Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/158

Tarsem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khanna Seeds & Anothers - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ram Avtar, Adv

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Tarsem Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To pay Rs.1,06,190/- + Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of loss suffered by him, along with interest @ 12% per annum from September, 2014 till realization, 

ii)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses,

                                      &

          To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a progressive farmer and is doing the work of farming for earning his livelihood. He & his wife have 40 acres of land in their names, at Village Rampur. For the last so many years, he has been sowing the seasonal crops in the said land, which give high yield for uplifting his family’s status as well as earnings to met day to day expenditure. In the month of August, 2014, he decided to sow the crop of peas (Mattar) in 10 acres of land. From the beginning, he remained in touch with the officials of Horticulture and Agriculture Departments, who guide the farmers regarding the faming methodology. In the month of August, 2014, he attended the office of the Horticulture and Agriculture Department, who advised that the farmers should sow such kind of vegetables, which give good profit,  like Mattar (Peas i.e. Lathyrus Sativus) because in the month of November- December, price of the peas almost toches Rs.60-70 per Kg. Accordingly, he decided to try and sow the crop of peas. He usually purchases the seeds for farming from the O.P. No. 1, namely, Khanna Seed & Chemical Store, Nangal Township, who told him that the peas seeds, launched by the O.P. No. 2 i.e. Bhawani Seed Corporation, Delhi are of very good variety for yielding good crop because the same give an average yield of 18-20 quintals per acre. It was further assured by the O.P. No.1 that the said peas seeds give full yield of the crop within 60 days time and after 60 days period, the land becomes free for sowing wheat crop. He made up his mind to sow the peas crop as per advice of the O.P. No.1 and ploughed his 10 acres land, as per guidelines of the O.P. No.1, by Ditch and tailoring, mandatory for sowing of the peas crop. For the said purpose, he spent a sum of Rs.26000/- i.e. Rs.2600/- per acre and had prepared the said 10 acres of  land for sowing the crop of peas by the end of 1^st week of September 2014 and on 25.09.2014, he had purchased seeds of peas from the shop of the O.P. No.1 vide bill No.2188, in which the seed license number is written as 448. The O.P. No. 1 had assured him that it was the duly authorized dealer of the O.P. No.2. The following descriptions were also depicted on the bag, purchased vide aforesaid bill:-

Variety                 P-3                       Lot No.                 BSC215

Date of test           15.09.2014           Date of Packing    25.09.2014

Germination         75%                      Purity                             98%

Net Weight           49kgS                            Retail Price           4000/-

 

 

He had also spent Rs.2780/- to purchase the requirement of peas seeds vide above said bill No.2188 from the O.P. No.1. All the directions and suggestions given by the O.P. No.1 were followed by him for sowing the peas crop in an area of 10 acres of land. In the first week of October 2014, he visited the shop of the O.P. No.1 and apprised it that the seeds purchased from it vide bill dated 25.09.2014 were not in fertile position. The O.P. No.1 suggested him that in such a situation, spray is must to be given on the said crop of the peas. As per said suggestion given by the O.P. No.1, he purchased medicine for spray, for a sum of Rs.1440/- vide bill No.3835 dated 13.10.2014 from the O.P. No.1, but even after spray of the said medicine, no positive result came and the peas plants did not bear the peas and on the contrary, the plants attained height. He again complained about the same to the O.P. No.1, who told him that some times, the seeds are not supplied of the proper quality by the Company and in such a situation, this kind of occurrence takes place. The O.P. No.1 had very lightly backed out from his assurance by saying that some times, this kind of situation occurs. His neighbourer, namely, Sh. Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Birlon, who had purchased the peas seeds, which were marketed by BL Seeds company, had sown the same in his land, which is adjacent to his land and the same had factually given a yield of 20/25 quintals of peas per acre and said Shamsher Singh had sold the peas crop @ Rs.5500/- per quintal and earned Rs.1,00,000/- per acre approximately whereas, he has suffered the loss due to the supply of sub standard peas seeds to him by the O.P. No.1. Had he also purchased the peas seeds from the said BL Seeds Company, as was done by his neighbourer, Shamsher Singh, the same would have given good result and he must have gain profit, instead of suffering heavy loss. The said profit would have been @ Rs.1,10,000/- per acre and for 10 acres of land the same would have been approximately Rs.11,00,000/-. On 10.12.2014, he consulted the officials of the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments for their opinion, as the said peas crop had borne no peas. He had also requested the O.P. No.1 to see the situation of his peas crop, who deputed its representative to look into the matter and physically verify the facts at the spot. Then the representative of O.P. No.1 visited his fields on 12.12.2014 and he had also given the same opinion as given by the officials of the Horticulture and Agriculture Departments, Garshankar. Due to mis-guidance and supply of sub standard peas seeds by the O.P. No.1, marketed by O.P. No.2, he has been subjected to bear the loss as under:-

