Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1451

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hariali Kissan Bajar - Opp.Party(s)

Saurabh Kaushik

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1451 OF 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 26.09.2011

                                                          Date of Decision:   01.04.2015

 

Rajinder Singh son of Har Chand Singh, resident of Village Palia Khurd, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       Hariali Kissan Bajar (Division  P.C.M Shiri Ram Consolidated)   village Kishnawali near Nahar Sugar Mil Khanna Road Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor.

 

2.       Kesar Enterprises Ltd., (Seed Division), Kichha (U.S Nagar)      Utranchal.

 

                                                          …..Respondent/Opposite Parties

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         None

          For the respondent no.1   :         Sh.Binderjit Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent no.2   :         Ex-parte.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against  the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties  in the complaint), challenging order dated 26.07.2011 of District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, on the ground of granting exiguous compensation to the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant for enhancement of compensation, as awarded by the above District Forum.

2.      The complainant Rajinder Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he being agriculturist purchased seeds from OP No.1, the authorized dealer of OP No.2 on 28.04.2010 in the shape of three bags of paddy seeds  no. 6129 (Pro-Agro) and two bags of paddy seeds of variety HKR-47 for Rs.3375/- against receipt duly issued by the OPs. OP No.1 assured the complainant regarding the good yielding of the paddy seeds due to their fine quality. The complainant planted the paddy seeds in his land of the variety of HKR-47 Kesar in 12 Acres and after full growth of the paddy of HKR-47, it was noticed that growth of some plants was low and many plants matured before time, whereas other plants were yet unripe. Pre-mature plants fell down on the ground and thereafter yield thereof would be destroyed. The complainant moved an application regarding mixture of different varieties of seeds  before Agriculture Officer Nabha. The Agriculture Officer Nabha submitted his report to Chief Agriculture Officer Patiala on 07.09.2010. The Agriculture Officer reported after making spot observation of the crop of the paddy recording that complainant suffered loss of 15% due to mixture of the different varieties of seeds. The complainant got yield of 15 qtls per acre of HKR 47, whereas he suffered loss of 15 qtls per acre thereof and further loss of 12 acre of land to the extent of 180 qtls of the value of Rs.1,80,000/- therefor. Accordingly, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs directing them to pay the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant.

3.      Upon notice, OPs filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in the preliminary objections by OPs that the complaint is without any cause of action and locus standi. The consumer forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide it, in as much as the complainant has been indulging in the profit making business of commercial nature and is not a consumer. There is no report of the laboratory regarding sub-standard quality of the seeds under Section 13(1) c of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not used the seeds as per the specifications and guidelines given by the OPs on the backside of the bill and literature and on the package as well. The seeds are certified seeds, duly certified by the Uttranchal State Seed Certification Authority. The lack of germination of seeds is impossible, as averred by the complainant to the effect that the growth of the seeds depended upon method of sowing, sowing time, usage of seed rate, spacing, usage of manures and fertilizers at the time of sowing, irrigation availability, weed control, environmental conditions, temperature and so on. It was further averred that report of the Agriculture Inspector is inadmissible on the record. The OPs resisted the complaint even on merits. The OPs averred that complainant used less seeds than the required quantity of seeds for plantation in the fields. As per literature issued by the Choudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural  University, Hissar Haryana, the plantation of the seeds is recommended 10 kg to 12 kg seeds of HKR-47 per acre. The complainant has sown the less quantity of  seeds; hence, he himself has to blame therefor. The OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part or any loss suffered by the complainant as alleged by him and it prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, copy of bill dated 20.4.2010 Ex.C-1, bill dated 28.4.2010 Ex.C-2, copy of investigation report Ex.C-3, copy of application Ex.C-4, copy of application dated 6.10.2010 Ex.C-5. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Jatinder Singh, Center Manager, affidavit of Ranjit Singh, Regional Sale Manager, Kesar Enterprises Ltd Ex.RW-2/A, copy of book of Haryana Agriculture Ex.R-1, copy of document of Kharif Crops Ex.R-2. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib accepted the complaint of the complainant directing payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib dated 26.07.2011, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

5.      We proceed to examine the case on the basis of its merits with the able assistance of counsel for respondent no.1, as none has appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of arguments in the appeal and respondent no.2 of this appeal is exparte. We have examined the record of the case. We proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of its merits after assessment of the evidence.  Pleadings of the parties are on the record in support of their respective averments. Affidavits are sworn in by the parties in support of their respective pleadings, which are also placed on the record by them. Ex.C-1 is document proving that complainant purchased paddy seeds from OP No.1 for Rs. 3375/- of the HKR 47 30 kg KESAR in different bags, as recorded in it. The complainant purchased the above seeds for consideration from OP No.1. Similarly, document Ex.C-2 is another receipt has also established this fact that complainant paid Rs.60/- to OP No.1 as well. The complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A that there was mixture in the growth of plants of different varieties of seeds, The application moved by the complainant in this regard to Chief Agriculture Officer is Ex.C-4, whereupon Agriculture Officer Nabha was deputed to make an On-the-spot Assessment of the crops by Chief Agriculture Officer. Agriculture Development Officer submitted report to the Chief Agriculture Officer, vide receipt No.96 dated 06.09.2010 Ex.C-3 to the effect that he inspected the spot by extrospection and found that the paddy crop was of different varieties, as standing in the field of the complainant. From observations, he found that the paddy HKR 47 have matured, whereas other kind of paddy in the fields, which appeared to be of Gobinda and Muchhal varieties were dwarfed. Photocopy of the report is also placed on the record to this effect. He found that sqm 24-26 and out of three plants of type-sqm were found. He found mixture of seeds to the extent of 12-14%. He further found that mixed plants, which were off type and have pre-matured and they would fall down by time. The main crop of paddy has matured. He found that there was mixture of off type plants to the extent of 12-14%. He observed that in the beginning, agriculturist tried to uproot the off type plants, when he came to know about the mixture of the seeds, but thereafter they were stopped. The off type plants were quite visible in the crop of the paddy of the complainant. This report was endorsed to the complainant, vide dated 07.09.2010 by the concerned Chief Agriculture Officer. The complainant sought to strengthen his case on the basis his pleadings, coupled with affidavit on the record, supported by the bills of purchase of seeds Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-2, coupled with the report of Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C-3 on the record.

