Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/861

Aadhaar Retailing - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malook Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Chauhan

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                            PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

(1)                        First Appeal No.861 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.06.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision:         15.07.2015

 

1.      Aadhaar Retailing Limited, Khai Adda, Ferozepur City, through its Manager Sh. Sajid Quadri.

 

2.      M/s Prabhat Seed Traders, Plant 49-50, Industrial Area, Sector          2, Kurukshetra, Haryana through its Proprietor Sh.Hans Raj Kalra.

 

                                                          …..Appellants/Opposite parties

         

                                      Versus

 

 

          Malook Singh son of Iqbal Singh, resident of Village Hasti          Wala, Tehsil & District Ferozepur

                                                                  

                                                          ….Respondent/Complainant

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.    

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                    :  None.

          For the respondent                :  Sh.M.K.Sajjan, Advocate

 

………………………………………………………………………………

                                                AND

(2)               First Appeal No.823 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution:18.06.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision:  15.07.2015

 

Malook Singh son of Iqbal Singh, resident of Village Hasti Wala, Tehsil & District Ferozepur

 

                                                                   …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.      Adhar Retailing Limited, Khai Adda, Ferozepur City through its Manager/Branch Manager.

 

2.      M/s Parbhat Seed Traders, Plant 49-50, Industrial Area, Sector          2, Kurukhestra, Haryana through its Authorized Person.

 

 

                                                          …..Respondents /opposite parties

 

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

         

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                    :  Sh.M.K.Sajjan, Advocate

          For the respondent                :  None

 

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

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

 

          By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above referred two first appeals together, as they can be conveniently disposed of together, because they have arisen out of the same order dated 14.05.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur. The complaint of Malook Singh appellant of First Appeal No.823 of 2012  was accepted  and respondents of this appeal, who are opposite parties in the complaint, were directed to pay Rs.30,873/- as loss suffered by the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2500/- with further direction to OPs to pay the above-said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Malook Singh now appellant of First Appeal No.823 of 2012 has brought this appeal claiming enhancement of amount of compensation in this case, whereas, another First Appeal No.861 of 2012 has been filed by OPs against the order of the District Forum Ferozepur, accepting the complaint of Malook Singh complainant against them and directing them to pay the amount of compensation, as detailed in the order of District Forum. Both the parties are, thus, aggrieved by the above-referred orders passed by the District Forum Ferozepur.

2.      The complainant Malook Singh has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he being agriculturists purchased paddy seeds PR-127 (Prabhat), vide cash memo dated 08.05.2011, bearing bill no. 176 , 30 Kg for Rs.750/- from OPs. The complainant sowed the above seed in 9^1/2 acres of his land as per the instructions of Punjab Agriculture University. The complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.20,000/- on medicines/pesticide, fertilizer and cultivation in above 9^1/2 killas of land by cultivating it through tractor with expenses of Rs.1000/- each killas i.e. approximately Rs.10,000/-, labour for planting Rs.1500/- in each killa i.e. Rs.15,000/- approximately and 10 labour persons for removing waste seeding plants i.e. Rs.200/- for one labour i.e. Rs.2000/-. The complainant has claimed total expenses of Rs.47,000/- from OPs in this case. The complainant has alleged that crop of the paddy grown was different in size, which clearly depicted that sub-standard quality of seeds were sold to the complainant by OPs. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Agriculture Officer Ferozepur and it was further marked to Agriculture Development Officer Ghall Ghurd, and Agriculture Development Officer Ghall Khurd inspected the crop of the complainant on 19.09.2011 and submitted his report, vide no.56 dated 20.09.2011 to the effect that the some of the plants were uneven in size and some plants were of 180 cm height and other plants were of 120 cm height only. The complainant has alleged this was due to mixed and sub-standard quality of the seeds,  sold to him by the OPs. The complainant has further pleaded that the normal and average yield of PR 127  was approximately 25 quintals per acre, but complainant ripped 15.14 quintal per acre and thereby loss of 10 quintals per acre was suffered by him due to supply of defective seeds. The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part  of OPs.

