Haryana

Ambala

CC/12/2011

SARJANT SINGH S/O SH NAIB SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LUXAMI TRADING COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL SINGLA

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                Complaint Case No.: 12 of 2011

                                                                                Date of Institution    : 05.01.2011

                                                                                Date of Decision            : 09.01.2017

               1.         Sarjant Singh son of Shri Naib Singh

2.         Naib Singh son of Amar Singh, both residents of village Khanpur  Sub Tehsil

Saha, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                                                                                            ….Complainants

Versus

1.         M/s Luxmi  Trading Company, 177-New Grain Market, Gate No.1, Ambala City through its Proprietor.

2.         M/s Maxima Seeds, Plot No.107, NH-7, Bye-pass, Shadnagar, Hyderabad (AP) through  its Managind Director, S.S. Sompur.

                                                                                                              ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. Anil Singla, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Manoj Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 exparte.                                     

ORDER

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that complainants purchased 8 Bags of hybrid seeds of paddy Maxima 2144, each bag contained 3 Kgs. Of seeds for sowing in their land, vide bill no.430 dated 14.05.2010 for a sum of Rs.6700/- from OP No.1. It has been submitted that OP No.1 assured that the seeds  are of best quality and would yield maximum produce of paddy.  It has also been submitted that  paddy plants of the seeds  were planted in 08 acres of land but surprisingly  40% of the plants  were prematurely ripe  and not sufficient for the crop of paddy and resulted  in the loss of paddy. So, the complainants approached OP No.1 and apprised him about the damage of paddy crops caused due to the supply of bad quality seeds but the OP No.1 kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and did not respond to the genuine requests of the complainants.  Ultimately, the  complainant approached the Agriculture Department, Ambala and officials of the department visited the fields of the complainants  and after inspection submitted their report dated 17.09.2010 to the effect that  there is a loss of 36% to 40% of plants being ripe prematurely.  It has been submitted that price of paddy sown by the complainants  is about Rs.1200/- per quintile in the market and the crop  used to be yield by the complainants per acre is 40 quintiles and there is a loss of 16 quintiles per acre caused to the complainants due to inferior quality of seeds supply by the Ops to the complainants and therefore  the total loss of rs.1,50,000/- has been suffered by the complainants due to loss of paddy.  Besides it, the complainants  have also suffered loss of labour charges and mental pain, strain and stress  etc.  So, the complainants got issued a legal notice dated 22.09.2010 to the Ops  which was received by the OP but of no avails.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared  through counsel and tendered written statements. OP No.1 raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint as production of paddy from the seeds depends upon the climate, land and fertilizers, insecticides etc. used by the farmer from time to time.  If any irregularity occurs in any of the above mentioned criteria then the farmer will not get the desired results.   On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant no.1 purchased the seeds in question from them but it has been denied that  any assurance about the seeds of its yield was ever given because the seeds purchased by the complainants  comes under medium quality seeds and  they had given the seeds to the complainant in sealed bags as purchased by them from OP No.2 vide invoice no.243.   It has been submitted that the defect so alleged by the complainants can be due to faulty techniques or  mixing of other seeds at the time of sowing seeds.  The loss averred by the complainant has also been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                        Op No.2 tendered their reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint on the ground that complainant is not a consumer, complaint is bad for want of requirement of section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act and  germination of seed depends upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of the land, mode of sowing of seed, atmosphere.  It has been submitted that  some time foreign seed and old seed come out in the land on its sowing time in the next session and some time due to the fault of unskilled labour and grower also the seed of the two varieties can be mixed.  On merits, it has been submitted that as per recommended schedule and literature of the answering Op, quantity used by the complainant was very much lesser than the required quality as complainant allegedly  purchased 24 Kg seed for 8 acre of land which is lesser  and he should purchase 8 Kg. for one acre.  It has been submitted that report by Agriculture Department has not been carried out in the presence of the answering OP. It has been submitted that answering OP has already got examined the seed in question from State Seed Testing Laboratory, Hyderabad in which 98.9 purity found.  As such, there was no inferior quality of seed  and therefore no loss whatsoever was caused to the complainant and prayed for  dismissal of compliant with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavits  Annexure CX, CY & CZ in their evidence alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith document as Annexures R-1  to R-4 and closed the evidence. On 05.03.2014, case was fixed for evidence of the OP No.2 but neither OP No.2 tendered any evidence nor  he appeared before the Forum, as such, he  was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.03.2014.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the complainant argued that the seed in question was not of best quality and thus it did not germinate upto the mark and gave less yield than expectations.  Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3) was relied upon by complainant qua ‘36% to 40% mixing of other variety. 36% to 40% plants fully ripe whereas the remaining plants is yet to fertilize’ .  Counsel for complainant further argued that due to supplying of inferior seeds, complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs for less production of the crops and requested for allowing the complaint. Counsel for complainant relied upon the judgments delivered by Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India  in case titled M/s National Seeds Corporaton Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. AIR 1160 SC  wherein it is held that  Section 13-Procedure for trial of complaint- Complainant by farmers/growers of seeds suppied 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 experts-Procedure adopted by Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Section 13(1) (C)-Order of Forum not liable to be set aside on specious ground that procedure  prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) had not been followed. And the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra) in case titled Pratham Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayed Amir & Anr. 120 (NC) (Oct.) 2008 wherein held that  “Section 2(1)(f), 14(1)(d)-Agriculture-Seeds defective-Inspection carried out by Inquiry Committee-Vast variance in characteristics of plants found- complaint allowed by Forum-Compensation granted-Order upheld in appeal-Hence revision-Procedure prescribed under Seeds Act followed- Necessary inquiry held, report given by Seeds Committee-Report cannot be brushed aside on contention that seeds not sent  for testing-Orders of lower for a upheld.”

