BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  FEROZEPUR.

QUORUM
                             President             :         Shri Sanjay Garg

                             Member               :         S. Tarlok Singh

                                                                 C.C. No.136 of 2011

                                                                  Date of Institution: 9.3.2011

                                                                  Date of Decision: 15.9.2011

Ramanand Siag, aged about 55 years old, son of Bhagwan Dass son of Ganesh Dass, resident of Village Jhumian Wali, Tehsil Fazilka.
                                                                                                                            ....... Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Parshotam Periwal and Bros., Mandi No.2, Abohar, through its Proprietor/Incharge.
2.       Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, Ohrispech Park, Plot No.13, Survey No.64/2, Madhya Pardesh, Hyderabad-500081, Andhra Pardesh (India), through its Managing Director.

                                                         ........ Opposite parties

Complaint   under  Section   12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                               *        *        *        *        *

PRESENT :

For the complainant                  :         Sh. Y.R. Puri, Advocate 

For the opposite parties             :         Sh. Vipan Wadhawan, Advocate

                                            ORDER

SANJAY GARG, PRESIDENT:-

                   Complainant Ramanand Siag has filed the present complaint against M/s Parshotam Periwal and Brothers,  Mandi No.2, Abohar, Dealer; and Bayer Bio Science Private Limited, Manufacturer of IT 905 BT cotton seeds (herein after referred to as opposite party No.1 and 2, respectively) pleading that on 23.4.2010, complainant alongwith his brother Vijay Kumar approached opposite party No.1 for the purchase of cotton seeds, who induced the complainant to purchase IT 905 BT seeds assuring that the said seeds were of high quality and would give yield upto ten quintals per acre. He further assured that the said seeds were immune to leaf curl disease and other diseases and pests. He also showed a pamphlet of the company vide which the company had claimed that the seeds has tolerance power against leaf curl disease and other leaf sucking pests etc. On the assurance of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased ten packets of IT 905 BT seeds, which were manufactured by opposite party No.2, for a sum of Rs.6400/- against bill dated 23.4.2010. Complainant had sown the above said entire seeds in his land measuring 7 acres as per instructions/advice of the opposite parties and also introduced/sprayed necessary pesticides and fertilizers etc. After few months, the complainant noticed that the growth of the crop was not proper, fruiting was less and the crop was also found suffering from leaf curl virus. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 also personally visited his fields in the second week of August, 2010, who after seeing the crops also admitted that there was less growth of the crops and the fruiting was also very less. Certain other farmers, who had purchased seeds from opposite party No.1, met with the same fate. Farmers of the area also held a demonstration before opposite party No.1 for selling of spurious seeds. Thereafter the complainant and other farmers moved applications to Agriculture Officer, S.D.M., Fazilka and other authorities, where upon a team of Agriculture Officers visited the spot and inspected the crops of the complainant and other farmers and submitted their report dated 21/22.9.2010. The expected yield of the crops in normal circumstances was 10 quintals per acre, whereas the seeds in question gave yield of 2.5 quintals per acre. Hence the complainant suffered loss of 7.5 quintals per acre and thus the complainant has suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,04,500/-.  Pleading defect in the seeds and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has claimed that opposite party No.1 and 2 be directed to pay to the complainant jointly and severally a sum of Rs.3,04,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 2% per month. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed their separate written replies to the complaint. Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, has pleaded that the seeds in question have not been got tested by the complainant from the Government recognized laboratory and in the absence of any report from the competent laboratory, no seeds can be proved to be defective. Even the Agriculture Department has not taken any action against the opposite parties, which means that the Agriculture Department did not find any fault with the quality of the seeds. The yield of the crop depends upon so many factors such as proper preparation of the land, fertilization, type of land, proper irrigation, climate, seasonal conditions and diseases etc. and it is for the complainant to prove that he took care of all such factors. The purchase of seeds of IT 905 BT seeds by the complainant from opposite party No.1 has been admitted. It has been denied that opposite party No.1 gave any assurance as to the expected yield of the crop. It has been denied that pamphlet was shown to the complainant to purchase the seeds. It has been further mentioned that though IT 905 BT seeds have some tolerance power for some time from leaf curl disease, but it cannot escape from the severe attack of the disease. It has been denied that any instructions or advice was given by opposite party No.1 regarding sowing of the seed and cultivation of the crop, as has been alleged by the complainant. The Agriculture Officers have given their report without joining the opposite parties. Hence the same cannot be used against the opposite parties. The seeds manufactured by opposite party No.2 are of best quality. No fault lies with the quality of seeds, rather the complainant himself remained negligent in taking proper care of his crop. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Opposite party No.2 also filed written reply on the lines of written reply filed by opposite party No.1 and any defect in the quality of the seeds in question has been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.                Parties led evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.

