State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Napier Agritech And Another vs Shri Ram Nath Rana And Another on 4 September, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. (1) First Appeal No.287/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012 1.
The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Ram Nath Rana son of Shri Kishan Chand, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phati Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (2) First Appeal No.288/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Nokh Ram son of Shri Tholi Ram, R/o Village Choyaal, Post Office Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Ex-parte For the Respondent No.2: None (3) First Appeal No.289/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Nup Ram alias Anup Ram S/o Shri Demi Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Piplage, Phatti Shilihar, Kothi Kotkandhi, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (4) First Appeal No.290/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Vikram Singh son of Shri Bhim Singh, R/o Village Chhota Bhuin, Phatti Shilihar, Kothi Kotkandi, P.O. Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (5) First Appeal No.291/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Tikam Ram son of Shri Ved Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (6) First Appeal No.292/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Thakur Singh son of Shri Chet Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (7) First Appeal No.293/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Shri Bishan Dass, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Smt. Rekha wife of Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
3. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Ex-parte For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.3: None ...
(8) First Appeal No.294/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Lal Chand son of Shri Manglu Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (9) First Appeal No.295/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Khushi Ram, R/o Village Seri, Post Office Dhaugi, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (10) First Appeal No.296/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Mohinder Singh son of Shri Karam Singh, R/o Village Seri, Post Office Dhaugi, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sat Parkash Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (11) First Appeal No.297/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Sohan Lal son of Shri Chaangu Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (12) First Appeal No.298/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Prem Chand, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (13) First Appeal No.299/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Suresh Kumar son of Shri Jog Raj Sharma, R/o Village & Post Office Mohal, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (14) First Appeal No.300/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Ramjaan s/o of Shri Yasai, R/o Village Khadiseri, Phatti Diyar, Kothi Kotkandhi, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Ex-parte For the Respondent No.2: None (15) First Appeal No.301/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Pune Ram son of Shri Nand Lal, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (16) First Appeal No.302/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
..
Appellants Versus
1. Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Dina Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (17) First Appeal No.303/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Dayal Singh son of Shri Dine Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Garsa, Phatti & Kothi Bhallan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (18) First Appeal No.304/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Prem Singh son of Shri Nikka Ram, R/o Village Gadhori, Phatti Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (19) First Appeal No.305/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Duni Chand son of Shri Giru Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatt Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (20) First Appeal No.306/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Aslam son of Shri Gulam Ali, R/o Village Thrass, Post Office Hurla, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Ex-pare For the Respondent No.2: None (21) First Appeal No.307/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Budh Ram son of Shri Nikka Ram, R/o Village Gadhori, Phatti Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None (22) First Appeal No.308/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Pyare Chand alias Piyar Chand S/o Smt. Maina Devi, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Ex-parte For the Respondent No.2: None AND (23) First Appeal No.309/2011 Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
1. The Napier Agritech, Through its General Manager (Seed Division), Pawan Nagar, Sut Girani Road, Amravati, Maharashtra-444 607.
2. The Regional Manager, Napier Agritech, Regional Office, 44/3A, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh-1610101.
.. Appellants Versus
1. Shri Kunja Ram son of Shri Jethu Ram, R/o Village & Post Office Jia, Phatti Kashauri, Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
2. Shri Anil Sood son of Shri Piar Chand Sood, Proprietor of Byer Agro Seeds and Pesticides, Bhunter, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting? [1]Yes.
For the Appellants: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: None O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of 23 appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title hereof, as all of them are directed against similar orders, i.e. orders dated 10.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, passed separately in 23 complaints, in which the questions of law and facts raised, were identical.
2. Respondent No.1 in 22 appeals and respondents No.1 and 2 in F.A. No.293/2011 filed separate complaints, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, against the present appellant, its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh and Anil Kumar Sood, respondent No.2 in 22 appeals and respondent No.3 in F.A. No.293/2011, alleging that they had purchased hybrid tomato seeds branded as Honey 196 from respondent No.2 Anil Sood, who was a dealer of the appellant, on the assurance of said respondent Anil Kumar Sood that plants would grow upto a height of 5-6 feet, there will be 100% germination, the size and shape of the fruit would be very attractive and yield would also be higher than other varieties.
