Date of filing:-13/11/2017.

Date of Order:-01/08/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2017.

1. Lenjakatu Behera, S/o-Ram Chandra Behera, aged about 37(thirty seven)years,

2. Sadhaba Maharna, S/o Nilanchala Maharana, aged about 36(thirty six)years,

3. Kishor Padhan, S/o Hanumanta Padhan, aged about 41(forty one) years,

4. Siddheswar Padhan, S/o late Panibudi Padhan, aged about 48(forty eight) years,

5. Antaryami Chhanda, S/o late Samaru Chhanda, aged about 43(forty three) years,

6. Manoranjan Mahakur, S/o late Neheru Kahakur, aged about 36(thirty six) years,

7. Dambarudhar Mahakur, S/o Minchu Mahakur, aged about 54(fifty four) years,

8. Ramesh Bishi, S/o Purandar Bishi, aged about 42(forty two) years,

9. Rabi Chandra Pardia, S/o late Gournaga Pardia, aged about 49(forty nine) years,

10. Abashya Padhan, S/o Chakamana Padhan, aged about 26(twenty six) years,

    All are resident of village Bakti, Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh (Orissa)

    ..... ..... ..... Complainants.

- V e r s u s -

1. The Proprietor, M/s. Arun Traders, Dungripali, Ps. Dungripali, Dist-Sonepur.

2. The Managing Director, J.K.Agri, Genetics ltd., At. 1-10-17, 4^th Floor Varun Towers, Begumpet, Hydrabad-500016. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri D.Acharya, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party :- Sri U.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.01/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case;-

The filing of the case arose in pursuance of the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as envisaged hereunder. All the Complainants are the farmers in their profession and earn their livelihood out of the same, as such being influenced by the advertisement meeting and distribution of leaflets by the Opposite Parties giving guarantees of the quality of the seeds, in their village all of them purchased the JK Sashi variety of the paddy seeds amounting to 84(eighty four) packets and 24(twenty four) packets containing 6(six) Kg worth of Rs.342/-(Rupees three hundred forty two)only per bag of the seeds in each packet along with some other variety seeds from the Opposite Party No.1(one) through the Complainant No.1(one) in one invoice in his name vide No.CHNO.233 Dt.14.06.2017 and later on distributed among all others Complainants as per their requirements.

Further case of the Complainant is that even after taking proper measures of all the climatic condition, applying proper nutrients and fertilizer and correct agriculture procedure sown those seeds in their respective land, And also the paddy plant grew but their case is that in spite of their best effort there was no proper fruits, most were immature and the penicles were chappy so those crops did not yield at all even though it was advertised and claimed by the Opposite Parties to give maximum yield out of their seeds of the said Sashi veriety, which as per the Complainants was unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. And also the matter was reported to the Opposite Parties but to no response from their end.

The Complainants also reported the matter to the agriculture authority and also the said officer visited the crops and finding the defects with the seeds assured them to make necessary arrangement to provide compensation from the Opposite Parties but to no effect till yet from either sides.

The Complainants have also repeatedly reported the matter to the Opposite Parties and asked them for compensation of the said damage but to no effect, as a result of which the Complainants have sustained loss to the tune of the below mentioned calculation against the name of each of the Complainant.

1. Lenjakatu Behera has purchased 7(seven) packets and area of plantation 3.5 Acres of land, sustained loss worth of Rs.1,40,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand)only.

2. Sadhaba Maharana has purchased 6(six) packets and sustained loss worth of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only.

3. Kishor Padhan has purchased 6(six) packets area of plantation 3 Acres of land, loss worth of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only.

4. Sidheswar Padhan has purchased 2(two) packets and area of plantation 1 Acres of land, loss worth of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only.

5. Antarjami Chhanda has purchased 16(sixteen) packets containing 6(six) Kg in each packets area of cultivation 8 Acres, loss sustained worth of Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty thousand)only in total.

6. Manoranjan Mahakur has purchased 6(six) packets and area of plantation 3 Acres, loss worth of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand)only in total.

7. Dambarudhar Mahakur has purchased 3(three) packets containing 6(six) Kg in each packets and area of plantation 1.5 Acres, loss worth of Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only.

8. Ramesh Bishi has purchased 6(six) packets containing of 6 Kg in each packets and area of plantation 3 Acres, loss worth of Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand)only.

9. Rabi Chandra Pardia has purchased 12(twelve) packets containing of 6 Kg in each packets and area of plantation 6 Acres, loss sustained worth of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lakh forty thousand)only.

10. Abashya Padhan has purchased 8(eight) packets containing of 6 Kg in each packets and area of plantation 8 Acres, loss sustained worth of Rs.1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only.

Accordingly the case of the Complainants is that each of them have sustained loss as mentioned above against their name due the use of defective JK Sashi verity of paddy seeds and also have undergone heavy mental and physical strain for which claims compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only each in addition to the loss caused to them due to the defective seeds as mentioned above. So in total are entitled to the amounts of Rs. 19,60,000/-(Rupees ninety lakh sixty thousand)only and also litigation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only in total. Thus when the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to their claims, hence they have collectively preferred to file the case before the Forum claiming the aforesaid loss and the compensation as aforesaid and in their support have relied the following documents .