3.      Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable. It was further pleaded that in the preliminary objections, the said production of seeds was manufactured and marketed by op No.2 and supplied to OP No.1 directly through its distribution centre. OP No.1 is, thus, not liable for any deficiency in service and is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant. OP No.1 held legal license to sell seeds, as per seed Act 1966 and Seed Control Order 1983. OP No.1 sold seeds in packed condition and storage of seed was also as per the standards and OP No.1 has no control over usage of product. It was alleged that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that paddy seed PR 127 of Prabhat Seed 30 Kg were purchased on 8.5.2011, vide bill no.176 for Rs.750/- by the complainant. It was denied that OP No.1 requested the complainant to purchase the same. It was further pleaded that only OP No.2 is manufacturer of the seeds and can give reply to the report of the Agriculture Development Officer. It was denied that complainant the followed instructions of OP and Punjab Agriculture University in growing the crop. As per Punjab Agriculture University,  8 to 10 kg seeds were required to be sown in per acre of land. The complainant had sown 30 kg seeds only in 9.5 acres, which were inadequate.  OP No.1 controverted the allegations of the complainant and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      OP No.2/ M/s Parbhat Seed Traders appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That  complex question of facts and law are involved in the present case, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings and the matter is required to be relegated to the civil court for redressal of the grievance. The complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1) ( C) of the Consumer Protection Act and without getting the seeds analyzed/tested from the recognized laboratory, no seeds can be declared defective. On merits, the allegations leveled in the complaint have been totally denied by OP No.2 by pleading that seed sold to the complainant were of good quality and without any defect therein. Germination of the seed in question depended upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of the land, mode of sowing of seed, weather and atmosphere, environment and ability and qualification of grower. The mixing of the seed could be possible due to old and foreign seeds already in the land, where the nursery was prepared or due to the preparation of nursery by the side of other variety of seed. It was a big lot of seeds of same batch and no other complaint was received from any side about their sub-standard quality.  The seeds of OP were packed in sealed packets and there was no mixing thereof whatsoever. The complainant had purchased lesser seeds for 9^{1/2 acre} land, which was a lesser quantity as grown in the above area of the land. The said seeds were recommended as 8 kg for one acre. The seeds were of good variety and any defect therein can be ascertained by lab test only. OP No.2 controverted the other allegations in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit  of complainant Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14. As against it, OPs tendered evidence affidavit Ex.R-4 of Sh. Harinder , Store Manager, Aadhaar Retailing Ltd, affidavit Ex.R-5 of Hans Raj Kalra, Proprietor of M/s Parbhat Seed Traders along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to 3 and Ex.R-6. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ferozepur accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing OPs to pay the amount of loss of Rs. 30,873/- to the complainant, besides payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs.2500/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its actual payment. Dissatisfied with the above order of the District Forum Ferozepur dated 14.05.2012 the complainant preferred First Appeal No.823 of 2012 claiming enhanced compensation, whereas OPs preferred First Appeal No.861 of 2012  challenging the order of the District Forum Ferozepur, accepting the complaint of complainant and awarding compensation therein.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant of First Appeal No.823 and respondent of First Appeal No.861 of 2012, as none appeared for respondent in First Appeal No.823 of 2012 and appellant of First Appeal No.861 of 2012 at the time of arguments in this appeal. We proceed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence on the record on its merits. The averments of the parties in their respective pleadings have been duly considered by us on the record. The affidavit  of complainant Malook Singh Ex.C-1 is on the record. He stated in this affidavit that he purchased the paddy seeds PR-127(Parbhat) for Rs.750/- weighing 30 kg, vide cash memo dated 8.05.2011 bearing bill no.176. He further stated that he sowed the seeds as per instructions of the Punjab Agriculture University. He spent amount of RS.20,000/- on pesticides, fertilizers and Rs.1000/- for cultivation per killa and Rs.10,000/- as labour for planting, Rs.15,000/- for removal of the waste seeding plants, totaling Rs.47,000/-. It is specificlaly stated in the affidavit that paddy crop grown by the complainant was of uneven size, due to sub-standard quality of seeds only. He further stated that matter was reported to Chief Agriculture Development Officer Ferozepur, who marked the case to Agriculture Development Officer Ghall Khurd for inspection of the crop. The Agriculture Development Officer Ghall Khurd submitted report no.56 dated 20.09.2011 in this regard that the crop size of the paddy was uneven due to mixed quality of seeds exclusively. He further stated in this report that OPs were deficient in selling the sub-standard quality of seeds to him. The complainant followed the instructions of Punjab Agriculture University but could not get the benefits due to inferior quality of seeds, Ex.C-2 is cash memo no. 176 dated 8.5.2011 for purchase of 15x 25 kg of PR-127 for Rs. 2250/-, Ex.C-3 is report of Agricultural Development Officer, vide no.56 dated 20.09.2011 on the record. We find that this report of Agriculture Development Officer carries weightage in our opinion. The Agriculture Development Officer inspected the spot and found that paddy grown in 9 ^1/2 acres of land, which were not of equal size. Some plants were of average height of 180 cm and half average branches counting were 90 cm. Mixed plants had grown up to 120 cm with average branches of 22 cm. He further observed in the report that height of 6% paddy plants were extraordinary. He further stated in the report that some little plants bore fruits whereas high plants did not bear fruit at that time. He further stated in his report that crop of paddy bore no fruits due to mixture of the sub-standard seeds. Ex.C-4 is bill no.414 dated 3.10.2011 regarding spending amount for purchasing of the seeds of Rs.3500/- by the complainant, Ex.C-5 is another bill for Rs. 9900/- for pesticides. The complainant also placed on record jamabandi Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 that he is owner of the property. Ex.C-11 is Form J regarding sale of paddy crop for Rs. 78974/- dated 13.10.2011 and another J-Form Ex.C-12 for sale of Rs.79359/- . Ex.C-13 is bill for purchase of pesticides for Rs. 5240/-.  Affidavit of one Amrik Singh Ex.C-14 on the record with regard to inferior quality of seeds sold to the complainant.