1.       Expenses Incurred for ditching/ploughing            Rs.26,000/-

2.       Cost of sowing Rs.800/- per acre                         Rs.  8,000/-

3.       Labour, water, maintenance charges etc.              Rs.10,000/-

4.       Dia, Urea etc.                                                       Rs.14,750/-

5.       Cost of Seeds                                                       Rs.33,100/-

6.       Cost of medicine/spray                                        Rs.  1,440/-

7.       Labour charges for one acre                                 Rs.  2,700/-

8.       Another Spray with labour                                  Rs.  7,200/-

9.       Spray for insects etc                                             Rs.  3,000/-

                   Total                                                       Rs.1,06,190/-

 

In addition to the above said loss of Rs.1,06,190/-, he has also to bear the loss of the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- because during the months of November-December, the market price of peas is usually Rs.50/- to Rs.70/- per Kg. The O.P. No. 1 had assured by him, the yield of peas crop out of the peas seed sown by him would be 20-25 quintals per acre. Even if it is presumed that the yield would have come only 20 quintals per acre and the rate of peas was lower than Rs.6000/- per quintal, even then he has suffered the minimum loss of Rs.80,000/- per acre and  on the basis of said calculation, he has suffered loss of Rs.8,00,000/- for 10 acres of crop, for which he is entitled to be compensated by the O.Ps. He had purchased the seeds of peas from the shop of O.P. No.1, as launched by the O.P. No.2. When the service of notice could not be effected upon the O.P. No.2, the O.P. No. 1 while filing reply to the application for issuance of direction to it, to disclose the correct address of the O.P. No.2, had disclosed that it had purchased the Bhawani seeds from the O.P. No.3. All the O.Ps. have connived with each other with the motive to cheat the innocent farmers. The O.Ps. are thus, deficient in rendering service and are jointly & severally liable to pay him Rs.9,06,190/- (i.e. Rs.1,06,190/- + Rs.8,00,000/-), towards the loss caused to him, as explained above, alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from September,2014 till realization, but they have refused to make up the loss suffered by him. Hence, this complaint.

 

 3.               On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written version, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; that the complainant has no locus standi & no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as he has concealed the material facts from this Forum, as such, he is not entitled for any relief; that the complainant is barred to file the instant complaint under the Act, because he is doing the agriculture work for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood.

                   On merits, it is stated that the complainant himself had approached the answering O.P. and demanded peas seeds, launched by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation, Delhi, which were supplied to him. The answering O.P. has no responsibility for better results of the said peas seeds. The peas seeds in question were sent by the manufacturer in sealed bags and the answering O.P. had sold the same in the sealed condition to the complainant, who, after inquiring about the quality of the said peas seeds of M/s Bhawani Seed Corporation from various experts, had approached the answering  O.P. and shown his willingness to purchase the same. The answering O.P. had never directed or suggested anything, as alleged by him. He has concocted a false story in order to harass & humiliate the answering O.P. The medicine for spray was supplied to him as per his demand. Neither he had ever complained to the answering O.P. about fertile position of the peas crop nor it had suggested him to give spray on the said crop nor any person visited on its behalf to the filed of the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. and it not liable to compensate the complainant, for the loss, if any, suffered by him. Instead, he himself is liable to pay compensation to the answering O.P. for the harassment caused to it.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with heavy costs, the same being without any merit.

