DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 140 of 8.5.2008 Decided on : 18.8.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurbax Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o Milk Plant Road, Bathinda, Block Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Director, Rashi Seeds (P) Ltd., 273 Kamarajanar Road, Atter-636102, District Salem (Tamil Nadu).<br /> 2.Navkar Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Baker Ali Wali, Mirzapur Char Rasta, Ahmedabad-38001, Gujarat.<br /> 3.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 905, Kanchanjinga Building Barakhanba Road, Cannaught Palace, New Delhi-110001.<br /> 4.M/s. Garg Beej Bhandar, Dealer Seed. Feed & Guretc, Grain Market, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Randhir Kaushal, counsel for opposite party no.1 <br /> Sh. Rajan Singla, counsel for opposite party No.2 <br /> Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.3<br /> Sh. Rajesh Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.4<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the price of seeds purchased by him alongwith interest @ 24% P.A from the date of purchase till realization; pay him the amount spent by him on labour, pesticides, insecticides, other hidden charges and for taking the land on rent; Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he is an Agriculturist. He was intending to sow American Cotton Crop in his fields. Opposite party No. 4 was approached by him for the purpose of purchasing cotton seeds. Allurement was given to him by opposite party No. 4 to purchase Cotton BT Seeds Major 317, Tulsi NCEH-6, Vimal NCS 138 and KR 888 having true mark and Bollguard developed, produced and packed by the companies as they are the best cotton seeds. On this assurance, he purchased 5 packets of K.R 888 seeds @ Rs. 300/- per packet of 400 grams for Rs. 1,500/- vide bill No. 988 dated 16.5.2007. He also purchased two packets of Major 317 seeds @ Rs. 830/-(Infact Rs.730/-) per packet for a consideration of Rs. 1,460/-, two packets of seeds Lachhmi NCEH-6 @ Rs.740/- per pack were purchased. Similarly, two other packets of NCS 138 Vimal seeds were also purchased by him @ Rs. 730/- per packet. Opposite party No. 4 had issued bill No. 987 dated 16.5.2007 for Rs. 4,400/-. Fields were prepared by him for sowing cotton seeds as per instructions given by opposite party No.4. Seeds were sown in the land measuring 9 Acres which was taken by him on rent from Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal (Panjwan Takhat) @ Rs. 14,000/- per acre for the year 2007-08. It is alleged by him that seeds sold to him were defective. Despite best agricultural management, crop did not come up well and he sustained huge loss. Complaint was lodged with Agriculture Development Officer, Bathinda. Report No. 446 dated 15.1.2008 was submitted by him observing that per acre yield was 2 quintals per acre against the average yield of 8.12 quintals in the Block and as such, there is loss of 6.12 quintals per acre. Complainant alleges that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- due to the defective cotton seeds supplied to him by opposite party No.4. Opposite party No. 4 was requested to pay him the compensation which replied that it is only seller of the seeds and that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are the manufacturers of Major BT Seeds, Fusion BT Seeds and Kissan Early BT Seeds respectively. Registered A.D post legal notice was served upon opposite party No. 1, reply of which was not sent. Amount was also spent by him on labour, pesticides, insecticides and hidden items. According to him, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not based on any expert evidence and it has been filed to blackmail and harass it; it is bad for non-joinder of Advanta India Ltd.; intricate questions of law and facts are involved for which examination and cross-examination of witnesses is required and as such, complaint cannot be decided in summary procedure and that only civil court can hear it and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, its plea is that complainant has not produced any proof regarding the ownership of the land. Writing allegedly given by Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal (Panjwan Takat) does not prove its ownership. No details of Khasra Nos. of the land have been given. Even the place where it is situated has not been given in it. Cotton seeds supplied by it are of very good quality. In every pack, a pamphlet containing the instructions of sowing the seeds is placed. Every farmer is supposed to sow the cotton seeds as per the instructions. 