BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Opposite Party No. 1 is the Seller/ supplier of “Suravi Gold” and “Hira” ,branded crop paddy seed from whom the complainant purchased crop paddy seed produced/marketed by so called Hindustan seeds, for cultivation purpose. The opposite Party No.2 is the main producer and does marketing of the above “suravi Gold” and “Hira” branded paddy seeds, and supplied the said paddy seeds to O.P. No. 1 . The Opposite Parties No. 3 to 8 are Government Officials of Purba/Paschim Medinipur who control and look after the affairs of quality control of the paddy seeds for cultivation by the farmers.
The Complainant purchased some quantity of crop paddy seeds from the shop of opposite party No.1 on 25.06.2018 in the brand names of “Suravi Gold” and “Hira” for cultivation of Aman paddy for his agricultural land, at his Village mentioned above. It appears that “Suravi Gold” paddy seeds were taken by O.P. No.1 from Hindustan Seeds -op-2. A copy of cash memo dated 25.06.2018 from Chandipur Beej Bhandar and two levels of Hindustan Seeds are annexed hereto. The Complainant further states that in usual course of cultivation, the complainant showed the said crop seeds of paddy branded as “Suravi Gold” and “Hira” purchased from O.P. No.1 at his Village agricultural land on 28.06.2018 .Later on, 04.08.2018 it was observed by the complainant that the immature paddy had grown up from the said crop seed paddy which was quite unnatural .He had sown, planted the said Aman Chara grown out of “Suravi Gold” and “Hira” branded paddy in his 3 Bighas of Agricultural land. On seeing the immature and unnatural growth of paddy in the 3 Bighas of agricultural land, the complainant reported this matter to the proprietor of Chandipur Beej Bhandar who assured that he would do the needful for replacement or compensation, but O.P. 1 did nothing. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with the A.D.A. (Admin), Tamluk, vide his letter dt. 07.09.2018 with copies to other parties. A copy of the above complaint letter dated 07.09.2018 and some photos are annexed hereto. The complainant reiterates that in spite of repeated reminders in person, there was no response from opposite parties. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 ; and 3 to 8 opposite parties failed to settle the issue of reimbursement/compensation. The cause of action of this case arose on and from dt. 04.08.2018 when the sample of immature paddy grown up was shown to O.P. No.1 at Chandipur, and subsequently on 07.09.2018 when a letter was sent to all concerned parties, including OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant, therefore ,prays for:-
- Direction upon the Opposite Parties to rectify the deficiency in service done to the complainant.
- Direction upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to pay the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh with interest from the date of purchase, towards settlement of the above claim as follows:
- Compensation for a sum of Rs. 62,200/- as per letter dated 07.09.2018.
- Cost of litigation, harassment, Mental Trauma , for Rs. 32,800/- to be paid by the op, No.1 and 2.
- Any other reliefs.
The op-1,being represented by its proprietor Sri Manoranjan Bag, has contested the case by filing written version against the complaint. Notices were duly served upon the ops -1 to 8 but Ops 2 to-8 preferred to see that the case be decided exparte against them. While resisting the claim of the complainant the op-1 in his written version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. The O.P. No.1 is the License Holder to carry on the business of a dealer in Seeds from the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tamluk Sub- division and is the authorized shop keeper in respect of the seeds in question for sale. The O.P. NO.1 is only the authorized dealer in seeds. This O.P. NO.1 has sold the seed in question in a sealed packing and in the same condition in which the BCHITRA BEEJAGAR & NURSERY, MECHEDA supplied to this O.P. Needless to say, this O.P. conveyed the matter in relation to the seeds in question to BICHITRA BEEJAGAR & NURSERY, MECHEDA from whom he purchased the seeds in question over mobile and they assured that they would communicate the matter before the appropriate authority. This O.P. received a letter dt. 25.09.2018 from Inspector, Seed & Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block, Purba Medinipur where the said officer directed this O.P. to furnish certain information mentioned therein in relation to the variety of seeds namely “Suravi Gold” as per the petition made by the Complainant. As per the directions, this O.P. No.1 submitted relevant information along with various papers on 28.09.2018 before the authority of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block and also mentioned there that he is merely a dealer of the seeds in question and sold the same in sealed packet which he has purchased from BICHITRA BEEJAGAR & NURSERY, MECHADA. That O.P. No.-1 further received a letter dt. 04.10.2018 from Inspector, Seed & Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block, Purba Medinipur where again this O.P. was directed to furnish certain information as mentioned therein in relation to the variety of seeds namely “Suravi Gold” and also contact the complainant and inspect the field and also submit the present stock position of the said variety “Suravi Gold”. As per the direction of the letter dt. 04.10.2018, this O.P. No.-1 did his best and also submitted relevant documents before the concerned authority. Thus, there is no element of unfair trade practices on the part of the O.P. No.-1 or there is no deficiency of service which could be inferred against the O.P. No.1. He has rendered all his good efforts which he could do in relation to the present matter of complaint. Under the circumstances, op-1 has prayed for dismissal of the present case with costs.
Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as soughtfor?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed op-1, evidence of both parties and alongwith receipts and other documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the ops 1 & 2 being traders, ops 3 to 8 are all being Govt. authorities in respect of maintaining quality control of goods sold by OP 1 and the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the ops-1 & 2 and inaction against ops-3 to 8, this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
It has been contended by the Ld Advocate for the complainant that the complainant has proved the elements of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the ops-1 & 2 and inaction against ops-3 to 8 ;as he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for
Per Contra, the Ld. Advocate for the op-1 has vehemently contended that the complaint is not maintainable. According to him the complainant has failed to prove his all allegations. He has not taken any step for scientific analysis of the seeds purchased by him from op-1, he has withheld the evidence so his case must fail. As such he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In reply, Ld Advocate for the complainant has submitted that it is clear from the written version that there is no dispute with regard to the factum of purchase of seeds in question from op-1 by the complainant and inspection undertaken by the Agriculture Officials, if the OP 1 had any disagreement with the allegations of the complainant he would have taken all necessary step for scientific analysis of the sample seeds of the same batch by the appropriate authority, but he did not do so; since it is probable that the complainant had sown all the seeds purchased by him, he was not in a position to send seeds for analysis. Now, the OP 1 can not escape from his liability.
We have carefully scanned, examined and appreciated the evidence and other materials on record. It appears that op-1 has admitted the substantial facts averred in the complaint in the following manner. This O.P. NO.1 has sold the seed in question in a sealed packing. This O.P. received a letter dt. 25.09.2018 from Inspector, Seed & Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block, Purba Medinipur where the said officer directed this O.P. to furnish certain information mentioned therein in relation to the variety of seeds namely “Suravi Gold” as per the petition made by the Complainant. As per the directions, this O.P. No.1 submitted relevant information along with various papers on 28.09.2018 before the authority of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block. The O.P. No.-1 further received a letter dt. 04.10.2018 from Inspector, Seed & Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chandipur Block, Purba Medinipur where again this O.P. was directed to furnish certain information as mentioned therein in relation to the variety of seeds namely “Suravi Gold” and also contact the complainant and inspect the field and also submit the present stock position of the said variety “Suravi Gold”. As per the direction of the letter dt. 04.10.2018, this O.P. No.-1 did his best and also submitted relevant documents before the concerned authority. Thus, factual aspects of purchase of seeds by complainant from op-1, intimation of defects regarding said branded seeds of paddy given by the complainant to the concerned seller and inspecting authorities are indisputable. Moreover, it is evident that inspection was also carried out by the Agriculture Officials, but they did not take step to send the sample from the disputed batch of seeds to the appropriate authority, this is an instance of inaction on their part. The op 1 also did not apply before this commission for sending the sample from the disputed batch of seeds to the appropriate authority. It is not the case of the op 1 that the ultimate yield could not be achieved due other factors and not attributed to quality of the seeds. Generally farmers are not expected to assume that seeds supplied by the OP No.1 would be defective. On dealing with the contention of the ld. Advocate for the OP 1 to the effect that the complainant did not send the seeds for scientific analysis it can be presumed that normally a farmer rely upon the brochure or its advertisement. Hence, before sowing the seeds he would not keep some seeds reserved for their testing. From the material on record it is proved that complainant purchased the disputed paddy seeds from the shop of op-1 and sown it. He suffered loss in purchasing the seeds in question, ploughing, tilling the field sowing the seeds, planting sapling, spraying pesticides, using fertilizer. He could not harvest prospective product. Admittedly, there is no laboratory test report relating to the seeds which were sold by the op-1. OP 1 avoided laboratory test. He withheld evidence. He has not filed any documents relating to his transaction with BICHITRA BEEJAGAR & NURSERY, MECHADA. OP No.1 did not take any steps to add said BICHITRA BEEJAGAR & NURSERY, MECHADA as a party in this case. It is well settled that best evidence rule does not apply in civil proceeding which has to be decided on preponderance and probabilities. Preponderance and probabilities are in favour of the complainant. Principle of law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunita V. Rajasthan SRTC, II(2009) SLT 62=I (2019) ACC 486(SC)=(2020) 13SCC 486 and IFFCOTOKIYO General insurance Company Ltd. V. Pearl Beverages Ltd., IV (2021) SLT 275=III(2021) CPJ 44(SC)= 2021 SCC OnLine SC 309, are relied upon. It is clearly established that OP 1 had caused deficiency in service and had set instances of unfair trade practice by selling defective seeds subsequently not responding to the claim of the complainant consumer. In the circumstances, observed as above it indicates that there is substance in the contentions raised by the ld. Advocate for the complainant, on the other hand the contentions raised by the ld. Advocate for the OP no.1 does not help the OP 1 in any way, so these can not be accepted. The complainant is entitled to get reliefs in part as follows. He would get return of the purchase value of the seeds that is i.e. Rs. 2,185/-, compensation for loss of crops for the relevant periods Rs. 24,000/- (for three bighas @ 8,000/- per bigha) Rs. 8,815/- as compensation towards incurring costs for plaughing fields, sowing seeds, fertilizer and mental agony etc. and Rs. 5,000/- as towards litigation costs from OP-1. In addition to that the complainant will get interest @ 8 % per annum over and above the said total amount from the date of filing of this case till realization FROM op-1.
Both the points are decided in favour of the complainant accordingly. Thus the complaint case succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/479 of 2018 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against OP No.1 and dismissed against Ops 2 to 8.
The OP 1 is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- in total [Rs. 2,185/- purchase value of seeds, compensation for loss of crops for the relevant periods Rs. 24,000/- (for three bighas @ 8,000/- per bigha), Rs. 8,815/- as compensation towards incurring costs for plaughing fields, sowing seeds, fertilizer and mental agony etc. and Rs. 5,000/- as towards litigation costs.) to the complainant within 3 months from the date of this order. The OP 1 is further directed to pay interest @ 8 % per annum over and above the said total amount from the date of filing of this case till realization; in default the OP-1 will have to pay Rs. 100/- per day in addition to the said amount for non compliance of the order.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP-1 free of cost.