 

4.                The O.P. No.3 filed a separate written version, taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P. and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that the complaint is bunch of lies; that the complainant had never purchased the seeds of the answering O.P. at any point of time, as such, he does not come under the definition of ‘consumer’ qua the answering O.P.; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering O.P.; that no notice was given to the answering O.P. before filing of the instant complaint; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the answering O.P. has no concern with the O.P. No. 2; that the amount of compensation claimed by the complainant is highly excessive and on that score also the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that neither the complainant nor the O.P. No.1 was aware about the fact that from whom the seeds in question were purchased and the answering O.P.  was made a party only to black mail it because it was impleaded only after the summons issued to the O.P. No.2 were received back: that there is collusion between the complainant and the O.P. No.1, as such, the instant complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P. and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

                   On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. has no concern with the complainant. The answering O.P. had sold the peas seeds (AP-3) to the O.P. No.1 on 25.09.2014 vide invoice No.701 in 52 packets, which were sent through Bharat Motor on 25.09.2014 from Delhi, as such, it is not believable or possible that the said seeds supplied by the answering O.P. were purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.2, therefore, the answering O.P. is not liable/responsible to pay any compensation to the complainant, because he did not sow the seeds supplied by the answering O.P. He had not mentioned the address of the BL Seed Coy in the complaint. Prior to receipt of the summons back, which were issued to the O.P. No.2, the complainant had never stated that the seeds which were purchased by him were launched by the answering O.P. It is also mentioned in the written version filed by the O.P. No. 1 that it had purchased the seeds from the O.P. No. 2. Otherwise also the O.P. No. 2 and the answering O.P. have no concern with each other. The O.P. No. 1 has tried to shift its liability, firstly, to the O.P. No. 2 and then to the answering O.P., in collusion with the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the seeds in question from the O.P. No.1 on 25.09.2014 and thereafter, sowed the same in the fields, but in the first week of October 2014, he had made complaint to the O.P. No.1 and alleged that the seeds were not in fertile position. He himself has admitted in Para no.5 of the complaint that the peas seeds give full yield of crop within 60-70 days time and after 60 days time, the land becomes free for sowing wheat crop. It is stated that the period for sowing the wheat seed is between 15^th October to 25 November. The period of peas is of 80 days. This proves that the complainant was in a hurry to sow the wheat crop in the same field, where he had, allegedly, already sown the peas seeds and he did not wait for a period of 80 days and before expiry of the said period, he sowed the wheat seed in the same fields, therefore, he cannot claim that the seeds were of sub standard or of low quality. It is, however, stated that the average yield of peas crop is 9-11 quintals per acre and not 20-25 quintals per acre and it takes a time of 80 days till harvesting.