They alleged that the seeds were purchased by them in the beginning of the year, 2010 and sown in their land, the area of which was given by each of the complainants in their separate complaints. The detail of area and number of packets of seeds containing 10 grams seed each purchased, by each of the complainants is as follows:-
Sr. No. Name of complainant (s) Number of packets purchased Area of land in bighas 1 Ram Nath Rana 3 3-0-0 2 Nokh Ram 1
-3
Nup Ram alias Anup Ram 4 1-8-0 4 Vikrant Singh 30 15-0-0 5 Tikkam Ram 2 0-0-10 6 Thakur Singh 1 1-0-0 7 Kamla Devi & Rekha 2 1-17-0 8 Lal Chand 2 0-0-15 9 Raj Kumar 4 3-0-0 10 Mohinder Singh 3 2-5-0 11 Sohan Lal 2 0-16-0 12 Ramesh Kumar 2 1-12-0 13 Suresh Sharma 4 3-0-0 14 Ramjaan 2 1-10-0 15 Pune Ram 1 1-0-0 16 Thakur Dass 3 2-10-0 17 Dayal Singh 1 1-0-0 18 Prem Singh 1 0-15-0 19 Duni Chand 3 2-0-0 20 Aslam 1 1-0-0 21 Budh Ram 2 1-10-0 22 Pyare Chand 1 0-15-0 23 Kunja Ram 1 0-15-0
3. Complainants alleged that they had sown the seeds as per recommendation, but the plants had stunted growth. They grew upto a height of 1.5 to 2.5 feet and the shape of fruit as also its size were so unattractive that it was impossible to market the same. They reported the matter to respondent No.2, the dealer of the present appellant in the beginning of June, 2010, who immediately lodged a police report against the appellant and its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh and a case of cheating was registered against the appellant and its aforesaid Regional Manager. Complainants sought compensation for the loss sustained by them, on account of failure of their tomato crop, on account of alleged defective seeds.
4. Respondent Anil Kumar Sood in his reply admitted having sold the seeds and stated that he was not responsible for the loss sustained by the complainants, as he had sold the seeds in the same state and condition, in which he had purchased them from the appellant through its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
5. Appellant and its Regional Manager filed a common reply, in which it was denied that seeds were defective. They did not deny that they had sold the seeds in packets to respondent No.2 and the latter further sold some of those packets to the complainants. It was stated that case had been got registered by respondent Anil Kumar Sood against the appellant and its Regional Manager, because against the price of `1,44,485/- for the supplies made to him, on 12.01.2010, he had paid only a sum of `31,000/- and that to escape payment of remaining amount of money, he had lodged a false FIR.
6. Parties adduced evidence before the learned District Forum. Complainants relied upon the report of experts from CSKHPKV (Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradeshy Krishi Vishwavidyalaya) in support of their allegation that the plants produced by the seeds had stunted growth and their fruit was not in proper shape and hence, unmarketable, besides tendering in evidence their own affidavits in support of allegation about the purchase of seeds and sowing thereof in their land, as described in the complaints. Appellant did not lead any evidence.
7. Learned District Forum relying upon the report of experts of the aforesaid University as also the claims printed on the specimen packet of the seeds, concluded that seeds were defective, false claims had been made and that label showing the contents of the packets to be hybrid honey 196 tomato had been pasted on the original printed label, which was suggestive of the seed being not of the kind as indicated in the pasted list. Consequently, the complaints were allowed and the appellant ordered to pay compensation at the rate of `5,000/- per packet of the seeds sold to the complainants.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 and gone through the record.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that report of experts of the University, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned District Forum to allow the complaints, is in-fact, liable to be rejected for the reasons; (a) seeds were not tested and recommended for cultivation by the University; and (b) the experts did not examine and analyze the seeds themselves but just inspected the crop.
10. It is true that the experts, who have given the report had no occasion to examine the seeds and their report is based on visual inspection of the crop standing on the land of some of the complainants, but that by itself is no ground for rejecting their report. Their report is very much relevant, because it is based on their visual observations about the condition and height of the plants as also the size and shape of fruit and, on-course, they are agricultural experts. One of them namely Dr. J.K. Sharma is Associate Director, Dr. R.S. Jamwal is Senior Vegetable Breeder and third one Dr. Rakesh Devlash is Assistant Scientist (Plant Pathology).
11. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having not been adopted by the respondents-complainants, inasmuch as they did not produce the seeds before learned District Forum for getting the same tested at some notified laboratory, complaints are liable to be dismissed and the report of experts is also liable to be rejected.
12. It is true that Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, says that when there is a complaint with regard to defect in the purchased goods, complainant is supposed to produce the goods before the Forum, for analysis at one of the authorized laboratories, but in the present case it was impossible to follow this procedure. Complainants were not knowing at the time of sowing the seeds that the same would turn out to be defective, resulting in loss to them and so they should keep the sample. Otherwise also even if they had preserved some quantity of seeds, out of the purchased packets, by way of sample, for use under Section 13 (1) (c), in case of need, it would have been difficult to connect the same with the packets, which they had purchased from respondent Anil Kumar Sood and also the seeds would have become unusable as it is printed on the sample pouch that if the pouch is opened or torn, normal ageing takes place and the seeds should be used as quickly as possible.
13. Now, when no seeds were available with the complainants for getting the same tested at laboratory, in-accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c), complaints cannot be dismissed, merely for the reason that procedure mentioned in the aforesaid provision had not been followed.
14. Some packets of the same lot of which the packets were purchased by the complainants, were supposed to be available with the appellant and, therefore, it (the appellant) should have approached the learned District Forum promptly for analysis of the contents of one of such packets from an authorized laboratory.
15. It is true that appellant did produce one packet before the learned District Forum, but that was of February, 2011 or say 14 months after packing of the seeds in the pouches (date of packing is mentioned as 12th December, 2009 on specimen packet) and time period within which seeds could be used, was 9 months as printed on the packet. So, the analysis, even if got done by the learned District Forum, would have been an exercise in futility.
16. As a matter of fact, appellant is supposed to have come to know about the allegation that seeds supplied by it to their dealer (respondent Anil Kumar Sood) have not yielded the claimed results and the farmers felt cheated, in the month of June, 2010 or say well within 9 months time limit during which seeds were supposed to have remained intact, because respondent Anil Kumar Sood, on getting complaints from the respondents/complainants in all the appeals had lodged F.I.R. with the police. Copy of that F.I.R. is part of the record of learned District Forum. F.I.R. was registered on 12.06.2010. Seeds were supposed to have remained usable for a period of three months, even after registration of the aforesaid case. Appellant took no steps to get the seeds tested from some authorized laboratory, to defend itself, not only in the present complaints, but also in a criminal case which was registered against it and its Regional Manager, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
17. Report of University Experts relied upon by the complainants, to which reference has been made hereinabove, is to the effect that on inspection of crop, in the fields of nine of the complainants, it was found that height of plants was 1 to 2.5 feet against the claim of 3 to 7 feet, shape and size of fruit was such that it was not fit for marketing, the shape of the fruit and plant was not uniform, but varied from 6 to 28 (shapes) in different fields. It was observed that variation in the shape of plants and fruit indicated that seeds were not of one variety, but mixture of various varieties. The crop was reported to be completely infested with alternaria blight and buckeye rot, inspite of 2-3 pesticidal sprays.
18. Since the aforesaid report is based upon physical inspection of crop by experts, who can legitimately be presumed to be disinterested and independent persons, there should be no reason to doubt the same. It can safely be used as positive and substantive evidence, in support of the allegation made in the complaints.
19. As regards the quantum of compensation, the report records that one bigha of land was supposed to have yielded 36-40 quintals of tomato fruit during the season. There is a report by Public Information Officer of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Kullu, showing the prevailing price of the tomatoes from 01.06.2010 to 21.06.2010. Price varied from `600/- to `1,500/- per quintal. Learned District Forum has awarded compensation at the rate of `5,000/- per packet of seeds. One packet of seeds weighing 10 grams was sufficient for planting tomato crop of an area measuring 1-0-0 bigha, which fact is admitted by the appellant.
20. Looking to the report of experts that one bigha land would have yielded 36-40 quintals of crop and taking into account the prevailing market rate of tomatoes, as indicated in the aforesaid report of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Kullu, compensation awarded by learned District Forum cannot be said to be un-reasonable.
21. As a result of the above stated position, all the appeals are dismissed.
22. This order be placed on the record of F.A. No.287/2011, titled The Napier Agritech versus Ram Nath Rana and a copy of it on the record of each of the remaining appeals.
23. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member September 04, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?