Mahinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.56000/- for financial loss , mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is owner of about 7 acres of land in village Khara and this land is cultivated by the complainant. He was to sow some indigenous maize and some hybrid quality maize over some portion of this land so the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 for purchasing maize seed on 13/9/2006. The opposite party No. 1 suggested the complainant to sow African Tall variety of hybrid maize seed produced by the opposite party No. 3 and marketed by the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 assured that the seeds produced by the opposite party No. 3 are pure and best quality seeds and the yield of fodder would be about 200 Quintal per acre. So on assurance of the opposite party No. 1 the complainant purchased 70 Kg. of African Tall variety of hybrid maize seed produced and marketed by the opposite party No. 2 and 3 alongwith 1 Quintal of indigenous maize vide bill No. 5356 dated 13/9/2006. The opposite party No. 1 charged Rs.1400/- for hybrid variety of maize and Rs.1300/- for the other maize seed. So he is the consumer of the opposite parties. A few days after the purchase of the seeds, he sowed the hybrid maize seed over one and half acre of land , after properly irrigating and cultivating the land. Once and half bag of DAP fertilizer was used at the time of sowing the seed in one and half acre of land. The indigenous maize seed was sown over other one and half acre of land. While the germination of the indigenous maize seed was good the germination of the hybrid maize seed was very poor and only 10% of these seeds germinated though both portions of the land i.e. the one over which the indigenous seed and that over which the hybrid seed were sown were equally manured, cultivated, irrigated and fertilized. The complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 about the poor germination and opposite party No. 1 kept on putting off the complainant for a few days on the pretext that opposite party No. 1 would contact the other opposite parties and the complainant would be compensated but nothing was done. So the complainant submitted an application dated 5/10/2006 to the Chief Agriculture Officer Faridkot requesting to get the spot inspected and take appropriate action. He deputed his junior officer to report about the matter who visited the spot and reported about the poor germination. As per assurance of the opposite parties and as per usual yield of hybrid quality maize seed around 300 Quintal fodder yield was expected from one and half acre of land but the disputed seed yielded nothing resulting into loss of Rs.36,000/- as the average rate of the maize fodder in the market was Rs. 120/- per quintal during the relevant period. In fact the hybrid maize seed sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was spurious, defective and inferior quality seed that is why its germination was very poor. It is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the opposite parties to sell spurious, inferior quality maize seed. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21-11-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. The opposite party No. 3 not appeared in the form despite of service so opposite party No. 3 is proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24/1/2007. The opposite party No. 2 not appeared despite of service so proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20/3/2007. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through Sh. M.S. Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the answering opposite party purchased 2800 Kg. maize African Tall Akash Ganga Seed from Kissan Agro Seeds MB-59, Gali No. 7, IInd Floor, Arya Pura, Delhi-110007 vide cash memo No. 4273 dated 7/9/2006 worth Rs.50000/-. The answering opposite party purchased the maize seed in the sealed condition and the complainant admitted that he received the seed in sealed condition. The answering opposite party properly stored the seed. The answering opposite party is neither the manufacturer nor the marketing agent of the manufacture so they are not liable for any kind of alleged defect in the seed. The firm from which the answering opposite party purchased the seed i.e. Kissan Agro Seeds is necessary party to the complaint. The answering opposite party had never given any kind of assurance to the complainant with regard to quality and yield of the seed. The complainant purchased the seed in question for commercial purpose. The complaint has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant failed to disclose the khasra numbers of the land where the seed in question was allegedly sown. The complicated question of law and facts is involved in the complaint as such only the Civil Court can determine the real question of controversy. So the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party and the controversy evolve in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. The dispute raised by the complainant is manifestly outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is vague and imaginary as such not tenable. The complaint is false and frivolous. On merits the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complainant purchased the seed at his own according to his own wishes. It is admitted that the complainant