State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Beant Singh Son Of Kesar Singh, vs M/S Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, on 9 April, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008
Date of institution: 3.12.2008
Date of decision : 9.4.2013
Beant Singh son of Kesar Singh, resident of Village Mulianwali, Tehsil
Fazilka, District Ferozepur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, SCF 78, New Grain Market,
Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
2. MAHYCO Seeds Limited, Resham Bhawan, 78, Veer Nariman
Road, Mumbai.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 24.9.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For respondent No.1 : None.
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Jagat Narain, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Beant Singh(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 24.9.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased 7 packets of 450 gms. each Mahyco-6301 BT cotton seed from respondent No. 1 on 12.5.2007 manufactured by respondent No. 2 and paid Rs. 5075/- to respondent No. 1 and bill No. 463 dated 12.5.2007 was issued by First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 2 respondent No. 1 to the appellant. The appellant sown the same in his 5½ acres fields but the crop did not give the proper yield due to sub-standard quality of the seed which was sold by respondent No. 1 to the appellant. The appellant cared well and sprayed on the crop time to time and also put the fertilizer like DAP and Urea. Only 60 to 70% of the crop/plants bare only 25-30 flowers (Tinda) and there was no fruit to the remaining plants. Due to sub-standard quality of the seed, the appellant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. The appellant approached the respondent due to the loss of the crop but he did not care and ultimately, the appellant made an application on 2.10.2007 to Agriculture Development Officer, Fazilka. The officials of the Agriculture Department inspected the crop of the appellant and submitted the report No. 2135 dated 22.11.2007. It was also alleged by the appellant that he also purchased cotton seed from Malout and Aarniwala and was sown in his fields and the yield of the crop was very good i.e. about 15 quintals per acre. The complaint was filed by the appellant with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs as loss of the less yield, which was suffered by the appellant due to sub standard quality of the seed and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by respondent No.1 taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form, the complaint was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party, the answering respondent purchased the seed in question in duly packed and sealed condition from M/s Parshotam Periwal and Brothers, Abohar vide bill dated 8.5.2007, who was the authorized Wholesale Dealer of the manufacturer and sold the same in the same condition to the appellant. The appellant had also not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, which are mandatory. On merits, it was admitted that the seed in dispute was purchased by the appellant from the First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 3 answering respondent. It was denied that the seed was of sub- standard/inferior quality. The yield also depends upon so many internal as well as environmental factors. The version of the appellant was denied in toto.
4. Respondent No. 2 also filed the reply of the complaint on the same lines as taken by respondent No. 1 in its reply.
5. Complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the President and one Member of the District Forum and the same was accepted by one Member, who differ from the findings of the majority view and partly accepted the complaint and directed respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 55,000/- i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per acre, Rs. 2,000/- for harassment as well as Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal was filed by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has wrongly observed that the seeds were not of inferior quality or duplicate, one Member of the District Forum also supported the version of the appellant and directed the respondents to pay the compensation, the findings of the majority are based on surmises and conjectures and suffers from patent illegalities and glaring infirmities. The order of the District Forum is against the facts and evidence on the file, as such, the majority order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum, order of the majority as well as order of one Member and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
8. The only dispute between the parties is regarding the quality of cotton seed, which was purchased by the appellant from respondent No. 1 and manufactured by respondent No. 2. First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 4
9. The relevant Sections 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966 are reproduced to decide the controversy between the parties:-
"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 of 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 to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification agency by or under this Act. [8-A. The Central Seed Certification Board* :- (1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Central Seed Certification Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to advise the Central Government and the State Governments on all matters relating to certification, and to co-ordinate the functioning of the agencies established under Section 8.
(2) The Board shall consist of the following members, namely :-
(i) a Chairman, to be nominated by the Central Goverument;
(ii) four members, to be nominated by the Central Government from out of the persons employed by the State Governments as Directors of Agriculture;
(iii) three members, to be nominated by the Central Government from out of the persons employed by the Agricultural Universities as Directors of Research;
(iv) thirteen persons, to be nominated by the Central Government to represent such interests as that Government thinks fit, of whom not less than four persons shall be representative of seed producers or tradesmen.First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 5
(3) A member of the Board shall, unless his seat becomes vacant earlier by resignation or otherwise, be entitled to hold office for two years from the date of his nomination :
Provided that a person nominated under Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) of sub-section (2) shall hold office only for so long as he hold the appointment by virtue of which his nomination was made. 8-B. Other Committees :- The Board may appoint as many Committees as it deems fit consisting wholly of the members of the Board or wholly of other persons or partly of members of the Board any partly of other persons as it thinks fit to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be delegated to them, subject to such conditions as it may think fit, by the Board.
