Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/87/2017

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SND Trading Co. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Jallu

17 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.87 of 2017

                                                        Date of institution:  14.12.2017                                                     

                                                      Date of decision   :  17.02.2020

Hardeep Singh aged 28 years son of Jarnail Singh resident of village Beer Bhamarsi Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. SND Trading Company, near Petrol Pump, Bhamarsi Buland Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Prop./Responsible person Amit Aggarwal.
2. Savannah Seeds Pvt. Ltd., 904 Tower B Signature Tower, NH-8 South City-1, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director/responsible person/Manager.

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member   

                            

Present :   Sh. Rajesh Jallu, counsel for complainant.

                  Sh.C.S.Tiwana, counsel for OP No.1.

                  Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor, counsel for OP No.2.

ORDER

By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                  The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he is the consumer of Opposite Parties & he is residing in village Beer Bhamarsi Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib, owns five acres of land and also doing the agriculture work by taking the land on lease from different persons. The complainant further stated that Opposite Party No.1 approached the complainant and represented that he is authorized dealer of Savannah Seeds i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and the said OP Company developed good quality of smart high breed seeds known as Sawa-127 seeds. Opposite Party No.1 also assured the complainant regarding the good yielding of said paddy seeds and the yield of the said seeds is more than 40 quintal per acre.  Believing the representation and assurance of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased 18 packets each of 3 kg of the said smart high breed seeds at the rate of Rs.720/- per packet for a total amount of Rs.12,960/- ( Rs.240/- per Kg) vide invoice No.52 dated 26.05.2017. Opposite party No.1 also stated that 6 Kg seeds are required per acre for good yield.  The said bill was not signed by opposite party No.1 intentionally. Thereafter, the complainant planted the paddy seeds in his fields of variety of Sawa-127 smart high breed seeds in 9 acres of land. After full growth of the paddy of said seeds, the complainant noticed that growth of some plants was low and many plants matured before time, whereas the other plants were yet unripe and premature plants fell down on the ground. The yield thereof would be destroyed, which shows that there was mixture of different varieties of seeds which were developed by Opposite Party No.2 and which were sold by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. The complainant moved an application before the Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib regarding the said mixture of different varieties of seeds. The Chief Agriculture Officer appointed Sh. Ram Singh, Agricultural Development Officer, Sirhind and Sh. Joteinder Singh Technical Technician Fatehgarh Sahib to report regarding the yield.  The agriculture department after proper verification submitted his report to the Chief Agriculture Office, Patiala, who sent a letter No.3517 dated 23.10.2017 to the complainant. The Agriculture Officer, after making the spot observation and after cutting the ripe crop of paddy, reported that complainant suffered loss to the extent of 45 to 50 percent of yield per acre.  The complainant got yield upto 15 quintal per acre of said seeds due to mixture of different varieties of seeds and he suffered the loss of 20-25 quintal per acre and total loss to the extent of around 180 quintals for 9 acre of land amounting to Rs.2,86,200/- (180 x 1590/- as the rate of paddy was Rs.1590/- per quintal). The Opposite Parties by making the false representations sold the mixture of different varieties by asking it as Sawa-127 and at a very high rate i.e. Rs.240/- per Kg, whereas ordinary seeds are around Rs.50/- per Kg. Despite purchasing the costly seeds the complainant suffered huge loss of yield.  The complainant had to spent Rs.5000/- per acre as labour charges for harvesting the crop as the premature plants fell down on the ground and it could not be harvested through combine. The Opposite Parties in connivance with each other induced the complainant, knowingly, willfully with dishonest intention sold the mix variety seeds by saying that it is of good quality high breed seeds of Sawa-127. The complainant approached to the OPs several times and requested them to pay compensation but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,86,200/- on account of loss of yield, Rs.45,000/- as costs of labour, Rs.3,00,000/- as special compensation and damages for mental and physical torture, harassment and mental agony and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant also prayed for any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.