purchased seed from the answering opposite party vide bill dated 13/9/2006. The complainant received the seed in sealed state as the manufacture sealed it. He has not mentioned the method with which the seed was sown. The date on which the seed was sown has not been given in the complaint. He has not properly sown the seed and he has not followed the procedure for sowing the seed. The seed was properly germinated. The germination of the seed depends upon the cultivation treatment of land, watering, quality of land and climatic conditions. After the purchase of the seed the complainant never visited the shop of the answering opposite party. The opportunity party neither the manufacturer nor he marketing agent of the manufacturer. The answering opposite party was not intimated either by the officer of Agriculture department or by the complainant with regard to inspection of the crop. No such inspection was ever done in the presence of the answering opposite party. The alleged report should have been procured by the complainant inconnivance with the employees of the Agriculture department. The complainant has not suffered loss of Rs.36000/-. The seed was of good quality. So the opposite party is not liable for any loss. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any kind of compensation for alleged mental agony and litigation expenses. So the complaint be dismissed with costs Rs.10,000/-. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, bill dated 13/9/2006 Ex.C-2, labels of seed packet Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4, tags Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8, empty bags of seed Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-16, certified copy of the report of Surjit Singh Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C-17, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.C-18 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vinod Kumar Ex.R-1, cash memo dated 7/9/2006 Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party No. 1 being agent and distributor of the opposite party No. 2 and 3 have supplied spurious maize seeds causing loss of yield to the tune of Rs.36000/-. Complainant is entitled to recover the same alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.56000/- as damages, mental agony and harassment. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 have submitted that opposite party No. 1 have simply supplied packed seed to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 neither manufacture nor wholesale supplier of the maize. So the opposite party No. 1 is not liable to make payment of any sort of damages caused to the complainant for want to non germination of maize seed. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further submitted that the complainant has purchased seed in question for commercial purpose so the complaint is not maintainable. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has sown the maize crop for his personal use. It was for exclusive self employment and income thereof. <br /> 12. The bill Ex.C-2 dated 13/9/2006 issued by the opposite party No. 1 shows that the complainant has purchased one quintal of makka W worth Rs.1300/- and 70 Kg. Makka AT worth Rs.1400/-. Complainant also placed on the file labels Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 taken out from the packets of 10 Kg. African Tall Maize. Complainant also placed on the file tags of certified seed maize A Tall Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8. Even there is no denial by the opposite party No. 1 with regard to purchase of the maize seed by the complainant from opposite party No. 1. <br /> 13. The complainant has placed on the file report of expert Ex.C-17 dated 2/11/2006 Agriculture Development Officer Faridkot visited the fields of the complainant on 17/10/2006. As per this report complainant has sown 100 Kg. maize fodder of local variety and 70 Kg. of hybrid variety maize for the purpose of fodder. He has sown the both in 1-1/2 acres each. The hybrid sown in 1-1/2 acres has not germinated properly. It has shown germination at the rate of 7.63% the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.12000/- on account of non germination of fodder maize hybrid seed. <br /> 14. Complainant examined Agriculture Development Officer, Agriculture Department Hari Nau Tehsil and District Faridkot. He has made statement in respect of his report Ex.C-17. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 could not get elicited any single word favoring to the opposite parties. He has deposed with regard to certified attested copy of his report Ex.C-17 if original is not produced in the Forum then it is of no help to the opposite party as he himself has visited the spot and submitted his report. He has proved his report Ex.C-17. It is certified copy of the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. Opposite party No. 1 had failed to point out if 70 Kg. of seed was not sufficient to sow 1-1/2 acres of land for the purpose of fodder. He has mentioned percentage of germination on the basis of standing crop. He counted the plants at the spot. He has assessed loss of Rs.12000/- as per 1-1/2 acres on the basis of average. <br /> 15. There is no rebuttal by the opposite parties to the expert evidence of the complainant. So simple denial to the facts of the complaint and report thereof by opposite