Haryana

Ambala

CC/80/2013

SAKINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD - Opp.Party(s)

S.K SHARMA

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 80 of 2013

                                                           Date of Institution         : 10.04.2013.

                                                           Date of decision            : 19.06.2017

          Sakinder Singh S/o Sh. Harchand Singh R/o Village and Post office         Naneola, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant.

1. Kesar Enterprises Ltd; Khurpia Agriculture Farm, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. .
2. Kesar Enterprises Ltd; C/o Kisan Complex, 4^th Milestone, Sirsa Road, Hisar.
3. Antal Beej Bhandar, Booth No.171, New Grain Market, Ambala City.

….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

Present:       Sh. S.K. Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Jai Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 already exparte v.o.d. 14.08.2014

                   Sh. Jagtar Singh, counsel for OP No.3.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased the seeds of Kesar 505 of 40 K.g. for sum of Rs.9,000/- vide bill NO.2512 dated 16.05.2012 from OP No.3 and same was sown in  land bearing khasra No.56//27/26,3,4/2,48/13,18,20,21,22,23,55//6,/1,56//1/2,/,9,10/ 1/2,8,10/1 but the growth of the crops were not all proper. Thereafter, the complainant requested to OP No.3 to visit the field of the complainant to see the growth of the crops but the Op No.3 did not paid any heed to the genuine request. Further submitted that on 25.09.2012, the complainant had moved application before the Sub Division Agriculture Officer for the inspection of the fields and there after the officials of the above said Department visited the fields of the complainant on 03.10.2012 and found that “58% of the Jeeri crop are excess in length and are not harvestable and only 42% of the crops were less in length and were harvestable. So, the 58% of the seeds supplied to the complainant were mixed with inferior quality seeds. Further submitted that the complainant had served a legal notice through his counsel to the OP dated 04.12.2012 and the OPs NO.1 and 3 have received the same and in spite of received the same have not replied. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement submitting the complainant is cultivating his land and selling the crop and getting the profit as such the complainant is doing the commercial activity. As where the consumer is getting the profit and the transaction is of commercial nature then it does not cover he definition of consumer and OP No.1 is not the manufacturer/producer of seeds in question. Further submitted that the said variety of seeds KESAR 505 was purchased by the OP from M/s Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (Seed Division) Khurpia Agri Farm, Kichha-263148 Distt. Udham Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand) who are producer of seed in question, vide bill/challan NO.3384 dated 01.04.2010.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 3 also appeared and filed written statement submitting that the recommended seed rate of paddy is 8 k.g. per hectare but the complainant purchased only 40 k.g. of seed for 10.75 acres, it is clearly shows that he also used some another for the crop which results in lesser crop yield. Further submitted that under Section 13(1) (C) of C.P. Act, the seed should be got tested from seed testing Laboratory for determination of the quality of seed. Further submitted that OP No.1 and 2 are manufacturer and OP No.3 is only supplier/seller of the seeds. OP No.2 did not bother with the present complaint and he was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 14.08.2014.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-13 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.3 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1 alongwith document as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-5 and close his evidence. Counsel for Op no. 1 has also tendered a statement to the effect that his written statement may be read in his evidence.

4                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for complainant argued that the seed in question was mixed with some other varieties and not of the best quality to the contrary some of the plaints of paddy were grown ripe and some of the plaints of paddy were half grown ripe and in this way the complainant was not in a position to cut and remove the crop as per his expectations and could not harvest the crop. Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure-9) was relied upon by complainant qua “58% crop was excess in height and the same was not ready for cutting and remaining 42% was less in height, ripen and was ready for cutting”. Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior quality of seeds, complainant suffered a financially loss and  requested for allowing the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and the productivity of crop depends upon the various factors like fertilizer, pesticides used by the complainant, inadequate rain fall or irrigation and also due to poor quality of inadequate or over dose of insecticides used by the complainant and proper supply of manures and there after proper irrigation as well as climatic conditions prevalent at that time. Counsel for OPs further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of Agriculture Department has not been carried out in the presence of any person of OPs.