2.               After the service of notice upon the Opposite Parties, they appeared through counsel and filed written version to the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1, in its written version has stated that the complainant himself came to the shop of Opposite Party No.1 for purchase of seeds and specifically demanded Sawa-127 seeds from it and OP sold 18 packets of seeds.  It is further stated that the complainant had never shown Opposite Party No.1, the sowing as well as the method of sowing the seeds in his fields. The OP has no concern or connection with Agronomy of the farmer. Every seed is unique nature and properties and Opposite Party No.1 has no concern with the yields. It is further stated that Opposite Party No.1 never prepared the seeds himself, which were demanded and purchased by the complainant and the same were sold in the sealed packets provided by the company and which once if opened cannot be re-sealed so there is no matter of mixing anything alien in the sealed packets. Opposite party No.1 has sold this specific seed to other farmers also and there is no complaint whatsoever from any other farmers regarding the quality of the product. The opposite party had no interference or control over the sowing and transplantation of the paddy seeds. The opposite party never know whether the complainant has sown the same seed in his fields, which has been purchased from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3                In its written version, opposite party No.2 stated that the complainant had not sown the seeds, which were purchased by him from the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant had not provided proper care to his paddy at the time of its alleged growing and due to which if the complainant has suffered any alleged loss to his crops, then there is no fault on the part of opposite party No.2. It is further stated that Savannah is a research driven, technologically advanced integrated rice seeds company, involved in research, production, processing and marketing of Smart Rice seeds with superior yield, wider adaptability and value added traits to the benefit of rice growers and consumer as well.  The company's state of the art research facilities are strategically located at Sonipat, Raipur and Hyderabad and are recognized by department of science and industrial research(DSIR).  The company has standard protocols and processes in place so as ascertain quality of every single seed, supply to their respected farmers. It always strive to serve their farmers with best products and farm services on scientific smart rice crop management to help them reap more out of smart rice seeds and optimize their profitability, which can help them reap more crop per unit area with reasonable resources. Based on detailed studies and trails conducted by Indian Institute of Rice Research across the country and considering the value SAVA 127 can deliver to their respected farmers, MOAFW had notified it dated 7^th May 2015 vide its notification No.954.  It is further stated that 'Savannah' is the only company in India, which is exclusively working on rice seeds and therefore, its entire resources are focused on developing such rice seeds, which can help farmers reap higher yield with better marketable quality. Opposite party No.2 is also focused for ensuring quality of every single seeds through scientifically designed and laid down standard operative procedures as per the seeds quality governing laws and orders so that the farmers can get best quality seeds, which would ensure better and sustainable yield to them. It is also stated that farmer of Fatehgarh Sahib in particular and Punjab in general have accepted and liked the rice variety SAVA 127 for its unique benefits i.e. non lodging with higher yield besides earliness leading to sustainable rice production system.  The said seed is having genetic purity of >99% against the statutory requirement of 95% as per the IMSCS issued by the MOA & FW, GOI and that OP has world class research, production, processing, supply chain and technical services infrastructure in order to make available quality seeds to farmers.  It is further stated that off types are parts of rice hybrid seeds production process as cent percent control on pollen movement is not feasible, there is either no possibility of loss of yield of SAVA 127 even if insignificant percentages of (say 0.50.08%) off types are there. The company has not violated any of the provisions as enshrined in the seeds Act, 1966 and its various amendments. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 along with documents Ex. C-2 to C-5 and closed the evidence.

5.               In rebuttal, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar, Proprietor Ex. OP1/1, true copies of documents i.e. letter dated 20.10.2017 Ex. OP1/2, letter dated 10.10.2017 Ex. OP1/3, letters to Chief Agriculture officer Ex. OP1/4 to OP1/8 and letter dated 14.09.2017  Ex. OP1/9, letter dated 22.09.2017 Ex. OP1/10, licence dated 22.03.2016 Ex. OP1/11 and closed the evidence.  Opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mukesh Kumar Ex.OP2/1, true copy of documents i.e. instructions Ex. OP2/2, reply to the notice dated 09.09.2017 Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence.

6.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

7.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued on the lines of pleadings of complaint and requested to allow the complaint in favour of complainant, whereas Ld. counsel for Opposite Parties denied any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8.               The complainant has proved that he purchased Seed Sawa 3 Kg for an amount of Rs.12,960/- from opposite party No.1, vide cash invoice No.52 dated 26.05.2017, which is Ex. C-1. Therefore, complainant is consumer of opposite parties. He further proved that his family owns five acres of land and he use to take land on lease for agriculture vide Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 of village Bir Bhamarsi Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib, which is Ex. C-5, wherein Hardeep Singh was in joint cultivation of agriculture land whereas his father namely Jarnail Singh was in joint ownership of agricultural land of more than nine acres. To prove his complaint, complainant has filed on record duly attested affidavit as Ex. C-1 wherein facts of complaint were stated on oath. A letter bearing No.3187 dated 26.09.2017 issued by Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib addressed to the complainant, which is Ex. C-3 proves that Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib and Sh. Satish Kumar, Agriculture Development Officer, Sirhind inspected the fields of the complainant on 06.09.2017 and they observed that it appeared to them that there was 10% to 15% plants of mixed seeds in the field but same can be ascertained only after inspecting the fields at the time of harvesting the crops. On 25.09.2017, they found that there are chances of less yield on this account but the same can be ascertained exactly at the time of harvesting the crops. They formed team of experts of Department for ascertaining the yield of the following members:-