1. Invoice of the Opposite Party No.1(one).

2. Grievance petition filed before the Agriculture Officer, Bheden.

3. Photographs of the crop.

4. Downloaded copy of the E.Mail sent to the Opposite Party No.2(two).

5. The leaflets circulated by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for promotion of sale of seeds.

Having gone through the Complainant, the accompanied documents, and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant it was found to be a genuine one hence admitted in to the record and notice was served on the Opposite Parties and on being served with the same the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and have filed their version

Having gone through the version of the Opposite Parties, it was found that, it is all evasive one, in it’s version the Opposite Parties have denied the Complainant to have any loco-standi in filing the present case in the Forum since they are not Consumer in as much as have claimed the purchase of the seeds in question were made for the commercial purpose as it has been purchased by the Complainant No.1(one) and have been sold to the other Complainants for earning profit, furthermore have denied to have supplied the defective seeds as they are running their business throughout the country having a good reputation for their quality in manufacturing the same having being tested by the authentic quality control authority, rather have challenged the process of cultivating the same in defective manner as also have contended that the same depends upon several factors such as the soil, climatic condition, the water, irrigation facilities, use of quality fertilizer, and pesticides, furthermore have claimed that the non–yielding of the production in proper ratio is not due to the defective seeds rather it might be due to the damage caused by the Brown plant Hopper (chakada worm)throughout the Western Odisha and etc. and finally they are of the view that the Opposite Parties are not at all liable for any compensation in as much as the case is not maintainable in the Forum since they are not coming under the purview of the Act, and in support of their such claim have relied on the following documents.

1. Copy of the breeder certificate.

2. The photographs.

3. Paper cutting showing the impact of the Chakada worm.

4. Copy of the Division of Agricultural research & extension, about the disease bacterial panicle.

5. Salary statement of the Lenjkatu Behera.

6. Photocopy showing High yield of Sashi Veriety seeds.

Perused the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and the version filed by the Opposite Parties and their documents and on hearing of their respective counsels we are of the view that the adjudication of the case rest on the following issues.

1. Whether the Complainants are consumers ?

2. Whether the allegation made by the Complainant regarding the defective variety of paddy seeds is supplied to the Complainants and whether the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice ?

3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the compensation as claimed for ?

Firstly while adjudicating the issues with regard to the question of the Complainants are consumers or not, having gone through the entire materials available in the record and hearing the arguments advanced by the Complainant, it came to our notice that the Complainant was an ex-employee of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and as such having prior acquaintance with the farm and when the Opposite Parties advertised for the same in their village all the Complainants from 2(two) to 10(ten) being the co-villegers farmers of the Complainant preferred to purchase the said paddy seeds as per their requirement in one bulk in the name of the Complainant No.1(one) and later on would distribute among themselves and accordingly they purchased the same but billing was made in the name of the Complainant No.1(one) and subsequently it was distributed among all other Complainants with the same Company cost, furthermore he submitted before the Forum during the course of his arguments that when the crops of those Complainants suffered from the loss as aforesaid they have made complain before the agricultural authority and with the Opposite Parties too jointly and consequent upon their failure of getting any relief have jointly filed the case before the Forum with their respective losses and claims, hence his submission is that in view of the above facts they are very much consumer individually and jointly too along with the Complainant No.1(one) and are being covered under the protection of the Act.

On the contrary as per the version and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Opposite Parties since the entire amounts of the paddy seeds has been purchased in the name of the Complainant No.1(one), it is obvious upon to deduce that he has purchased those seeds for commercial purpose and have sold it to the other Complainants as such billing has been issued in his favor alone, as such the case does not come under the Act. And in support of his such contention has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R.2005 and also cited some other case Law of the Apex Court decided in the year 2005, 2006 and others.

On the basis of the materials available in the record and hearing the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsels of the Parties, with much alertness and vivid examination of the entire materials available in the record and the contentions of the respective counsels for the parties it is clearly found that admittedly the sale invoice has been issued in favor of the Complainant No.1(one) but it is also found that there is not even a scrap of paper or any evidence with regard to the sale of the same seeds to the Complainants No.2(two) to No.10(ten) by the Complainant No.1(one) for earning profit and it is very much pertinent to mention here that any sale if made by any person it is only to earn some profit out of it then only it can be termed as commercial purpose but in this case there is no evidence to that effect further more it is also reveals from the record that all the Complainants have filed the case jointly with their respective claims and also nobody has uttered a single word to the effect of any sale made to them by the Complainant No.1(one) rather their joint complain before the Forum shows that they have jointly purchased the same in the name of the Complainant No.1(one) so the question of commercial transaction is not acceptable and in our unanimous view the Complainants are very much eligible for being consumer for the purpose of the case in hand and the citation filed by the Opposite Parties referring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R is in a different footing and others are also not similar to the present case in hand and is not applicable in this case and since the Forum is guided by the summary trial furthermore since we don’t find any ambiguity in the case we are not inclined to discuss the entire referred cases in detail, hence our view is assertive in favor of the Complainants and are of the view that each of them are very much coming under the definition envisaged in the Act.