6.                The purchase of seeds by the complainant from opposite party No.1 has been admitted. The stand of the opposite parties is that the seeds in question have not been got tested from the seeds laboratory and without report of any laboratory, it cannot be said that the seeds were defective. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon authorities styled as “Syngenta India Limited (Earlier Novartis India Limited) Versus Velaga Narasimha Rao and others”, 2011 (1) CLT 212 (NC), “Jallandhar Singh Versus Tau Agrotech Private Limited and another”, 2010 (3) CLT 504 (Pb.) and  “Haryana Land Reclamation Development Croporation, Hisar Versus Shamsher Singh alias Sher Singh and others”, 1998 (1) CLT 114 to support his case.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the farmer was not expecting that the seeds sown by him would be defective and he would get less crop. Hence he did not preserve any sample of the seeds. The opposite parties themselves should have got tested the quality of seeds of the same batch number from Government approved laboratory to prove that the seeds manufactured/sold by them were not defective.

7.                We have considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties on this point.

8.                So far the objection as to not getting the seeds tested in the laboratory is concerned, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in “M/s Farmer Seed Store  Versus  Madan Singh”, First Appeal No.1329 of 2008, decided on 9.11.2009, has observed as under :-    

            “29.     It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission
                        in the judgment reported as “National Seed Corpn. Ltd.
                        V. M. Madhusudan Reddy” 2004 (2) CLT 301 that even
                       if the seed is not got tested in the laboratory, as it was not
                        possible, relief cannot be denied to the poor farmer. It was
                        held as under :-
                        “10.     In view of the above discussion on the two points
                        raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner our clear
                        view is that it is only under Consumer Protection Act,
                        1986 that remedy lies for the farmer to be compensated
                        for defective seeds as also the fact that when the provision
                        of Section 13 (1) (c) becomes unimplementable then one
                        has to resort to alternative methods, which in this case was
                        the report of Commissioner who was a retired Assistant
                        Director of Agriculture. It cannot be the case of the petitioner
                        to implement an unimplementable proposition, it is not the
                        case of the petitioner that either under the Seeds Act or on
                        the label of the product or under any other provisions of
                        law, that the farmer is expected to conserve certain portion
                        of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner,
                        for the farmer to produce some seeds from somewhere to
                        to get it tested to meet the requirement of Section 13 (1) (c).”
              30.       Reference can also be made to another judgment of the
                        Hon’ble National Commission report as “INDIA SEED
                        HOUSE V. RAMJILAL SHARMA & ANR.”  III (2008) CPJ
                        96 (NC) in which it was held as under :-  
                        “Secondly, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds
                        to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the
                        presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be
                        called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing.
                        On the other hand, a senior officer of the Government had
                        visited the field and inspected the crop and given report
                        under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds
                        were defective.”
              31.       Similar submission was advanced before the Hon’ble National
                        Commission in the judgment reported as “National Seeds Corpn.
                        Ltd. V. P.V. Krishna Reddy and others, 2009 CTC 522
                       (CP) (NCDRC)” and it was held by the Hon’ble National
                        Commission as under :-
                      “21.     Another contention raised by the learned Counsel
                       appearing for the petitioner was that the consumers-
                       respondents failed to produce any expert opinion and
                       analysis by invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection   
                        Act, 1986. Similar contention has already been rejected by
                       the Supreme Court of India and the National Consumer
                        Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid
                        Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & others
                        1998 CTJ 561 (SC) (CP) = (1998) 6 SCC 738 (see
                        paragraphs 2 & 4 pl. g), H.N. Shankara Shastri V. Asstt.
                        Director of Agriculture, Karnataka, (2004) 6 SCC 230
                        (see paragraph 5 pl. g-h), The Managing Director, A.P.
                        Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. V. Seelam Rana
                        Mohan & anr., III (1996) CPJ 435 (see paragraph 9) and
                        M. Madhusudan Reddy case (supra).”