1)      Shri Ram Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Sirhind             2)         Shri Jotinder Singh, Technician, Fatehgarh Sahib.

                  Further complainant has placed on record letter bearing No.3517 dated 23.10.2017 addressed to complainant by Chief Agriculture Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib regarding subject selling of mixed seeds by M/s S.N.D. Trading Co. Bhamarsi, which is Ex. C-4. It is written in this letter that the committee informed the undersigned of the letter that complainant refused to get his crops cut for testing but after officers of Department made him aware about the benefit of it then he agreed to it.  On 13.10.2017 departmental team conducted the crop cutting method for tests after inspection the fields. From this, it is ascertain by the officers of Agriculture Department that farmer suffered loss of 45% to 50% yield.

9.               In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another in Civil Appeal No. 7543 OF 2004 decided on 16.01.2012, it has been observed as under:-

"Sub-section (1) of Section 13, which lays down the rocedure to be followed after admission of the complaint reads as under:

“13. Procedure on admission of complaint. –

(1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,—

(a) refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;

(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;

(d)         before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question;

(e) the District Forum shall remit the amount deposited to its credit under clause (d) to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out the analysis or test mentioned in clause (c) and on receipt of the report from the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall forward a copy of the report along with such remarks as the District Forum may feel appropriate to the opposite party;

(f)         if any of the parties disputes the correctness of the findings of the appropriate laboratory, or disputes the correctness of the methods of analysis or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall require the opposite party or the complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;

(g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order under section 14.”

 

22.                    The scope and reach of the Consumer Act has been considered in large number of judgments – Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra), Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited (2000) 5 SCC 294, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Development Credit Bank Limited (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230 and Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports and another (2011) 10 SCC 316. However, we do not consider it necessary to discuss all the judgments and it will be sufficient to notice some passages from the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (supra). In that case, the 2-Judge Bench noticed the background, the objects and reasons, and the purpose for which the Consumer Act was enacted, referred to the judgments in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta (supra), Fair Air Engineers Private Limited v. N. K. Modi (supra) and proceeded to observe as under:

 

“The preamble of the Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. In Section 3 of 50 the Act in clear and unambiguous terms it is stated that the provisions of the 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

From the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the scheme of the 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main objective of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasijudicial forums are set up at the district, State and national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders.”

 

23.           It can thus be said that in the context of farmers/growers and other consumer of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special legislation insofar as the provisions contained therein ensure that those engaged in agriculture and horticulture get quality seeds and any person who violates the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules is brought before the law and punished. However, there is no provision in that Act and the Rules framed thereunder for compensating the farmers etc. who may suffer adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell the seeds. That apart, there is nothing in the Seeds Act and the Rules which may give an indication that the provisions of the Consumer Act are not available to the farmers who are otherwise covered by the wide definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Act. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from the ambit of the Consumer Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination and there is no reason why the provisions of the Consumer Act should be so interpreted.

 

24.                    In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579, this Court was called upon to consider the question whether a person (appellant) who got his wife treated in ESI dispensary could file a complaint under the Consumer Act for award of compensation by alleging negligence on the part of the doctors in the dispensary. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission declined relief to the appellant on the ground that the medical services provided in ESI dispensary were gratituous. This Court referred to Sections 74 and 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the definition of the ‘consumer’ contained in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Act, referred to the judgments in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (supra) and observed:

 

“The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum would not be barred and the power of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated.”

