Punjab
Firozpur
CC/11/200
Dharamvir - Complainant(s)
Versus
Ankur Seeds - Opp.Party(s)
Abay Batra
15 Sep 2011
ORDER
FORUM, FEROZEPUR. QUORUM President : Shri Sanjay Garg Member : S. Tarlok Singh C.C. No.200 of 2011 Date of Institution: 15.4.2011 Date of Decision: 15.9.2011 Dharamvir, aged about 45 years, son of Amar Singh, resident of Dhani Sukhchain, Abohar. ....... Complainant Versus 1. M/s Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Registered Office 27, New Cotton Market Layout, 2. Munshi Ram son of Madan Lal Owner/Partner Singhal Pesticides Near Haqiqat Rai Chowk, Mandi No.1, Abohar, District Ferozepur. ........ Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. * * * * * PRESENT : For the complainant : Sh. Ajit Singh Sodhi, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. B.L. Malhotra, Advocate C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\2// ORDER SANJAY GARG, PRESIDENT:- Complainant Dharamvir has filed the present complaint against Ankur seeds Private Limited, manufacturer of Jai BT cotton seeds; and Munshi Ram, retail seller of the seeds (herein after referred to as opposite party No.1 and 2, respectively) pleading that on 10.4.2010, he approached opposite party No.2 for purchase of BT Cotton seeds. Opposite party No.2 strongly recommended the complainant to purchase Ankur Jai BT Cotton Seeds. Opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the seeds were of high quality and would give yield of 10 quintals per acre. On his inducement and assurance, the complainant purchased 20 packets of said Ankur Jai BT seeds for a sum of Rs.14,200/- and sown the same in his 10 acres of land as per recommendations of the opposite parties. Complainant looked after his crops very well and did everything whichever was recommended by the opposite parties. However, the growth of the crops was not proper. Complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.2, who further reported the said matter to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2, alongwith the employees of seed company, came and inspected the land of the complainant and found that the quality of the plants was very poor. To improve the growth of the plants, the opposite parties made a number of sprays on the crops, but the condition of the crops further C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\3// deteriorated. The employees of the opposite parties visited the fields of the complainant four times, but could not improve the growth of the plants. Complainant approached the Chief Agriculture Officer on 29.9.2010 and moved an application in this respect. On the application of the complainant, a team of three officers of the Agriculture Department inspected the fields of the complainant and found that the quality of Narma crop was very poor. The expected yield of the crop was assessed by the Agriculture Officers between 1quintals to 2 quintals per acre. However, the yield of the crop in actual remained less than one quintal per acre. The complainant has pleaded that due to the inferior quality of seeds, he has suffered a loss of Rs.67,500/- per acre for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate him. The complainant has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay him Rs.6,75,000/- as compensation on account of loss of crops, Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost incurred by the complainant for bringing up the crops and further a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed their separate written replies to the complaint. Opposite party No.1 filed its written reply, wherein an objection has been taken by the opposite party that the seeds have not been got tested by the complainant from the Government recognized laboratory and in the C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\4// absence of any report from the competent laboratory, no seed can be proved to be defective. On merits, it has been pleaded that opposite party No.1 is a leading manufacturer/producer of the seeds in question and has a very well equipped laboratory, where all the lots of the products are checked before their release in the market. Opposite party No.1 has supplied the seeds bearing the same lot through out 3. Opposite party No.2 also filed written reply on the lines of written reply filed by opposite party No.1. It has been further pleaded that opposite party No.2 had sold the seeds to the complainant in sealed packets and in intact and same condition in which the same were purchased by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1. The Agriculture Development Officer has not mentioned the killa number where he had C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\5// visited to inspect the crop. Opposite party No.2 was not joined by the said Agriculture Officer while inspecting the alleged fields of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for. 4. Parties led evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file. 6. The purchase of seeds in question by the complainant from opposite party No.2 has been admitted by the opposite parties. The loss of crops of the complainant has also been almost admitted. The stand of the opposite parties is that the seeds in question have not been got tested from the seeds laboratory and without report of any laboratory, it cannot be said that the seeds were defective. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the farmer was not expecting that the seeds sown by him would be defective and he would get less crop, hence he did not preserve any sample of the seeds. The opposite parties themselves should have got tested the quality of seeds of the same batch number from approved laboratory to prove that the seeds manufactured/sold by them were not defective. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties on this point. C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\6// 8. So far the objection as to not getting the seeds tested in the laboratory is concerned, the Honle State Commission, Punjab, in /s Farmer Seed Store Versus Madan Singh/b>, First Appeal No.1329 of 2008, decided on 9.11.2009, has observed as under :- 9. It has been held by the Honle National Commission in the judgment reported as ational Seed Corpn. Ltd. V. M. Madhusudan Reddy2004 (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 :- 0. 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 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 C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\7// of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, for the farmer to produce some seeds from somewhere to to get it tested to meet the requirement of Section 13 (1) (c).o:p> 30. Reference can also be made to another judgment of the Honle National Commission report as st1:place w:st="on"> HOUSE V. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR./span> III (2008) CPJ 96 (NC) in which it was held as under :- econdly, 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.o:p> 31. Similar submission was advanced before the Honle National Commission in the judgment reported as ational Seeds Corpn. Ltd. V. P.V. Krishna Reddy and others, 2009 CTC 522 (CP) (NCDRC)and it was held by the Honle National Commission as under :- 1. 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 C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\8// Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by the Supreme Court of Disputes Redressal Commission in 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 Rana Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra). 9. In view of the law laid down by the Honle State Commission, 10. So far the objection as to non-mentioning of killa number and khasra number of the land by the Agriculture Development Officer is concerned, the Honle State Commission, Punjab in /s Farmer Seed Store Versus Madan Singh(supra) has also observed as under :- 4. In the present case, the Agriculture Development Officer has specifically reported that he had visited the fields of respondent. Therefore, there was no ambiguity about the fields which were inspected by the Agriculture C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\9// Development Officer even if killa number or Khasra number of the agricultural land of respondent are not given. In the judgment in Narender Kumar 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 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 Development Officer that he had inspected the agricultural land of respondent No.1. 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. 11. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties as to the effect that there are so many factors, which are responsible for less production, such as fertilizers, inadequate rain fall or irrigation, use of pesticides/insecticides etc. is concerned, the Honle State Commission, Punjab in /s Farmer Seed Store Versus Madan Singh(supra) has further observed : 5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\10// appellants that so many factors are responsible for less production of the crop namely violations of the instructions in the sowing of the seed, lack of attention in maintaining the plants, lack of fertilizers, inadequate rain fall or irrigation, poor quality or inadequacy or over dose of pesticides/insecticides. Hence, it was submitted that it was not only the inferior quality of seed which could lead to less production of the crop. 36. This submission has been considered. 37. It has no merits. It was not the question of germination and non-germination of the seed. In the present case, the plants had grown up properly but the height of the plants was only 3 ft to 4-1/2 ft. Even plant had given about 25 fruits (Tindas). No other disease except leaf curl to the extent of 15% of the plants, had affected these plants. The likely yield was 20 Munds (8 quintals per acre) against the expected yield of 10-12 quintals per acre. Therefore, bad quality of seed on the face of it stands proved. If the other factors had been responsible, the seed could not have germinated or the plant could have died down in the bud stage.span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> In the case in hand also, there is no complaint regarding the less germination of the seed, rather it is less development and less fruiting of plants. The opposite parties have not pleaded as to what was required to be done by the farmer, which has not been done by him and what was not C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\11// required to be done, which has been wrongly done by him. In the absence of such pleadings, it can be well assumed that the farmer had taken care of his crops as per required procedure and standards. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a copy of the report of the Agriculture Development Officers, which has been placed on the file as Ex.C-4. A perusal of the report Ex.C-4 reveals that the Agriculture Officers visited the fields of the complainant and found that the complainant has sown the above said seeds in his ten acres of land. The height of the plants was found 2 to 3 feet and 70 to 80% plants were affected with leaf curl virus. The Agriculture Officers assessed the expected yield of the standing crop from 1to 2 quintals per acre. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the entire crop was affected with leaf curl disease due to poor quality of seeds. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that leaf curl disease is not a seed born disease and as such no fault can be attributed towards the quality of the seeds. He has further relied upon earlier judgment of this Forum , copy of which has been placed on the file as Ex.R-7. 13. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties on this aspect of the matter. 14. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written reply that they have sold the seeds of the same lot throughout C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\12// not received any complaint about the quality of the seeds. This pleading of the opposite parties seems to be wrong and false. Several complaints have been received in this Forum complaining about the quality of Jai BT Cotton Seeds. In those cases, a committee of Agriculture Development Officers visited the fields of various farmers and inspected the standing crops. After inspecting the standing crops of various farmers, the expert committee observed that the crops pertaining to seeds of Jai BT (Ankur) and RCH 134-BG I & II were most affected, as the growth of plants pertaining to these qualities of seeds was very less and fruits were also very less and the plants were found suffering from leaf curl virus. The said committee also observed that the crops pertaining to seeds of J.K.-1947, Bioseed-6488 and 6588 were having proper growth/development, fruiting and the expected yield was to be approximate 10 quintals per acre. However, the other varieties of cotton seeds were found affected with leaf curl virus, as the details were given against the name of the each farmer. The copy of the said report is also ordered to be placed on this file. Since we have already come across a report of the Agriculture Development Officers pertaining to fields of various farmers, in such an event, we cannot close our eyes and feign ignorance about the said report. Opposite party No.1 is also very much in knowledge of the said report and has also contested various cases brought before this Forum by the farmers alleging defective quality of C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\13// seeds. The crop of the complainant was also found to be affected 70 to 80% with the leaf curl virus. One farmer may commit some negligence in bringing up the crops, but it cannot be said that all the farmers were negligent in bringing up their crops. Even it cannot be said that the environmental factors were responsible for less crops, especially, when the crops pertaining to other varieties of seeds i.e. of J.K.-1947, Bioseed-6488 and 6588 fully developed and gave proper yield. So far the judgment of this Forum dated 12.5.2010 Ex.R-7 is concerned, the findings in that judgment are related to the crops in the year 2009, whereas in the case in hand, the dispute is as to the growth of the crop in the year 2010. In the said judgment dated 12.5.2010 Ex.R-7, it was observed that in the year 2009, the weather was not favourable for the growth of the cotton crop as during the year 2009-2010, the environment in the area of Abohar remained hot and dry, which was a favourable environment for the growth and spread of white fly, which caused leaf curl disease of the plants. In that respect, various reports of Agriculture Development Officers were considered by this Forum. However, in the case in hand, there is no evidence on the file that such draught like conditions also prevailed in the year 2010. There is no evidence on the file that during the year 2010, extreme weather conditions affected the yield of the cotton crop. In the absence of any such evidence on the file, the ratio of judgment dated 12.5.2010 cannot be C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\14// applied in the case in hand. In the absence of any evidence of draught and extreme weather condition during the year 2010, it is proved beyond doubt the seeds manufactured by opposite party No.1 were defective and more susceptible to leaf curl disease in comparison to other varieties of seeds. Moreover, the Agriculture Officers this time have reported that seeds manufactured by opposite party No.1 i.e. Ankur Jai BT and RCH 134-BG I & II were found more susceptible to leaf curl virus in comparison to other varieties of crops. In such circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that seeds manufactured by opposite party No.1 and sold by opposite party No.2 were defective in quality. 15. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the complainant has pleaded that he had sown seeds of Ankur Jai BT, manufactured by opposite party No.1 in his ten acres of land. The Agriculture Development Officers in their report Ex.C-4 have written that in case of the complainant, the expected crops from the inspection of the field was found 1.5 quintals to 2 quintals per acre. We consider it to be two quintals per acre. The expected yield of the cotton crop in normal course was to be 10 quintals per acre and in this way the complainant has suffered loss of 8 quintal per acre for his 10 acres of land, in which he had sown Ankur Jai BT cotton seeds, produced by opposite party No.1. The average price of the cotton crop during the year 2010 was Rs.5000/- per quintal and C.C. No.200 of 2011 \\15// in this way the complainant has suffered a loss of 8 X 10 X 5000 = Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the above said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount/compensation to the complainant. The dealer i.e. opposite party No.2 will be entitled to recover the compensation amount, if any, paid to the complainant in compliance of this order, from the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.1 through due process of law. Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 7.9.2011 and the case was reserved for order. Now the orders be communicated to the parties concerned. File be consigned to the record room. Announced 15.9.2011 (Sanjay Garg) President (Tarlok Singh) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.