8-C. Proceedings of Board or Committee not to be invalid by reason of any vacancy therein :- No proceeding of the Board or any Committee thereof shall become invalid merely by reason of the existence of any vacancy therein or any defect in the constitution thereof. 8-D. Procedure for Board :- The Board may, subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, make bye-laws for the purpose of regulating its own procedure and the procedure of any Committee thereof and the conduct of all business to be transacted by it or such Committee. 8-E. Secretary and other officers :- The Central Government shall, --
(i) appoint a person to be the Secretary of the Board, and
(ii) provide the Board with such technical and other staff as the Central Government considers necessary.]
9. Grant of certificate by certification agency :- (1) Any person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety may, if he desires to have such seed certified by the certification agency, apply to the certification agency for the grant of a certificate for the purpose.
(2) Every application under sub-section(1) Shall be made in such form, shall contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of any such application for the grant of a certificate, the certification agency may, after such enquiry as it thinks fit and after satisfying itself that the seed to which the application relates conforms to the [prescribed standards], grant a certificate in such form and on such conditions as may be prescribed :
[Provided that such standards shall not be lower than the minimum limits of germination and purity specified for that seed under Clause (a) of Section 6.] Notes
1. Scope 2. Application for Certificate
1. Scope :- Section 9 of the Act deals with grant of certificate by certification agency.
2. Application for Certificate :- Where a firm engaged in production of MS 2077A sorghum seed, had applied for certificate under section 9 of the Act, First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 6 authorities cannot decline to entertain such application for certificate on the ground that Government had taken a decision to confine the production of foundation seeds only to the Government and private individuals cannot be permitted to produce foundation seeds."
10. We have perused the Quality Control Germination Report Ex. OP-1, which is reproduced:-
"Mahyco Seed Ltd. VEJALPUR QUALITY CONTROL GERMINATION REPORT Date : 02/05/2007 Following is the analysis report * of the seed samples received.
Test No. Item Lot No. Gern. Resl EMGR Pure Other ODV Inert Weed
Description % % Seed Seed Seed Matter Seed
% Per Per % Per
KG KG KG
BT COTTON MRC-6301 (F) HY-CLEAN
40000318116 VKC101030 96 PASS NA 99.71 NA NA 0.29 NA
Total No. of Lots : 01 Pass Lots : 01 Fail Lots 0
(* The information contained in this report is based on the sample received for testing. Use of this information by anyone implies a guarantee that the Sample is Representative of lot. Seed storage conditions, seed moisturer contents, insect infestation and various environmental factors may affect seed quality after satisfactory Laboratory test.) END OF GERMINATION REPORT CC : THE HOD QA, MAHYCO, JALNA REPORTED BY : SD/-
NAME : A.H.KULKARNI DESIGNATION:MANAGER QC"
11. It is proved by the respondents that before the marketing of the BT Cotton Seed MRC-6301 (F) HY-CLEAN, the same were tested on 2.5.2007 and as per the above report, the quality of the seed was satisfactory as per laboratory test. But to controvert this report, no evidence was produced by the appellant.
12. The Quality Control Germination Report Ex. OP-1 relates to Lot No. VKC-101030 and respondent No. 1 also sold seed bearing Lot No. 101030 to the appellant.
13. We have also perused the report Ex. C-4 of Gurmeet Singh Cheema, A.D.O., Fazilka, who inspected the crop of the appellant on 5.11.2007. As per the report of the A.D.O., 80% cotton crop of the appellant was affected by Milibug disease and 5 to 10% plants were also affected by leaf curl virus disease.
First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 7
14. A.D.O. was also examined in the District Forum on Oath. In his cross-examination, it was admitted by him that the variety of the seed in dispute was approved by the Agriculture Department and the yield of the crop depends upon various factors like climatic condition, use of water, pesticides and insecticides. It was also admitted by him that at the time of inspection of the crop, the cotton crop was already picked by the appellant. Nowhere in his report, it was mentioned that the quality of the seed was sub-standard or the yield of the crop of the appellant was less due to the quality of the seed.
15. As per the above discussion, it was not possible for the A.D.O. to assess the yield of the crops when the same was already picked by the appellant at the time of inspection of the crop by the A.D.O.
16. The majority order of the District Forum is speaking one and based on evidence and the dissenting view of the other Member is not correct and not as per the evidence on record. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.3.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
April 9, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1394 of 2008 8