party No. 1 is not helpful to the opposite parties in any manner. <br /> 16. The opposite party No. 1 has placed on the file affidavit Ex.R-1 of Vinod Kumar Partner of Shiv Khad Bhandar, Grain Market, Kotkapura and bill Ex.R-2 dated 7/9/2006. From these facts it is made out that complainant has purchased above noted maize seed from the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 vide bill Ex.R-2 has purchased 2800 Kg. of Makka African Tall Akash Ganga from Kissan Agro Seeds Delhi wholesale dealers of vegetable and fodder seeds. <br /> 17. Learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on K. Anjaiah Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. reported in IV (2004) Consumer Protection Judgments-181. As per this authority contention of the opposite party to the effect that properly procedure was not followed by the complainant to sow the seed in the wrong month was held to be not acceptable in absence of evidence in support. So as per this authority if seeds are defective and there is loss of crop due to non development of the seed then there is deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties. In such like circumstances M/s Jain Irrigation System Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Malgonda Anna Patil and Ors. reported in II (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments-404 relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 is not helpful to the opposite parties as this authority is related to defective drip irrigation system. Similarly The Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar reported in 1999 Judicial Reports Consumer-362 relied upon by the opposite party No. 1 is not helpful to the opposite parties in any manner as the complainant might have consumed entire seed while sowing maize crop so he could not have been able to send the seed in question for proper analysis. If the complainant has not done so then opposite party No. 1 having stock of such a seed from the same batch could have sent the same for analysis and they could place on the file report of expert. Even the report of Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C-17 cannot be set aside without any sort of evidence in rebuttal to the same so this authority is not helpful to the opposite party No. 1. <br /> 18. The complainant have sown maize crop fodder only in three acres of land. He cannot be said to have sown the fodder for commercial purpose. An agriculturist is bound to sow fodder to be used by the live stock reared by him for the purpose of agriculture and domestic use. So Mahboob Baig Vs. Rayalseema Seed Corporation and another reported in 1996(2) Consumer Law Today-18 relied upon by the opposite party is not helpful to the opposite parties. Even in this authority it is found mentioned that he breed chilly seeds were sown in the large extent of 15 acres. Such like yield of chilly certainly cannot be said to have been sown by an agriculturist for his personal use whereas case in hand is related to maize fodder used to feed animals kept by an agriculturist or other purpose relating to agriculture and domestic use. So this authority is not helpful to the opposite parties in any manner as the complainant have not sown maize fodder for commercial purpose. <br /> 19. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is held that the maize fodder seed supplied by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant has not germinated properly. At least complainant has suffered loss of Rs.12000/- as per report Ex.C-17 which stands unrebutted on the file. Even if opposite party No. 1 has not assured complainant with regard to pure and best quality of seed and yield of fodder will be about 200 quintal per acre still the opposite party No. 1 cannot be said to have sold seed by assuring the complainant that there shall be no germination or less germination. The opposite party No. 1 was bound to supply proper and good variety of seed to the complainant. For want of assurance opposite party No. 1 cannot be allowed to sell rubbish type of seed to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 cannot escape from the liability of damages caused to the complainant on account of less germination of seeds on the ground that he has sold the seeds in the packets received by them from the opposite party No. 2 and 3. Opposite party No. 1 being distributor and agent of the opposite party No. 2 and 3 is held to have acted and sold the spurious seed to the complainant on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and 3. So the opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to compensate the complainant. <br /> 20. In these circumstances the complaint of the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation, damages , costs of the seed in consolidated form to the tune of Rs.15000/- within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 15000/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till realization of the amount. The opposite parties are liable to pay above noted amount jointly and severally resultantly complainant can recover the above noted amount primarily from the opposite party No. 1 from him he has purchased the seed. The opposite party No. 1 if so choses can get himself compensated if so advised on the basis of this order from the opposite party No. 2 and 3. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 21/8/2007