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC)" and it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission as under: -
F.A. No.695 of 2008 10
"21. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers- respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & others 1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri v. Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230 (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Seelam Rama Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra)."
49. The next submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that Killa Numbers and Khasra Numbers were not given by the Agriculture Sub Inspector in his report dated 19.9.2007, This report cannot be made the basis of a judgment. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula reported as "Narender Kumar v. M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007 (2) CLT, 683".
50. Submissions have been considered.
51. In the present case, the Agriculture Sub Inspector has specifically reported that he had visited the fields of apellant. Therefore, there was no ambiguity about the fields which were inspected by the Agriculture Sub Inspector even if killa number or khasra number of the agricultural land of respondent are not given. In the judgment in Narender Kumar's case (supra), it was not stated by the Agriculture Development Officer if he had inspected the agricultural land of the complainant of that case and he had also not given killa number and khasra number of the land which he had inspected. In these circumstances, Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was pleased to F.A. No.695 of 2008 11 hold that the identity of the land was not established. But, as discussed above, in the facts of the present case it has been specified by the Agriculture Sub Inspector that he had inspected the agricultural land of appellant. Therefore, even if killa number and khasra number was not specifically given in the report that does not affect the identity of the land which has been otherwise proved.
52. As stated above, the appellant is proved having sown NCS (Ranjit) 913 cotton seed in 2 acres 6 kanals of land and not in 3 acres. If the loss attributable to the defective seed is assessed at 25%, in terms of money, it comes to about Rs.3000/- per Killa. Thus, the total amount of compensation of the appellant comes to approximately Rs.8,250/-.
53. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.8,250/-. He is also awarded Rs.5000/- as costs. The costs shall be payable by the dealer respondent no.1 while the main amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no.2, who was the manufacturer.
54. The amount compensation and costs shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant within a period of 2 months after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the respondents would be liable interest @ 7.5 P.A. on the amount of compensation with effect from today.
F.A. No.696 of 2008:-
55. The appellant has proved copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as Ex.C2, according to which, he is owner of 2 acres of land along with his mother. He has also proved the Khasra Girdawri Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 for Kharif 2007. This also shows that the appellant had sown NCS Ranjit-913 cotton seed in 2 acres of land. However, in the application Ex.CW1/A, affidavit Ex.CW1/B and in the report Ex.CW1/C, the appellant is shown having sown the seed in 4 acres of land.
56. The bill dated 18.5.2007 for the purchase of cotton seed is proved as Mark- A. The application filed by the appellant to the Block Agriculture officer is proved as CW1/A. He also proved his affidavit as Ex.CW1/B. Report of Dalbeer Singh, F.A. No.695 of 2008 12 Agriculture Sub Inspector dated 1.10.2007 is proved as Ex.CW1/C. Statement of Darshan Singh, ACEO, was recorded. He was also cross examined at length.
57. As per this report, 60% of the plants were without any flower or fruit but 40% of the plants bore 20 to 25 Tindas. The expected production was 5 to 6 Maunds per acre while the normal produce was 20 to 25 Maunds. Therefore, the loss of income comes to 70%
58. As per the statement of Darshan Singh, ACEO, the crop was attacked by bacterial leaf curl, bacterial leaf blight and white fly. However, the percentage of the disease is not given. If the loss to the disease is attributed to the extent of 50%, the loss to the defective seed comes to 20%. In terms of money, it comes to about Rs.2400/- per Killa. Thus, the total amount of compensation of the appellant comes to Rs.9600/-.
59. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.9600/-. He is also awarded Rs.5000/- as costs. The costs shall be payable by the dealer respondent no.1 while the main amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no.2 & 3, who were the manufacturers.
60. The amount of compensation and costs shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant within a period of 2 months after the receipt of a copy of this order. If the appellants fail to do so, they would be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% P.A.on the amount of compensation with effect from today.