9.                In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and in various authorities by the Hon’ble National Commission, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties seems to be not applicable to the case in hand. Moreover, in   “Syngenta India Limited (Earlier Novartis India Limited) Versus Velaga Narasimha Rao and others” (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that infact plain reading of the allegations in that complaint would show that the main grievance of the complainant was against the officers/scientists of RARS Lab because according to the complainant they did not help and the poor yield obtained by the complainant was on account of plants getting affected by virus and they did not provide plant protection services in raising the crop. But no such point is in dispute in the case in hand. So the authority relied upon by the opposite parties is quite distinguishable. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and by the Hon’ble National Commission in the various authorities as cited above, this objection is decided against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant.

10.               So far the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties as to the effect that there are so many factors, which are responsible for less production, such as fertilizers, inadequate rain fall or irrigation, use of pesticides/insecticides etc. is concerned, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in “M/s Farmer Seed Store  Versus  Madan Singh” (supra) has further observed :

          “35.     It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
                   appellants that so many factors are responsible for less
                   production of the crop namely violations of the instructions
                       in the sowing of the seed, lack of attention in maintaining
                        the plants, lack of fertilizers, inadequate rain fall or
                        irrigation, poor quality or inadequacy or over dose of
                        pesticides/insecticides. Hence, it was submitted that it was
                        not only the inferior quality of seed which could lead to
                        less production of the crop.
            36.       This submission has been considered.
            37.       It has no merits. It was not the question of germination and
                        non-germination of the seed. In the present case, the plants
                        had grown up properly but the height of the plants was only
                        3 ft to 4-1/2 ft. Even plant had given about 25 fruits (Tindas).
                        No other disease except leaf curl to the extent of 15% of the
                        plants, had affected these plants. The likely yield was 20
                        Munds (8 quintals per acre) against the expected yield of
                        10-12 quintals per acre. Therefore, bad quality of seed on the
                        face of it stands proved. If the other factors had been
                        responsible, the seed could not have germinated or the plant
                        could have died down in the bud stage.”  
In the case in hand also, there is no complaint regarding the less germination of the seed, rather it is less development and less fruiting of plants. The opposite parties have not pleaded as to what was required to be done by the farmer, which has not been done by him and what was not required to be done, which has been wrongly done by him. In the absence of such pleadings, it can be well assumed that the farmer had taken care of his crops as per required procedure and standards.

11.               The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the report of the committee of Agriculture Development Officers, copy of which has been placed on the file as Ex.C-5. A perusal of the report of committee of Agriculture Development Officers (Ex.C-5) reveals that the said committee of Agriculture Development Officers visited the fields of various farmers and inspected the standing crops, the detail of which has been mentioned in the report. The said committee has observed that the crops pertaining to seeds of Jai BT (Ankur) and RCH 134-BG I & II were most affected, as the growth of plants pertaining to these qualities of seeds  was very less and fruits were also very less and the plants were found suffering from leaf curl virus. The said committee also observed that the crops pertaining to seeds of J.K.-1947, Bioseed-6488 and 6588 etc. were having proper growth/development, fruiting and the expected yield was to be approximate 10 quintals per acre. It has also been observed in the said report that the other varieties of the seeds were effected, as reported name wise in the said report. The name of complainant Ramanand Siag has been mentioned at serial No.34 in the said report in which it has been mentioned that the complainant had sown IT 905 BT seeds in seven acres of land and the expected yield was 2.5 quintals per acre. The said report of the officers of Agriculture Department is self speaking and clearly reveals that only crops relating to seeds manufactured by certain companies was affected with lesser fruiting and leaf curl disease, whereas the crops pertaining to the other varieties of the seeds gave proper growth, full fruiting and proper yield. Even it cannot be said that the environmental factors were responsible for less crops, especially, when the crops pertaining to the other varieties of seeds i.e. of J.K.-1947, Bioseed-6488 and 6588 fully developed and gave proper yield.

