Haryana

StateCommission

A/761/2015

KARNOOL SEEDS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM PHAL - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                    

                                                First Appeal No.           761 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       09.09.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         27.02.2017

 

 

Karnool Seeds Private Limited, Raghuvender Nagar, D.No.5, A-2-3, II, Karnool, Andhra Pradesh through its Manager.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Ram Phal son of Zile Singh, resident of Village Guhna, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Krishi Vikas Kender, Gohana in front of Barodia Garden, Jind Road, Gohana, District Sonepat through its Proprietor Sandeep Singh.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                        

 

Argued by:          Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Badhran, counsel for the appellant               

                             Mr. P.S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondent-complainant

                             Mr. Sunil Ranga, Advocate for the respondent No.2

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Karnool Seeds Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (appellant herein) is in appeal against the order dated July 15^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Ram Phal-complainant was allowed.  The appellant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- per acre and Krishi Vikas Kender, Gohana-opposite party No.1 was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of supplying defective seed of cotton.

2.      The complainant alongwith twenty three other farmers purchased cotton seed of Ramya Bt-2 from Krishi Vikas Kender vide bill Exhibit C-3.  The seed was sown by the complainant on the land measuring 16 kanals.  The seed did not germinate to the satisfaction of the complainant.  He approached Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sonepat.  A team comprising Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy), Sonepat, Block Agriculture Officer, Sonepat and Agriculture Development Officer, Gohana was constituted.  The team visited the fields of complainant on October 22^nd, 2012 and found that germination was 30-50% less and growth of the plants was not satisfactory.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss suffered by him; Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses. 

4.      In the written version filed by Krishi Vikas Kender-opposite party No.1, it was pleaded that the seed was purchased from Karnool Seeds-appellant vide Invoice dated April 05^th, 2012 (Exhibit RW1/E) and further sold it to the complainant and other farmers of the village.  Lateron, bill dated September 11^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-3) was issued to the complainant.  Krishi Vikas Kender supplied the seed of appellant, so, it was not responsible in any manner to indemnify the complainant. 

5.      Karnool Seeds-appellant, in its written version, denied that cotton seed was supplied by it to Krishi Vikas Kender.  It was also pleaded that the right time of sowing the cotton seed was in the month of April but the complainant sowed the seed in the month of September because the bill in question was issued by Krishi Vikas Kender to the complainant on September 11^th, 2012.  It was further pleaded that the appellant purchased the seed from Kaveri Seed Company Limited, Secundarabad. So, the appellant was not responsible for the defective seed supplied to the complainant. 

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the appellant purchased the seed from Kaveri Seed Company Limited, the appellant was not liable to pay for any loss suffered by the complainant as directed by the District Forum.  The District Forum has not applied any formula to calculate the compensation of Rs.25,000/- per acre rather it was unilaterally held that compensation of Rs.25,000/- be awarded to the complainant. 

7.      Learned counsel for Krishi Vikas Kender-opposite party No.1 has urged that the seed was purchased from Karnool Seeds-appellant, who canvassed about the quality of the seed before the farmers of village Guhna, District Sonepat.  The seed was supplied to the farmers in the month of May, 2012. The bill was not issued but on the asking of the complainant and other farmers, it was issued on September 11^th, 2012.

8.      He has further urged that vide letter dated April 02^nd, 2012 (Annexure A-19) of Director General Agriculture, Haryana, Krishi Bhawan, Sector 21, Panchkula addressed to All Deputy Directors of Agriculture in the State and Seed Analyst State Seed Testing Laboratory, (Uchani), Karnal & Sirsa, permission was granted to Kurnool Seeds Private Limited to market Bt Cotton Hybrid Seeds Ramya produced by M/s Kaveri Seed Company Limited.  Since the Government had permitted the appellant to market seed, Krishi Vikas Kender had purchased the seed from the appellant, so, the District Forum fell in error in directing Krishi Vikas Kender to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

9.      Vide Invoice (Exhibit RW1/E) cotton seed –Ramya BG II Batch 21308 was sold by the appellant to Krishi Vikas Kender, Gohana on April 05^th, 2012.  In the bill (Exhibit C-3) issued by Krishi Vikas Kender, the same seed was supplied to the complainant.  It was the responsibility of the appellant to verify the genuineness of the seed before its supply in the market.  So, the appellant cannot be absolved from its liability on the ground that it did not sell the seed directly to the farmer.  Krishi Vikas Kender was the agency through which the seed was sold to the farmer.  The report (Annexure A-12) of the Agriculture Officers further stated that germination of the seed was 30-50% less than normal.  By placing on record, khasra girdawari, jamabandi etc (Exhibit C-1 and C-2), it was proved that the complainant had sown the seed on the land measuring 16 kanals.  The field was inspected by Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy), Sonepat, Block Agriculture Officer, Sonepat and Agriculture Development Officer, Gohana and it found that germination of the seed was 30-50% less than normal vide report (Annexure A-12).  However, the District Forum without delving deeper into the matter so as to assess the compensation, the complainant was held entitled to Rs.25,000/- per acre, which in opinion of this Commission was wrong. 

10.    In view of the report (Annexure A-12) of the Agriculture Officers, the unescapable conclusion is that the seed was supplied by Karnool Seeds to Krishi Vikas Kender, it was defective and it hardly matters from where Karnool Seeds had purchased the seed because the Haryana Government had permitted Karnool Seed to market the seed in Haryana and it was Karnool Seed, who agreed to market the same and supplied the seed to Krishi Vikas Kender, who further sold the seed to the farmers. 

11.    Now the quantum of compensation is to be assessed.

12.    In the report (Annexure A-12), it was stated that germination of the seed was 30-50% less than normal, so, it can be said that loss suffered by the complainant was 50% of the produce of the crop. Per Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited (Annexure A-20), the average yield of Kharif (Cotton) is 8 quintals per acre. As per Market-wise Daily Report of 2012 (Annexure A-21), by calculation, the average price of cotton in the year 2012 was Rs.4318/- per quintal in Haryana.  For convenience, the figure is rounded off to Rs.4300/- per quintal.  Since the loss was 50%, so, it has to be calculated that complainant had suffered loss of 4 quintals of cotton crop because the average yield was 8 quintals per acre.  The complainant had sown the seed in his 16 kanals land, that is, 2 acre. By calculating the loss, it comes to Rs.17,200/- per acre, that is, 4300 x 4. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.34,400/- from the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay Rs.34,400/- to the complainant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the appellant shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount till realization to the complainant.  Since, it has been held that Krishi Vikas Kender was not responsible for the supply of defective seed, so, question of deficiency in service on its part does not arise.  Accordingly, the impugned order qua Krishi Vikas Kender is set aside. 

13.    For the reasons recorded supra, impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 

14.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 27.02.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK