Karnail Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to refund Rs. 7950/- paid by the complainant in lieu of Rasi Major 317 BT Cotton Hybrid Seed vide bill No. 4621 dated 9.5.2006 to the opposite party No. 1, pay Rs.88,700/- on account of expenses incurred by the complainant on sowing the cotton crop, pay Rs.1,21,000/- on account of loss of crop suffered by the complainant, pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and unnecessary harassment and also pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is a small agriculturist and took on lease land measuring 5-1/2 killas at the rate of Rs.13,000/- from Sukhmander Singh son of Sampuran Singh resident of Faridkot for the year 2006-07. The opposite party No. 1 is fertilizer, pesticides and seeds dealer and runs business in the New Grain Market, Faridkot. The opposite party No. 2 is manufacturer of hybrid cotton seed having brand name Rasi Major 317 B.T. The said seed is marketed by the opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties in the current cotton season advertised with great pump that their Rasi Major 317 B.T. hybrid cotton seed is of very high quality B.T. hybrid cotton seed and the average yield of the crop will be 12 quintal per acre. The opposite parties further advertised that American Boll Worm i.e. American Sundi and any other disease would not affect the said narma crop. The complainant impressed from the advertisement went to the shop of opposite party No. 1 and inquired about the seed. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the above mentioned seed is the best seed available in the market and fully assured the complainant that the germination of the seed will be at least 95% and no disease will cause any harm to the cotton crop. So the complainant purchased six packets of Rasi Major 317 BT Cotton hybrid seed at the rate of Rs.1325/- per packet for his land and he paid Rs.7950/- in cash to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 1 issued bill No. 462 dated 9.5.2006, sos the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 also explained the method of sowing the above said seed. In order to sow the above said seed the complainant cultivated the land twice with disks and once with cultivator and spent Rs.3000/- per acre on cultivation of land. After that the complainant sowed the seed with drill machine and mixed one bag of DAP fertilizer per acre as per directions of the opposite party No. 1. The complainant sowed the seed with all the precautions and norms complied with the directions issued by the opposite party No.1. After sowing the above said seed after 96 hours the complainant noticed that the seed was not properly germinated and the plants were scattered. The complainant rushed to opposite party No. 1 and narrated his tale of woes. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that they will contact the opposite party No. 2 and 3 and will compensate him. After that Mr. Raj Kumar Field Supervisor of opposite party No. 1 accompanied with another employee of the opposite party no. 2 visited the fields of the complainant and after inspection agreed that the seed do not have the proper germination and assured the complainant that he will brought the matter to his superiors and they will compensate him. The said official supplied two packets of seed for filling the gaps but the seed supplied for had zero percent germination. After that the Managing Director of opposite party No. 2 personally visited the fields of the complainant and after inspection agreed that the seed was defective one. He assured the complainant that the opposite parties would compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Thereafter the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties and visited the shop of opposite party No. 1 number of times and telephonically requested the officers of opposite party No. 2 and 3 to compensate the complainant but the opposite parties pretended with one pretext or the other. The complainant spent Rs.7950/- on the purchase of seed and Rs.3000/- per acre on the cultivation, diesel and labour etc. He took the land on theka at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per acre alongwith the seed sown one bag of DAP of Rs. 467-50 per bag. In this way the complainant spent total Rs.88,700/- on sowing 5-1/2 acres of American cotton. He moved an application dated 31.5.2006 to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot with a request to take action. The Agriculture Development Officer, Faridkot inspected the fields of the complainant and inspected the crop minutely and made report that 30% crop was germinated inspite of passage of more than 96 hours of the sowing, the said officer made a report that 5-1/2 acre Narma crop of the complainant has been damaged and the complainant has suffered loss. The complainant sown BT 134 seed in his some part of land and it was properly germinated. The Agriculture Development Officer, Faridkot specifically mentioned in his report that remaining crop of BT-134 seed have a proper germination whereas the soil of the fields is the same. The complainant moved application dated 21.6.2006 to the Collector, Faridkot for ordering the Special Girdawari regarding the loss suffered by the complainant so the competent Revenue Officer visited the fields of the complainant in the presence of neighboring farmers and made report that seed is not properly germinated and the plants are scattered. The complainant moved an application dated 21.6.2006 to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot to supply the average yield report of the Narma crop in Punjab and specifically in Faridkot District in the last cotton crop season. The Statistical Officer, Faridkot made a report that in the Kharif 2005-06 the average yield of cotton crop was 7.50 quintal per acre in Faridkot District. In this way the complainant suffered great loss due to the non germination of the seed. The opposite party No. 2 manufactured the defective seed, opposite party No. 3 marketed the same and opposite party No. 1 sold it to the complainant knowingly by stating it to be of best quality seed. So all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss suffered by the complainant and to pay compensation. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant and his family so the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as mentioned above. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.9.2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through Sh. S.K. Mittal Advocate and filed written reply in which they submitted that the complainant has not been placed on the file any lease deed and any khasra number. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Court i.e. khasra numbers of the land in dispute which was taken on lease. The opposite party never advertised that yield of crop will 12 quintals per acre and no pamphlet was issued by the opposite party. The complainant might have purchased Rasi Major 317 BT but it is not said in which land he has sown which he has purchased on behalf of any other person. The guarantee of germination is not of 95%. The germination depends upon quality of land whether fertilized, cultivated and other factors. It is not true that the seeds sown in any type of land will germinated to 95%. The complainant made up a story only to extract money from the answering opposite parties who was not present on any event. Neither the land was properly cultivated nor the seeds were properly sown. There is no complaint from any other quarter except the present one. The complainant never brought it to the notice of opposite party No. 1, 2 and 3 about failure of germination. No oral complaint was ever made to any of three parties. It is wrong that Raj Kumar Field Supervisor of opposite party No. 1 with another employee of opposite party no. 2 visited the fields. No such inspection was made. It is also wrong that two packets of seeds were further supplied to the complainant. It is also wrong that Managing Director of opposite party No. 2 visited the spot. The seeds are not defective. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation. The complainant should resown the land with another seed if seed of the opposite party were not germinated. Compensation should have minimize by sowing other quality of seed. Complainant was not to made till the yield. No DAP fertilizer was used. It is wrong that Rs.88,700/- were spent on sowing the same. The seeds purchased by the complainant has not been sown by him and has not spent Rs.3000/- per acre for cultivation of land. When the other seed RC 134 has been properly germinated there is no question of not germinating seed 317 Major. It clearly shows that either the land was not of good quality or it has not been properly sown. If the seeds were not germinated complainant should have filed the complaint immediately and should have not waiting for yield. The Agriculture officer has also not given any report to the opposite party. There is no question for special girdawari. The complainant should have minimize the loss but the complainant has been trying to collect evidence only to extract money from the opposite party. He is not entitled to any compensation. The seeds were not substandard or defective. Best quality seeds were supplied in the market. There is no complaint. He is not disclosing the land in which the seeds were sown. Proper fertilizer and proper pesticides has not been given. No lease has been placed on record. Quality of land has not been given. Even identity of land has not been given. There is no question of harassing the complainant. No written information was ever given to the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation, if there would have any fault, complainant should have filed complaint for recovery of price of seed at the very beginning. So the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. On receipt of the notice the opposite party No. 3 appeared through Sh. N.S. Aulakh Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable in present form. The complainant is not a consumer as per the definition given in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant purchased the said seeds for commercial purposes so he does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint has been filed just to blackmail the answering opposite party. The complainant has not placed any revenue record showing that he had actually sown the cotton seeds in his fields. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hand. The complainant never sown the cotton seeds in his fields and never suffered any loss for which the answering opposite party can be held responsible. After the purchase of seed the answering opposite party have no control over the sowing of the said seeds and cannot even confirm or deny whether the said seeds have been sown in the fields or not. On merits the opposite party No. 3 submitted that the complainant purchased the seeds for the commercial purposes. The answering opposite party is renowned company and known for their quality products throughout the world. The consumer may never sown the same seed and then lodge a false complaint like the present one to blackmail and to extract money from the opposite parties. If the seeds manufactured by the answering opposite party are sown in the fields as per the correct procedure and correct quantity no question arises for any loss or non germination of the seeds. It is wrong that any employee of the opposite party No. 2 ever visited the fields of the complainant and give any kind of assurance to the complainant. The complainant never contacted the officers of the answering opposite party. It is wrong that the complainant made any complaint to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. The said officer never inspected the fields of the complainant or the complainant might have shown some other fields where the cotton seeds were not germinated to the said officer. Ever otherwise the said officer has no authority to inspect the fields or to give any report under the Consumer Protection Act as such the alleged inspection report has no relevancy or authority in the eyes of law to hold the answering opposite party guilty. The complainant never moved any application to the Collector, Faridkot. The complainant has not suffered any loss, so he is not entitled for any compensation. So the complaint may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs. <br /> 6. 