Secondly with regard to the issue in question whether defective seeds have been supplied to the Complainants and thereby Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice, in this regard it has been admitted by the Opposite Parties that sale of the seeds have been made but during the course of arguments the Advocate for the Opposite Parties vehemently objected to the claim of the Complainants on the ground that the Opposite Parties farm is an Internationally reputed one for it’s product having being accompanied by the certificate of one JK Agri Genetics Ltd wherein it has been found that such type of products of the Opposite Parties are of good quality and promising of it’s quality, and also pointed out that the cultivation depends upon some other factors also such as climatic condition, rain, irrigation and quality of pesticide and other manure in as much as the effect of the Chakda Hopper which has been published in a reputed news paper, on the contrary the Complainants's Advocate also vehemently argued on the points answering to the claim of the Advocate for the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainants are all experienced farmers and are all well versed with the technicality of cultivation and also use of the quality of the pesticide and other treatment but in spite of their best effort the crops could not bring the fruit due the quality of the said seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties and also have taken the matter to the notice of the Opposite Parties and to the Agriculture Authority but the Opposite Parties have not taken any measure to ascertain the cause of failure of the crops due to the condition as envisaged in their version, but the Agricultural Authority has tested and has opined that the crops has been damaged but has never noted about the cause as to the effect of the Chakda Hopper or due to the wrong of the cultivation process, and also to our notice the said test report of the concerned testing agencies has not tested the particular batch of the seeds sold to the Complainants from where it can be safely concluded that the seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties is not of the quality as have advertised by them for which our views is expressed in favor of the Complainants and answered accordingly.

Thirdly with regard to the question of the entitlement of the Complainants for their claims, it reveals from the record that the Opposite Parties have not denied the claims of the Complainants categorically except denying in a routine manner, in stead of that they could have inspected, enquired the claim as to whether the claimed amounts of lands have been really cultivated with the said seeds and the yields of the respective claimants in the previous years or could have taken the help of any agricultural expert to ascertain the expected crops yield in the prevailing circumstances and the amount of loss thereby, but they have not taken any measure to that effect but simply have denied to the claims of the Complainants, which is not tenable in the eye of law consequent upon which. We scrutinized the whole episode of the case and taking different angle in to our consideration and the help of some authoritarian’s view we are of the view that the normal yield in the concerned area of cultivation is about 20(twenty) quental begs per acre and the prevailing market price of the same per bag is Rs.1750/-(Rupees one thousand seven hundred fifty)only accordingly each of the respective Complainant is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 1750/-(Rupees one thousand seven hundred fifty)only per bag containing one quintal in each as of their loss in accordance with their area of cultivation as genuine and as such our view is expressed in support of the Complainants for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, hence Order follows.

O R D E R.

Hence Both the Opposite Parties jointly and severally are directed to make good the loss of each of the Complainant in the following manner within thirty days of the receipt of the order, in default of which the total amount against the loss as enumerated against the name of the Complainants would carry an interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.

1. Lenjkatu Behera has cultivated 3.5 Acres of land and lost of 70(seventy) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand seven hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,22,500/-(Rupees one lakh twenty two thousand five hundred)only.

2. Sadhaba Mahana has cultivated 3 Acres of land and lost of 60(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand)only.

3. Kishor Padhan has cultivated 3 Acres of land and lost of 60(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand)only.

4. Sidheswar Padhan has cultivated 1 Acres of land and lost of 60(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand)only.

5. Antaryami Chhanda has cultivated 8 Acres of land and lost of 160(one hundred sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.2,80,000/-(Rupees two lakh eighty thousand)only.

6. Manoranjan Mahakur has cultivated 3 Acres of land and lost of 60(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand)only.

7. Dambarudhar Mahakur has cultivated 1.5 Acres of land and lost of 30(thirty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.52,500/-(Rupees fifty two thousand five hundred)only.

8. Ramesh Bishi has cultivated 3 Acres of land and lost of 60(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,05,000/-(Rupees one lakh five thousand)only.

9. Rabi Chandra Pardia has cultivated 6 Acres of land and lost of 120(sixty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.2,10,000/-(Rupees two lakh ten thousand)only.

10. Abashya Padhanhas has cultivated 4 Acres of land and lost of 80(eighty) bags of rice X Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred fifty)only = Rs.1,40,000/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand)only.

And also the Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation to each of the Complainant in addition to their awarded amount of rupees in lieu of their Crop Loss i.e in total amounting to Rs. 13,10,000/-(Rupees thirteen lakh ten thousand )only. Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result, the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt. 01/08/2018.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                 P r e s i d e n t.

                                                          I agree,

                                   ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                  M e m b e r (W)