The answering O.P. does not sell the seed of substandard or lower quality, which is proved from the fact that no customer has ever made any complaint qua the same. The amount of compensation as claimed by the complainant in the present complaint is highly excessive because admittedly the complainant spent @ Rs.2600/- per acre for total 10 acres of land, but in the instant complaint, he has claimed the compensation of Rs.9,06,190/-. From the contents of the complaint, it is crystal clear that firstly the complaint was filed against the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 and the summons were duly issued at the address of O.P. No.2, but the same were received back, unserved with the report that the said O.P. is not in existence and only thereafter, the O.P. No.3 was impleaded as O.P. No.3. This proves that neither the complainant nor the O.P. No.1 was aware that from whom the seeds in question were purchased and the O.P. No.3 has been made a party only to black mail it. There is no defect, whatsoever, in the quality of seeds, which are manufactured/prepared by the answering O.P.  It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same against the answering O.P. with heavy costs.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. C1, affidavit of Sh. Shamsher Singh Ex.C2 and documents Ex. C3 to C8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Khanna, proprietor of M/s Khanna Seed and Chemical Store, Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Sh. Harpal Singh Ex.OP1/B, affidvit of Sh. Malkit Singh son of Jagat Singh Ex.OP1/C, photocopies of documents Ex.OP1/D to Ex.OP1/N and closed the evidence, whereas the learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Narender Pal, Prop. of M/s Jai Durga Beej Company, Ex.OP3/A, photocopty of bill Ex.OP3/B and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.Ps. and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased 400 gms. of pea seeds, launched by Bhawani Seeds Corporation, from the O.P. No.1, on its recommendation, on 25.9.2014 vide bill No. 2188 for a sum of Rs.2640/-, which was sown by him in 10 acres of land, as suggested by the said O.P. No.1 and under the guidance of the officials of Horticulture Department.  Before sowing the said seeds, he had ploughed the fields by ditch & tailoring, mandatory for the said purpose, for which he had spent a sum of Rs.2600/- per acre. In the first week of October, 2014, he found that the seeds so sown were not in fertile position and complained about the same to the O.P. No.1, who suggested him to spray medicine on the said crop of the peas. Accordingly, he purchased the required medicine for spray for a sum of Rs.1440/- on 13.10.2014 from the O.P. No.1 itself and sprayed the same on the said crop of peas. Inspite of that the crop of peas did not bear any fruit, although it had attained height. On 10.12.2014, he also got inspected the said crop of peas from the officials of the Agriculture and Horticulture Department. Even the concerned officer of the Horticulture Department, Rupnagar, vide its report (Ex. C-4), who had inspected his crop on 22.12.2014, as per directions passed by this Forum, had opined that although the said pea crop had borne peascod, yet on opening of the peascod, it was found that the size of the peas was smaller than the normal one. The complainant has, thus, suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,06,190/-, which was spent towards sowing of the said substandard seeds and Rs.8,00,000/- towards loss of peas crop. Therefore, the O.Ps. be directed to pay the said amount of Rs.9,06,190/-(Rs.1,06,190/- + Rs.8,00,000/-) alongwith compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by and also the litigation expenses, as prayed for in the complaint.

8.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that the complainant had approached the O.P. No.1 and demanded peas seeds launched by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation, which were sold to him by it in the sealed bags. The O.P. No.1 had never given any suggestion, as alleged by the complainant; rather he, of his own, had purchased the said peas seeds & medicines for spray etc. from it. Since the O.P. No.1 had only sold the seeds, as manufactured by the manufacturer, in the sealed bags, therefore, it is not responsible for the loss, if any, suffered by the complainant, as alleged in the complaint and the complaint against it be dismissed with heavy costs.

9.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 submitted that even as per version of the complainant himself, he had purchased the pea seeds from the O.P. No.1, which were manufactured by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation i.e. O.P. No.2, as such, there being no privity of contract between the complainant and the O.P. No.3, on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.3. He further submitted that the O.P. No. 3 had sold the pea seeds AP-3 to the O.P. No.1 on 25.09.2014 vide invoice No. 701(Ex.OP1/G), which were consigned from Delhi through Bharat Motors on 25.9.2014 itself, thus, it is not believable that the peas seeds purchased by the complainant on 25.9.2014 from the O.P. No.1, were the same, which were sold by the O.P. No. 3 to O.P. No. 1 on the even date, because taking into consideration the distance from Delhi to Nangal, it cannot be said that the said seeds consigned by the O.P. No.3 to the O.P. No.1 on 25.9.2014 had reached at Nangal on the same day and thereafter, the O.P. No. 1 had sold the seeds to the complainant, out of the said consignment, on 25.9.2014 itself. Even there is no document on record from which it can be said to have been proved that the complainant had purchased the pea seeds of AP-3 brand on 25.9.2014. Even the complainant has failed to prove that the seeds sown by him were of substandard quality because as per report dated 28.1.2015 (Ex. C4) of the concerned officer of the Horticulture Department, Rupnagar, which was given after inspecting the peas crop in question of the complainant, had opined that the peas being of smaller size than the normal one may be due to climate effect, deficiency of mineral etc. or due to substandard quality pea seeds. Therefore, on the basis of the said report even, it cannot certainly be said that the smaller size of the peas was due to substandard quality of the pea seeds sown by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint, even on merits, is also liable to be dismissed.