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for appearing OP No.1 has argued that there was no deficiency in seeds and they have sold the seeds to the complainant as received from OP No.2 in a sealed packet. But the complainant has not sown them as per instructions of the Op company and the report Annexure C-3 has been obtained by complainant in collusion with Agriculture Department.  Counsel for OP No.1 further stressed his arguments on the ground that the report of DDA has not been carried out in the presence of  any person of OP. 

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

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs 5r not?
2. If deficiency in service on the part of Ops is proved then to what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation?

                   It is admitted case of the Op No.1 that he has sold the seeds in question to the complainant vide Bill dated 14.05.2010 Annexure C-1. The Op No.1 has also placed on record purchase bill of the seeds in question from OP No.2 (Annexure R-1) whereby it is held that the  Op No.1 has sold the seeds in question to the complainant so purchased from Op No.2 manufacturer of the seeds.       The complainant to prove the factum that whether he has sown  the seeds in 8 acres, he has placed on record copy of receipts qua deposition of Rs.60,000/- & Rs.40,000/- with Panchayat of village Khnapur (Annexures C-7 & C-8)  whereby he has taken land on contract from the Panchayat.  He has also placed on record Farm-J (Annexures C-9 to C-17) issued by Commission Agents & Market Committee qua the sale of crops.  The complainant has also tendered his affidavit Annexure CY alongwith affidavit of  Manmohan Singh, a neighbourer of complainant as Annexure CX as well as affidavit of Sunil Bhaveja, Partner of Firm M/s Gandhi Traders Commission Agent  to whom complainant is selling his crops. The above said witnesses have categorically stated  that  the complainant  is sowing the crops in his fields approximately in 8 acres. Sh. Sunil Bhaveja has also averred in his affidavit that  complainants are selling the crops to their firm since long. Report of Agriculture Department (Annexure C-3) also reveals that the complainant has sown the seeds in 8 acres. The abovesaid evidence has not been rebutted by the Ops, so it is clear that the seeds were sown by the complainant in his fields.  

7.                     We have perused the notice given by the complainant to the Ops   wherein within four days after inspection of field by Inspection Committee, it is categorically mentioned that he approached to the OP No.1 and apprised them about the damage to the paddy crops caused due to the supply of bad quality of paddy seeds but he did not respond. Ultimately complainant approached to the agriculture department on 17.09.2010. The report of Agriculture Department is also mentioned in the notice dated 22.09.2010 and same has been received by OP No.1 and Op No.2 but  they did not made any efforts to approach to DDA regarding  the report is not genuine one nor they request for re-inspection of the fields. Even then, it was the 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. Perusal of the report of Agriculture Department consisting of four officers including one Sr. Scientist reveals that there was 36% to 40 % mixing of other variety. 36 to 40% plants fully ripe whereas the remaining plants is yet to fertilize. 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.1 had sold defective seeds to the complainant which was manufactured by OP No.2.  However, there can be no knowledge to OP No.1 for alleged defect as OP No.1 has  sold the seeds in the same condition in which these were received by him.  The case law cited supra, squarely covered the case of the complaint.

8.                Now coming to the point of compensation, the complainant has claimed that there can be 40 quintal yield in one acre and there is loss of 16 quintals per acre caused to the complainant and thereby a total loss of Rs.1,50,000/- because of less yields. Report of Agriculture Department reveals that there  have been loss of 36 to 40%  yield to the complainant. However, taking the average crop, we presume that the complainant must have took at least 25 quintal paddy in one acre and value of which may not less than Rs.1000/- per quintal as per prevailing rate of the Govt. in the year 2010 of hybrid paddy of such quality. As such, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10,000/- per acre,  and thus value of 8 acres comes to Rs.80,000/-.As such, we hold that the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the complainant alongwith cost.

9.                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 the order:-

(i)      The Ops are directed to pay a sum                     Rs.80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum form the date of complaint till its realization. If the compliance of the order is made by OP No.1 then OP No.1 may recover the said amount from OP No.2 as manufacturing defect in the seeds solely attributed to OP No.2.  

(ii)     Also to deposited Rs.3000/- as costs.

                    Copies 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 :09.01.2017.                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                President

                                                                                           Sd/-

             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                   Member