                   OP No. 3 also has argued that OP No.3 is only a dealer of the said seed and sold the seed in packed condition as purchased from Op No.1 through bill No.R/11-12/1/406 dated 01.05.2012. Any default/defective seed is the responsibility of the manufacturer.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there are two points involved in this case:-

1.       Whether OPs have sold the mixed seeds to the complainant or not?

2.       If first point is proved then to what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

                   The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased the seeds of KESAR 505 of 40 K.g. for sum of Rs.9,000/- vide bill No.2512 dated 16.05.2012 from OP No.3 as per Annexure C-1 and same was sown in  land bearing khasra No.56//27/26,3,4/2,48/13,18,20,21,22,23,55//6,/1,56//1/2,/,9,10/ 1/2,8,10/1 but the growth of the crops were not all proper. The complainant to prove the factum that whether he has sown the seeds in above said khasra numbers, he has placed on record copy of Jamabandi Annexure C-8. As per the Report of Joint Team of Agriculture Department has specific mentioned that they have inspected the field of the complainant and he has sown the paddy crop in 8 acres.. The above said report has not been rebutted by the Ops, so it is clear that the seeds were sown by the complainant in 8 acres land. We have gone through the report of Agriculture Department Annexure C-9 consisting of three officer reveals that “58% crop was excess in height and the same was not ready for cutting and remaining 42% was less in height, ripen and was ready for cutting”. Even then, it was duty of the OPs to rebut the report of the Agriculture Department for summoning anyone of the inspection team for cross-examination, at the time of leading the evidence. So, report of the Inspection Committee cannot be brushed aside on the contention that seeds not sent for testing and report has been obtained at the back the Ops. As such, both the Ops are responsible for selling poor/mixed quality seeds to the complainant whereby he has suffered huge loss. Hence, we conclude that OP NO.3 had sold mixed seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No.1 & OP No.2, which is tantamount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. 

                   We have gone through judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. 2012 RCR Civil Page No.838 “wherein it is held that Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- complainant by farmer/growers of seeds supplied by appellants resulting in less field –sample seeds not available with complainants as all seeds purchased were sown-Appellant also not providing sample of seeds sold for analysis-Consumer Forum appointing agriculture experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop-Compensation awarded to complainants on basis of report of expert-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside as specious ground that procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) © had not been followed and the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. 2008 (iv) CPJ Pg. 119-120 (NC) wherein held that “Section 2(1)(f), 14(I)(d)- Agriculture –Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry- Committee- Vast Variance in characteristics of plaints found – complaint allowed by Forum compensation granted - order upheld in appeal-Hence revision- Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed –Necessary aside on contention that seeds not sent for testing- Orders of lower for a upheld”. The above said judgments M/s National Seeds Corporation ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. as well as Prathan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Amir & Anr. are severally covered the case of the complainant.

6.                Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed lumsum amount as a damages amounting Rs.2,00,000 lakh. As per the report of Agriculture Department reveals that 58% crop was excess in height and the same was not ready for cutting and remaining 42% was less in height, ripen and was ready for cutting”. However, taking the average crops, we presumed that the complainant must have took at least 25 quaintal in one acre and as per market rate of the paddy Super fine Permal crops in the year 2012-13 of Marketing Committee, Govt. rate was 1280/- per quaintal. As such, the complainant has suffered loss of 58% of the total yield in the 8 acres which is calculated amounting Rs.32000/- (Rs.18560/- per acre x 8). As such, we hold that OPs are Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant alongwith costs.

6                 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and OPs are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of order:-

1. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,480/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. If the compliance of the order is made by the OP No.1 then OP No.1 may recover the said amount from the Op No. 2 as manufacturing defect in the seeds solely attributed to OP No.2.
2. Also to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of proceedings.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :19.06.2017                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member