12.               The complainant has produced on the file copy of literature/ pamphlets issued by the opposite parties. A perusal of pamphlet Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 shows that the opposite parties have claimed that IT 905 BT seeds manufactured by opposite party No.2 has a high tolerance power against leaf curl virus, drying of the plants and plant sucking pests. Similarly on the front side of literature Ex.C-3, the opposite parties have claimed that IT 905 BT seeds have immunity against leaf curl virus. Again in the backside of the said document Ex.C-3, the opposite parties have mentioned the various features of IT 905 BT cotton seeds, wherein it has been mentioned that this quality of seeds is fit to be sown in various types of soils. It brings high yield and it is immune to CICv virus (leaf curl disease).  When the opposite parties, in their literature, have claimed that their seeds have got immunity against the leaf curl disease, then in such circumstances, the opposite parties cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation to the farmers in case the plants, despite such claim, got effected with leaf curl disease.

13.               At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that alongwith IT 905 BT cotton seed, a packet of non-BT seed was also supplied to the complainant, which was required to be sown around the BT cotton crop. He further submitted that the complainant has not produced any evidence on the file that he had actually sown the said non-BT seeds around the BT cotton crop.

14.               The complainant has already pleaded in his complaint that the seeds were sown and looked after as per the instructions of the opposite parties. The opposite parties on the one hand have pleaded that they did not give any instructions regarding the sowing and looking after of the crop and at the same time claimed that the farmer has not led any evidence that he had sown the seeds as per their instructions. The complainant farmer is a professional in his field and it cannot be assumed that he would not have sown Non-BT seeds, which were supplied to him with BT Cotton seeds. Moreover, the burden to prove that the opposite parties had duly instructed the farmer to sow one or two rows of Non-BT seeds around the BT Seeds, was upon the opposite parties, which the opposite parties have failed to discharge. Even otherwise, it cannot be presumed that the farmer had not sown those seeds. Even otherwise, when the opposite parties have claimed that the seeds manufactured by them have got immunity against leaf curl disease and whereas it is evident on the file that the cotton crop of the complainant was severely effected with the leaf curl virus, it proves beyond doubt that the opposite parties have made a false claim regarding the quality of their seeds and as such in our view, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the farmer for the loss suffered by him.   

15.               Now coming to the quantum of compensation, the complainant has pleaded that he had sown seed of IT 905 BT, manufactured by opposite party No.2 in his seven acres of land. The Agriculture Development Officers in their report Ex.C-5 have written that in case of the complainant, the expected crops from the inspection of the field was found 2.5 quintals per acre, whereas the expected crop from other varieties of seeds was to be 10 quintals per acre and in this way the complainant has suffered loss of 7½ quintal per acre for his 7 acres of land, in which he had sown IT 905 BT cotton seeds, produced by opposite party No.2. The average price of the cotton crop during the year 2010 was Rs.5000/- per quintal and in this way the complainant has suffered a loss of  7½ X 2 X 5000 = Rs.75,000/-. Hence we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the above said amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount/compensation to the complainant. The dealer i.e. opposite party No.1 will be entitled to recover the compensation amount, if any, paid to the complainant in compliance of this order, from the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2 through due process of law. Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

16.               Arguments in this complaint were heard on 7.9.2011 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders be communicated to the parties concerned. File be consigned to the record room.    

Announced
  15.9.2011

                                                                  (Sanjay Garg)
                                                                    President
                                                                  (Tarlok Singh)
                                                                      Member