3280 Kgs. Of Hybrid Cotton Major BT truthfully treated seeds bearing lot No. 106073 to Advanta India Ltd., No. 405, 4th Floor, “A” Wing, Bangalore vide invoice No. RAS/B33/BT/6/2007-2008 dated 30.4.2007 were sold by it. There is no document showing sowing of BT cotton seeds prepared by it in any land by the complainant. It seems that he did not sow the cotton seeds prepared by it as per the instructions. Remaining cotton seeds of same lot were sold to various other farmers through different dealers on different dates and there is no complaint from any of them. The report of the Agriculture Development Officer has been got prepared by misrepresenting the facts. It does not show in which land alleged seeds were sown and in which land which cotton seeds were sown. As per version of the complainant, different quality of cotton seeds were purchased by him and the inspection report does not contain which of the cotton seeds could not yield the fruits. There is nothing in the report that complainant had complied with the instructions contained in the pamphlet. Crop does not depend upon the seeds alone. Yield is dependent on the quality of the land, pesticides sprayed, availability of the water at proper time and prevailing climate. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply stating that it is a company marketing seeds produced by Nath Bio-genes (I) Ltd. having its registered office at Nath House, Nath Road, Aurangabad in the State of Maharashtra; complaint is not maintainable without joining producer company; complainant is not consumer as the alleged seeds purchased by him were for commercial crop; complaint does not disclose when complainant had sown the seeds and their lot number. It denies that complainant had used the same seeds; it is marketing the seeds packets in the same sealed condition as they are received from the producer and as such it is not liable in any manner; it has no privity of contract with the complainant; complainant should be relegated to the ordinary civil jurisdiction as complicated questions of law and facts are involved; complaint has been filed with malafide intention; complainant has not disclosed in which part of the land he had sown the seeds marketed by it. Moreover, each pack of seeds is meant for half acre of land. Complainant had purchased in all 11 packets of seeds of various companies and had sown them in about nine acres of land as stated by him. Hence, he has not maintained the ratio as advised and instructed on the packets of the seeds as well as in the pamphlets; opposite party No.4 is neither its dealer nor distributor. It denies that land was taken by the complainant from Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal. Report No. 446 carried out by Agriculture Development Officer, Bathinda is exparte. No intimation or notice was given to the opposite parties by him. Entire cotton crop would be over by the end of November. No cotton crop is standing in the field on 15.1.2008. Hence, report of the Agriculture Development Officer is doubtful. It denies that it is the manufacturer of Fusion BT Seeds. If he could not take proper yield, it may be due to his in-action, negligence and due to improper agronomic practices adopted by him. It denies that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/-. <br /> 5. In the reply filed by opposite party No. 3, legal objections have been taken that complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the complaint; he has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. State; complaint has been filed to harass and humiliate it; it is false and frivolous and elaborate oral and documentary evidence is required due to which complaint can only be adjudicated by civil court; complainant has not produced any roof according to which the seeds purchased by him are of inferior quality. Productivity of the crop depends upon various factors like fertilizer, pesticides used, inadequate rain fall or emigration and poor quality or inadequate or over dose of pesticides/insecticides; complainant has not used the seeds as per the specifications and the guidelines; complaint does not show as to whether complainant had sown the seeds sold and manufactured by it; the loss to the American cotton crop, if any, as alleged by the complainant is not due to the seeds. Rather, it is on account of climatic or soil born disease or due due to various factors like attack of leaf curl virus, mango mealy bug, white fly which is more popular in Malwa cotton belt. If white fly attacks the crop, then another spray is to be given which itself reduces the production of crop. Seeds in question are not immune from these diseases; no report of independent expert has been produced; as per its literature there is flowering time of forty five days concerning the seeds in question. After purchasing the seeds,complainant did not visit its office alleging defect/inferiority in the seeds. Seeds were not purchased from it. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 6. Preliminary objections have been taken by opposite party no. 4 in the reply of the complaint filed by it to the effect that complainant is barred from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he has no cause of action to file the complaint against it; he is not consumer as he has not stated in the complaint that the seeds were used by him for earning his livelihood. Seeds were used by him for commercial purpose; complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts; complaint has been filed to harass it; no seeds can be said to be defective without proper analysis from a Government recognized laboratory; complainant has not followed the instructions given in the literature/booklet of Punjab Agriculture University. On merits, it admits that complainant had purchased the seeds from it. It denies that he was