F.A. No. 913 of 2008:-
61. The appellant had sown NCS Ranjit-913 B.T. Cotton seed in 3.5 acres and Kisan Early-138 seed in the remaining 3.5 acres of land. He has also proved the bill dated 15.5.2007 Ex.CW6 by which he had produced the cotton seed for the value of Rs.6000/- from Zimidara Agro Centre respondent no.1. The appellant has proved his application as Ex.CW2, addressed to the ACEO, Gidderbaha, complaining defective quality of the seed. He has also proved the technical report of Ram Lal, Agriculture Sub Inspector as Ex.CW1/A and the statement of Darshan Singh, ACEO dated 4.3.2008.
62. From this report, height of 60% of the plants was very less. There was no flower or fruit on any of these plants. The remaining plants had borne 2 to 3 Tindas and F.A. No.695 of 2008 13 the expected yield was 1-1/2 to 2 Maunds per acre. In the remaining 3.5 acres of land, Kisan Early-138 cotton seed was sown. There was no flower or fruit (Tindas) on any of the plants. The height of the plants was very low. Disease had affected the crop to the extent of 90%. Statement of Darshan Singh, ACEO was recorded.
63. It was clearly proved that in 3.5 acres of land where Kisan Early-138 seed was sown, the crop was damaged by the disease. Therefore, the crop was destroyed not because of the defective seed. However, 3.5 acres of land in which B.T. Ranjit-913 cotton seed was sown, the expected crop was only 1-1/2 to 2 Maunds which comes to about less than 1 quintal while the normal production of the crop in other fields was 8 quintals per acre. Therefore, the loss was to the tune of 87%. If the 50% loss is attributed to the disease, remaining loss due to defective seed comes to 37%. Thus, loss is assessed to the tune of Rs.4000/- per Kila. As the cotton crop of appellant was damaged in 3.5 acres, therefore, the total loss comes to Rs.14,000/-..
64. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.14,000/-. He is also awarded Rs.5000/- as costs. The costs shall be payable by the dealer respondent no.1 while the main amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no.2 & 3, who were the manufacturers.
65. The amount of compensation and costs shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant within a period of 2 months after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the respondents would be liable interest @ 7.5 P.A. on the amount of compensation with effect from today.
F.A. No.1337 of 2008:-
66. The appellant had purchased the NCS Ranjit-913 cotton seed on 8.5.2007 for the value of Rs.35,500/- vide bill Ex.C3. The appellant had sown NCS Ranjit-913 cotton seed in 15 acres of land. The affidavit of the appellant is proved as Ex.C1 and the report dated 17.9.2007 of Nekraj, Agriculture Development Officer, is proved as Ex.C2.
67. As per report of the Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C2, the height of the crop was 3 to 3.5 ft. The appellant had given fertilizers and spray etc. as per instructions. The plants did not attain proper height. The flowers on the plants were less. F.A. No.695 of 2008 14 The perusal of the fields revealed that the plants of the cotton crop were affected by leaf curl disease. The disease had affected the crop in the fields. Therefore, less fruit was seen. The agriculture produce was expected to be 1-1/2 to 2 Maunds i.e. less than 1 quintal against 8 quintals of yield taken by other farmers. Since the plants were affected largely by the leaf curl disease as per the report of Agriculture Development Officer Nekraj Ex.C2, therefore, the less production can be attributed to the disease to the extent of 70%. If the loss attributable to the defective seed is assessed at 17%, in terms of money, it comes to about Rs.2000/- per acre. Thus, the total amount of compensation of the appellant comes to Rs.30,000/-.
68. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted and the appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/-. He is also awarded Rs.5000/- as costs. The costs shall be payable by the dealer respondent no.1 while the main amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no.2, who was the manufacturer.
69. The amount compensation and costs shall be paid by the respondents to the appellant within a period of 2 months after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the respondents would be liable interest @ 7.5 P.A. on the amount of compensation with effect from today.
F.A. No.695 of 2008:-
70. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 26.10.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
71. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER November 9, 2009.
(Gurmeet Singh) F.A. No.695 of 2008 15