 

25.           The definition of ‘consumer’ contained in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Act is very wide. Sub-clause (i) of the definition takes within its fold any person who buys any goods for a consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. It also includes any person who uses the goods though he may not be buyer thereof provided that such use is with the approval of the buyer. The last part of the definition contained in Section 2(d)(i) excludes a person who obtains the goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. By virtue of the explanation which was added w.e.f. 18.6.1993 by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993, it was clarified that the expression commercial purpose’ used in sub-clause (i) does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The definition of ‘consumer’ was interpreted in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra). The Court referred to the dictionary meanings of the word ‘consumer’, definition contained in Section 2(d) and proceeded to observe:

 

“It is in two parts. The first deals with goods and the other with services. Both parts first declare the meaning of goods and services by use of wide expressions. Their ambit is further enlarged by use of inclusive clause. For instance, it is not only purchaser of goods or hirer of services but even those who use the goods or who are beneficiaries of services with approval of the person who purchased the goods or who hired services are included in it. The legislature has taken precaution not only to define ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’, ‘consumer’ but even to mention in detail what would amount to unfair trade practice by giving an elaborate definition in clause (r) and even to define ‘defect’ and ‘deficiency’ by clauses (f) and (g) for which a consumer can approach the Commission. The Act thus aims to protect the economic interest of a consumer as understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in the larger sense of user of services. The common characteristics of goods and services are that they are supplied at a price to cover the costs and generate profit or income for the seller of goods or provider of services. But the defect in one and deficiency in other may have to be removed and compensated differently. The former is, normally, capable of being replaced and repaired whereas the other may be required to be compensated by award of the just equivalent of the value or damages for loss.”

(emphasis supplied)

 

26.           Since the farmers/growers purchased seeds by paying a price to the appellant, they would certainly fall within the ambit of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Act and there is no reason to deny them the remedies which are available to other consumers of goods and services.

 

It has been further observed in the above said judgement  of Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

 

34.           We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed.

 

35.                    The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations,like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naïve to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.

 

36.                    It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellant’s part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective.

 

37.                    In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:

“Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.

* * *

                It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.”

                (emphasis supplied)

 

38.                    Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed:

 

“There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (c) of the Act. By the time, complainant could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement.”

 

In the second case, the National Commission took cognizance of the objection raised by the appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed and observed:

 

“Testimony of the complainant would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner company packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory.”

 

In the third case, the National Commission held:

 

“Holding in favour of the complainant, the National Commission stated that, “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.”

 

39.           The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position.

 

10.             It is observed that cash invoice No.52 dated 26.05.2017 issued by opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.12,960/-, which is Ex.C-2, was neither signed nor stamp by Opposite Party. It, ipso facto, amounts to unfair trade practice and for this specific unfair trade practice, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay punitive compensation for Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to issue cash invoice under proper sign and stamp of authorized signatory for the company in future and also not to repeat this mistake in future.

11.             The report of Chief Agriculture Officer regarding the loss of 45% to 50% yield is the report of a responsible officer. The Senior Officer specifically mentioned that farmer suffered a loss of 45% to 50% due to mixed seeds. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. Opposite Parties failed to rebut it in any manner. The complainant stated in his complaint that he has reaped yield of 15 quintals of crops per acre instead of promised 40 quintals. As per authentic source i.e. website punenvis.nic.in of Punjab Government, it is ascertained that average yield of paddy/rice in the State of Punjab in the year 2017 is 25 quintal (approximately) per acre. The complainant proves that there is less yield of 10 quintal per acre. The rate of paddy was Rs.1590/- per quintal. Hence, he has suffered a loss of yield of crops of 10 quintals multiply by 9 acre of land ( i.e. 90 quintals X Rs.1590/-), which comes to Rs.1,43,100/-.

12.             As a sequel of the above discussion, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.1,43,100/- for loss of yield of crop along with interest @ 9% p.a to the complainant from 15^th November 2017 till its date of actual realization. We also find that complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Opposite Parties on account of compensation and litigation charges. Therefore, the opposite parties are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 1,58,100/- (Rs.1,43,100/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5000/-) within 45 days from the date of receiving certified copies of this order. The complaint is allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be issued to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.  

13.              The complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period of time as provided under 3^rd Proviso of Section 13 (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the post of President of this Forum remained vacant since 16.09.2018 and the Post of Lady Member remained vacant since 02.03.2017 and the undersigned President is now doing the additional duty for performing quasi judicial duties only for two days a week.

Pronounced                                                                                          

   Dated: 17.02.2020

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)    

  President

 

                                                                               (Yuvinder Singh Matta)    

                                                                                         Member