 

10.              Sh. Rajesh Kumar Khanna, Proprietor of the O.P. No.1 in para No.6 of his duly sworn affidavit, Ex. OP1/A, has deposed that on the asking of the complainant, he had booked the seed in question with the O.P. No. 3 and had issued bill dated 25.9.2014 to the complainant, but he had received the peas seeds on 26.09.2014 and on 27.9.2014, he had sent the above said seeds to the complainant vide bill No. 2808 dated 27.09.2014, which were received by him on 27.09.2014. Even if for the sake of arguments, we believe the above said version of the O.P. No. 1 that it had supplied the seeds to the complainant on 27.9.2014 after receiving the same from the O.P. No.3, then why he had issued the bill No. 2188(Ex.C8), on 25.9.2014 to the complainant. Even this version of the O.P. No. 1 that it had sold the peas seeds to the complainant on 27.9.2014 is not believable because as per version of the complainant, he had purchased the pea seeds in question alongwith some other items from the O.P. No.1, vide bill No. 2188(Ex. C8) on 25.9.2014. We have perused the bill No.2188 (Ex. C8) and also the bill No. 2808 (Ex.OP1/D) dated 27.09.2014, but in both of the said bills, the make of the peas seeds allegedly sold by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant, has not been mentioned, whereas in all the invoices Ex. OP1/G to OP1/N vide which the peas seeds were sold by the O.P. No.3 to the O.P. No.1, on different dates, the make of the said peas seeds has been mentioned as ‘Ap-3’. Since the Make of the peas seeds sold to the complainant by the O.P. No.1 has not been found mentioned in the invoices No.2188 (Ex. C8) and No. 2808 (Ex.OP1/D) issued by the O.P. No. 1 in the name of the complainant, and even no other document has been placed on record by the O.P. No.1 to prove this fact that it had sold the peas seeds to the complainant, which were purchased by it from the O.P. No.3. Even in its written version, the O.P. No.1 had taken the stand that it had sold the pea seeds, manufactured by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation, to the complainant on his demand, whereas the stand of the O.P. No.3 is that it sells the seeds, which are manufactured by it only and has no concern with the sale/supply of the seeds manufactured by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.P. No.1 has failed to prove on record that the peas seeds sold to the complainant were the same, which it had purchased from the O.P. No.3. With these facts & circumstances, it cannot be said that the O.P. No. 3 had played any role in supply/sale of the peas seeds, manufactured by M/s Bhawani Seeds Corporation, to the O.P. No.1, from whom the complainant had purchased the said peas seeds. Consequently, the complaint filed against O.P. No. 3 is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.              Now the question that falls for determination is as to whether the seeds purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No. 1 were of sub standard quality?

                   The complainant had purchased the pea seeds in question on 25.9.2014 and immediately, thereafter, sown the same in his land.  In order to prove his case that the seeds supplied by the O.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.2,  were of sub standard quality, he has placed on record the report dated 28.1.2015 of concerned officer of the Horticulture Department, Ex. C-4. From the perusal of the same, it is revealed that the concerned officer had visited the spot, where the said seeds were sown by the complainant, on 22.12.2014 i.e. after a period of 87 days after sowing of the said seeds. In the said report, it has been categorically mentioned that at that time, the pea crop was normal and on opening the pea pods, it was found that the size of the pea was smaller than the normal size and the reason for the same could be climate effect, deficiency of mineral/manure etc. or lack of adequate quality of the seeds sown, but it has no where been specifically mentioned that the  seeds sown by the complainant were of inferior quality. The initial onus was on the complainant to prove that the seeds sown by him were of inferior quality and for the said purpose, he was required to get the seeds tested from any appropriate laboratory, but he did not opt to do so. In the absence of any report regarding quality of the seeds in question, merely on the basis of the above said report given by the Horticulture Department, it cannot be concluded that the peas seeds in question purchased and sown by the complainant were of sub-standard quality. Therefore, the complainant against O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 is also liable to be dismissed. We find support for this view taken from the cases ‘Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Sandhu & Anr.’ (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198 and ‘Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors.’, Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex court has also held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant. In the case ‘Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. vs. Ram Swaroop’ 2015 (1) CLT 63, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, has held that the report of Agriculture Department does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.

 

12.              In view of the above discussion, the complaint against all the O.Ps. is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

13.              In this case, the arguments were heard and it was reserved for order on 30.07.2015, but the delay in announcing the order has taken place, because the President of this Forum had to proceed on leave due to her ill-health.

                   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under the rules, and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 24.08.2015                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.