allured to purchase the seeds. Yield is not dependent upon the seeds. It depends upon so many external as well as environmental and other factors. No instructions were given to the complainant by it for sowing the seeds. Two packets of seeds are required for one acre. Complainant had sown 11 packets in 9 acres. Hence, it is clear that he used lesser quantity of seeds against recommended quantity which affected the yield. Moreover, as per recommendations of the Agricultural University peak season for sowing the cotton crop is whole April. Sowing of crop during this period ensures better yield. Complainant had sown seeds after 16.5.2007. Late sowing would have affected the growth of the plants and the yield. Complainant is silent regarding the use of fertilizer and watering the plants. Agriculture Development Officer did not inspect the spot in the presence of any of its representative. No notice was ever given by him before his alleged visit. His report is non-speaking. No formula or criteria has been adopted by him to assess the loss in the yield. It admits that complainant had got served legal notice upon it and no reply was given as it was vague.<br /> 7. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurbax Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopies of bill dated 16.5.2007 (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3), photocopy of agreement dated 10.3.2007 (Ex.C.4), photocopy of report of ADO (Ex.C.5), copy of legal notice dated 30.1.2008 (Ex.C.6), postal receipt (Ex.C.7), acknowledgement (Ex.C.8), photocopies of invoices (Ex.C.9 to Ex.C.22), photocopy of bill dated 11.8.2007 (Ex.C.23), cuttings from the newspapers(Ex.C.24 & Ex.C.25) & copy of Khasra Girdwari for the year 2005-08.<br /> 8. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1, Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.6) of S/Sh. Parveen Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party No.4, Ravi Kant, Manager of opposite party No.3 & Niranjan Singh, Regional Business Manager of opposite party No. 2 respectively; photocopies of instructions regarding more yield (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3), Empty pack of Fusion Bt (Ex.R.5), photocopy of invoice dated 30.4.2007 (Ex.R.7) and photocopy of pamphlet (Ex.R.8).<br /> 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 10. In his affidavit Ex.C.1, complainant reiterates his version in the complaint. Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3 are the copies of the bills vide which four types of American Cotton (Narma) seeds were purchased by him. In all, he purchased 11 packets of seeds.<br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had taken 9 Acres of land from Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal on lease (Theka) for the year 2007-08 and copy of the agreement to this effect is Ex.C.4. He had sown the seeds in this land and for this, there is copy of the Khasra Girdwari which is Ex.C.26. Complainant had also served legal notice upon opposite party No. 4 and copy of the same is Ex.C.6. Requisite fertilizers, insecticides etc. were used by him which were purchased through bills, copies of which are Ex.C.9 to Ex.C.22. Despite the fact that seeds were sown as per instructions of opposite party No. 4, the crop did not come up well and huge loss stands caused to the complainant and it is supported with letter dated 15.1.2008 issued by Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, copy of which is Ex.C.5.<br /> 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties.<br /> 13. We have considered the respective arguments. Complainant alleges that he had taken 9 Acres of land on lease from Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal (Panjwan Takhat) vide agreement, copy of which is Ex.C.4. A perusal of the same reveals that this document is dated 10.3.2007. It does not disclose the particulars of the land which has been shown to have been taken by the complainant. Neither rectangles nor Khasra numbers have been recorded in it. It does not indicate where land given on lease (Theka/Rent) is situated. So far as the copy of the Khasra Girdwari is concerned, this does not indicate that the land shown in it was ever cultivated by the complainant. Owner Gurdwara Akalgarh Hazi Rattan Chhaunni Nihang Singh Budha Dal Jethedar Baba Santa Singh Ji 96 Karori Chakarvarti Nihang Singh has been shown to be in possession of the land shown in it. Hence, from Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.26, the taking of the land on lease (Theka) becomes a doubtful affair, particularly when no authorised person from the owner of the land shown in Ex.C.26 has submitted his affidavit about the giving of the land on lease (Rent). <br /> 14. It is a case where allegation has been levelled by the complainant regarding the inferior quality of seeds supplied by opposite party No.4. In such a case, it was incumbent upon the complainant to send samples of the seeds for their examination by some analyst of some laboratory. Merely on the basis of the affidavit of the complainant, it is difficult to hold that the seeds were of sub-standard quality and were defective. For this, reference may be made to the authority The Haryana Land Reclamation Development