7.      OPs placed on record written version Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 is written version of OP No.2, Ex.R-3 is order of revision passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3179 of 2010 decided on 13.09.2011 in case J.K Agre Genetics Ltd  Vs. Bhopp Singh and others , Ex.R-4 is affidavit of Harinder Singh, the authorized representative of OP No.1, Ex.R-5 is affidavit of Hans Raj Kalra , Proprietor of M/s Parbhat Seed Traders, 4950, Industrial Area, Sector 2, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Ex.R-6 is the certificate of Government of Haryana.

8.      From the evaluation of the above-referred evidence on the record and examining the respective pleas of the parties, we proceed to decide these cases.  First point for adjudication is as to whether, it is essential to send the sample for the laboratory test before it could  be held to be sub-standard one. The counsel for the appellant Malook Singh, who is complainant in the complaint, referred to law laid down in case titled as M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd..versus… M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another, reported in 2012(1) CPC , by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is not believable that growers had purchased seeds for commercial purpose. Seeds were purchased for earning livelihood. It was further held that this proposition of law has been repeated by higher courts of the country that the growers of seed do not preserve the samples of the seeds, when they grow it in their fields. Seller of the seeds could not give the sample to the District Forum for laboratory test to prove the good quality of the seeds. From perusal of the record of District Forum, we do not find that such application was ever filed by the OPs to the District Forum for sending the sample for the laboratory test at their end.  There is categorical evidence of the complainant contained in affidavit, which has received due corroboration from the affidavit of Amrik Singh Ex.C-14  that paddy crop planted by the complainant in this case were of uneven growth, some plants bore earlier fruits whereas other plants did not bear the fruits simultaneously. Ex.C-3 is report of Agriculture Development Officer, vide no.56 dated 20.09.2011 on the record. He has found that the complainant suffered loss due to uneven growth of the paddy crops on account of mixture of the seeds only. There is categorical evidence of the complainant that he did not interfere with the seeds and growth in any manner. He further gave categorical evidence that he followed due instructions and spent money on the pesticides, fertilizers and so on for growing the crops. The complainant suffered loss due to mixture of the seeds sold to him in this case. The OPs tendered document Ex.R-3 of National Commission in other case to the effect that report of the Agriculture Officer does not say that the seeds supplied were either defective or superior. But herein, the report of the Agriculture Officer has clearly stated the mixture of the seeds, which led to the uneven growth of the paddy plants resulting into loss of the crop to the complainant. The order of the District Forum is not fallible as discussed above.

9.      On the point of the quantum as awarded by the District Forum, we find that District Forum has directed the OPs to pay Rs.30873/- to the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.25,00/- as costs of litigation. The District Forum also made OPs time bound to pay the amount, failing which to pay interest @ 9% per annum thereof. The submissions of counsel for appellant have been heard by us. He has prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.47,000/- . We find that the District Forum has rightly awarded the amount of compensation in this case. The amount of compensation cannot be said to be unreasonable one in this case. Consequently, we find no ground to interference with the amount of order of compensation, as passed by the District Forum in this case, so as to raise in this appeal.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, by upholding the order of the District Forum dated 14.05.2012, we find no merit in the both First Appeal No. 861 of 2012 filed by Aadhhar Retailing Limited and others, opposite parties and second First Appeal No. 823 of 2012 filed by Malook Singh, Complainant. Both the above referred appeals are ordered to be dismissed.

11.    In First Appeal No.861 of 2012, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.19188/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount be paid within 45 days time from the date of receipt of this order by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

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

14.    Copy of this order be placed in FA No.823 of 2012.

 

                                                                     (J. S. KLAR)

                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                               

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)                                                                  MEMBER

 

July  15,     2015.                                                                 

(ravi)