6.      On the other hand, OP relied upon affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Center Manager of OP No.1. He stated that complainant has been indulging in commercial activity with the sole aim of earning profits. The seeds were duly certified by the Uttrakhand State Seed Certification Agency, Rudarpur District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttranchal). The less yield of the crops is dependent upon the method of sowing, sowing time, usage of seed rate, spacing, usage of manures and fertilizers at the time of sowing, irrigation availability and so on. The OPs in the written version as well as in affidavit of Jatinder Singh Ex.RW-1/A contended that there is no laboratory test report regarding the sub-standard quality of the seeds. As per recommendation of the Chowdhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar Haryana, it was categorically recommended to use 10 kg to 12 kg seed of HKR 47 Paddy to be sown per acre for the yield. The complainant has admitted having sown only 30 kg of seed in 12 acre of land instead of 120 kg of seed, hence, he himself has to blame therefor. Affidavit of Ranjit Singh Pannu, Regional Sale Manager, Kesar Enterprises Ltd  tendered by OPs are on the record. This affidavit is also to the same effect like previous affidavit Ex.RW-1/A of OPs. Ex.R-1 is the recommendation of Chowdhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, Haryana on the record pressed into service by OPs. Ex.R-2 is regarding the recommendation of sowing 8 to 10 kg seeds of HKR-47 paddy crop per acre.

7.      The submission of the OPs is that there is no report of the laboratory to prove the sub standard quality of seeds on the part of the complainant in this case. It was also argued that yield depends upon many factors like fertilizers at the time of sowing and weather so on so on and complainant failed to prove any loss on the record of the paddy yield. On the other hand, the submission of the counsel for the complainant is to the contrary. It was argued by the counsel for the complainant that it is not a case of less yield, as sought to be pressed by OPs. The counsel for the OPs relied upon law laid down by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in LPahuja TakII Seed Ltd..Vs. Harihar Estate & Another reported in II(2012) CPJ 47 and judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in Gyan Chandr Sharda Vs. Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadan Sahkari Samiti & others, reported in III(2009) CPJ 19 (NC) to the effect that defective seeds not proved in absence of expert/laboratory report- and order of the State Commission upheld.

8.      From analysis of the evidence on the record and pleadings of the parties, we find that on the point of non-examining of the seeds in the laboratory, we are of the opinion that farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of highly valued seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency by the authorized dealer or manufacturer and he could not get it tested especially when the lot number is available on the record. They being the seed producer would always have some quantity of seeds left with them and which they could have got tested from the laboratory. It is their failure to perform, which has to be held against them. This observation was made by the Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi in South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs. R. Shekhar @ Sridhar reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 600/601. We repel this contention of the OPs that complaint of the complainant is liable to be rejected out of hand and on the ground that there is no laboratory report. Now we are left with the probative value of the report of the Agriculture Development Officer on the record. We find that he is an official witness, who is disinterested person and did not have moved to submit a distorted report to help one party. He inspected the spot in his official capacity and found that different varieties of seeds were the villain of the piece, which were found on account of mixed seeds sold to the complainant. It is not a case where the less yield was due to quality of the land, fertilizers, weather, method of sowing and quality of seeds as shown, but it is case of different mixture of the varieties of the paddy seeds, which grew in the fields of the complainant due to inferior quality of the seeds, alone as sold to the complainant. Consequently, the case in hand is distinguishable from the authorities pressed by the OPs in this case. We do not find any ground to discard the disinterested report of the Agriculture Officer who is a public servant to the extent he has proved on the record that the less quality of the crop to the extent of 12% to 14% is solely on the ground of mixed seeds of different varieties of paddy sold to the complainant. Consequently, we hold that the affidavit of the complainant and his pleas are not outright false, but they carry grain of truth therein to the effect that the complainant suffered loss to the extent of 12% to 14% of his crop. The complainant alleged that he sowed the crops of the paddy in 12 acres. There is no such proof on the record regarding the plantation of the seeds in 12 acres of land by the complainant. No revenue record to this effect has been proved on the record by the complainant. No J-Forms have been produced on the record by the complainant to prove that he sold the paddy with the commission agent or the government whatever the case may be. There is simple version of the complainant to this effect, which is not supported by any other cogent evidence on the record. Consequently, we are unable to find out any exact loss suffered by the complainant in this regard for want of precise evidence on this point. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant. We find that  the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is on the lower side being exiguous in nature. We find that interest of justice would be served in this case by raising the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. Consequently, we enhance the compensation payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-, for want of any evidence regarding actual loss suffered by him. We find that compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable one to the complainant in this case. The order of the District Forum regarding cost of the litigation of Rs.2000/- is also raised to Rs.5,000/- in this appeal.

9.      In the light of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant by enhancing the compensation payable to the complainant now appellant to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and also to pay enhanced cost of litigation to the extent of Rs.5000/-. The appeal is accepted to this extent and stands disposed of accordingly.

10.     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                           (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

April 01    2015.                                                             

(ravi)