Corporation, Hissar Vs. Shamsher Singh @ Sher Singh and others-1998(1)CLT-114 and Aziz VS. Egail Seeds Development Corporation and others-2002(2)CLT-76. Report of the Chief Agriculture Officer, copy of which is Ex.C.5, does not advance the cause of the complainant at all. This report is dated 15.1.2008. Picking of the cotton from the cotton crop plants is almost over by the end of November. This report is dated 15.1.2008. Report is very sketchy. As per the report, inspection of the cotton crop in the field was done by the team of Agricultural Department. It is not the case of the complainant that Chief Agriculture Officer was a member of the team which allegedly inspected the field. No affidavit of the officer who was heading the team has been placed on file. Similarly, there is no affidavit of any member of the team regarding the inspection of the cotton crop in the field. Basis was the report of the team which allegedly inspected the field. The same has not been placed and proved on record. It is not known from Ex.C.5 on which date field was inspected by the team of the Agricultural Department. Ex.C.5 does not clearly show that cotton crop in the field of the complainant was inspected by the team. Killa numbers and Khasra numbers of the land which has been shown to have been inspected, have not been mentioned in Ex.C.5. No basis has been given in the letter as to how Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda arrived at the conclusion that the yield of American Cotton from the field came out to be 2 quintals per acre. Letter does not reveal as to which type of cotton seeds were shown in the field and that the seeds sown were sub-standard and of inferior quality. There is no mention in it as to which type of seeds were sown in particular area of the land. Definite conclusion has not been given that loss has occurred due to the fact that seeds sown were defective, inferior and sub-standard. When the report does not pin-point the identity of the land of the complainant, it can not be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. For this, we get support from the observations in the authority Narender Kumar Vs. M/s. Arora Trading Company and another-2007(2)CLT-683. Mere fact that complainant sent notice to opposite party No. 4 is no ground to hold that his version in the complaint is proved.<br /> 15. As per Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, complainant purchased seeds on 16.5.2007. Ex.R.2 is the copy of the instructions issued by the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana according to which cotton crop should be sown in the month of April for the purpose of getting proper yield. In this case, complainant purchased the cotton seeds on 16.5.2007. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that he had sown these seeds, he must have sown them after 16.5.2007. <br /> 16. Complainant had purchased 11 packets of seeds for sowing them in nine acres of land. He has not brought any evidence in the shape of any literature etc. according to which 11 packets of seeds are sufficient for sowing in nine acres of land. Ex.R.9 is the affidavit of Sh. Parveen Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party No. 4 who has stated in so many words in it that as per recommendations of the Agricultural Department 2 packets of the seeds in question are required for one acre. Since complainant had sown 11 packets of seeds in 9 acres, he had used lesser quantity of seeds against the recommended quantity of seeds and it could have affected the yield. <br /> 17. There is no averment of the complainant that there was no proper germination of the seeds. Yield/productivity of the crop depends upon various factors like fertilizers, pesticides used, inadequacy of irrigation facilities and rain fall. Productivity also depends upon the poor quality or inadequate or over doses of pesticides/insecticides by the farmer. Complainant has not explained as to how much quantity of pesticides, fertilizers and insecticides was used by him per acre for management of the crop. When this fact is considered, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties can be inferred, particularly when there is no grievance of the complainant regarding the germination of the seeds. <br /> 18. As per Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, complainant had purchased four types of seeds from opposite party No. 4 on 16.5.2007. His version is that seeds were purchased for the purpose of sowing in 9 acres of land. Complainant has not clarified as to which type seeds purchased by him were sown by him in which particular portion of the land comprising 9 acres. This aspect of the case also adversely affects the version of the complainant.<br /> 19. Ex.R.5 is the box of Fusion Bt. According to it, Nath Seeds Ltd., Aurangabad is the manufacturer of Laxmi Bt (NCEH-6 Bt). These seeds are marketed by opposite party No.2. Despite this, complainant did not deem it fit to add Nath Seeds Ltd., Aurangabad as party to this complaint.<br /> 20. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 21. As a result of our forgoing discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced <br /> 18.8.2008 (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br />