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, photocopy of letter dated 21.6.2006 Ex.C-2, photocopy of memo No. 2939 dated 19.6.2006 Ex.C-3, photocopy of letter dated 31.5.2006 Ex.C-4, photocopy of bill dated 9.5.2006 Ex.C-5, photocopy of letter no. 3661 dated 31.7.2006 Ex.C-6, photocopy of letter dated 21.6.2006 Ex.C-7, photocopy of Endst. No. 181 dated 27.6.2006 Ex.C-8, photocopy of jamabandi Ex.C-9, empty packet Major BT RCH 317 BT Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 lot number 102549, photocopy of Stastical report Ex.C-12, report of Agriculture Development Officer Ex.C-13, affidavit of Sukhmander Singh Ex.C-14, receipt regarding theka of land Ex.C-15, affidavit of Baldev Dass Ex.C-16, affidavit of Jaspal Singh Ex.C-17, affidavit of Ajaib Singh Ex.C-18, affidavit of Pritam Singh Ex.C-19, affidavit of Ranjit Singh Ex.C-20, affidavit of Amarjit Singh Ex.C-21, original photocopy of the letter No. 2951 dated 21.6.2006 is Ex.C-22, letter memo No. 3753 dated 3.8.2006 is Ex.C-23 and closed his evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Barjinder Garg Director, M.S. Tau Agro Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Ex.RW-1/A, seed testing report Ex.R-1, pamphlet Ex.R-2, site plan Ex.R-3, jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex.R-4, affidavit of Harinder Pal Singh Ex.RW-2/A, affidavit of Deputy Singh Ex.RW-3/A, affidavit of Pardeep Bahuguna Ex.RW-4/A, affidavit of Sarbjit Singh Ex.RW-5/A, bill of Tau Agro dated 8.5.2006 Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 8. 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 /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the he is entitled to refund of Rs.7950/- from the opposite parties in lieu of Rasi Major 317 BT Cotton Hybrid Seed purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 as the same did not germinate properly. Complainant has spent Rs.88,700/- to sow cotton crop he suffered a loss of Rs.1,21,000/- on account of failure of crop. Complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.15,000/-. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that complainant himself is guilty of not sowing the cotton seed properly. The sample has not been sent to the laboratory for testing by the complainant though the same was available with the complainant sos there is no defective seed supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant used the entire seed for sowing. He got report of Agriculture expert who have reported 30% germination in 5-1/2 acres of land of the complainant in which disputed seed was sown. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that report of agriculture expert is not binding upon the opposite parties. They have not been informed by any person about non germination of the seed properly. <br /> 13. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 have substantiated his pleadings. His version is supported by the affidavit of Sukhmander Singh Ex.C-14. Sukhmander Singh testified that he has given 44 Kanals 15 Marlas of land on lease to the complainant at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per killa for the year 2006-07. Complainant sowed BT cotton Hybrid seed with drill machine and scattered one bag of DAP fertilizer per acre. The seed did not germinate. Narma plants were scattered. Baldev Dass has supported evidence of the complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-16. Similar of the affidavits of Jaspal Singh Ex.C-17, Ajaib Singh Ex.C-18, Pritam Singh Ex.C-19, Ranjit Singh Ex.C-20 and Amarjit Singh Patwari Ex.C-21. <br /> 14. Amarjit Singh Patwari testified that the complainant moved an application to District Collector, Faridkot on 21.6.2006 for conducting special Girdawari. On 27.6.2006 he visited the spot. The BT cotton seed sowed in Khasra No. 1846, 1847, 1851 and 1852 measuring 44 Kanals 5 Marlas. There was scattered narma plants to the hight of 10 inches. Girdawari could not be conducted as the same is to be conducted from 15th September 2006 to 16th October 2006 for khariff crop. He submitted his report Ex.C-8 to the concerned authorities. <br /> 15. The complainant moved an application on 14.6.2006 to Assistant Plant Security Officer, Faridkot with regard to non germination of BT Cotton Rasi 317 seed to cotton. He also have moved an application to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot Ex.C-2 on 21.6.2006. It was reported by the agriculture authorities that during the khariff year 2005-06 there was 7-1/2 quintals of the produce of the narma crop per acre. <br /> 16. Kulwant Singh A.D.O. examined by the complainant testified that he visited the spot on 2.6.2006 on the instructions given by Chief Agriculture Officer to Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Faridkot Block, he submitted his report Ex.C-13. <br /> 17. The report Ex.C-13 makes out that the Rasi 317 BT Cotton seed germinated only to the extent of 30% after 96 hours of its sowing. Remaining narma crop was in good condition. There was proper germination adjoining to the 5-1/2 acres of land. The seed company have supplied seed for gap filling and that seed had zero percent germination, so it was concluded that 5 acres crop of the complainant has been destroyed. <br /> 18. In his cross examination Kulwant Singh have testified that he has not given notice to the opposite party. He has not tested the soil. He has not tested the seed. There are so many reasons for non germination of crop. The seed was to be germinated within 96 hours. Only 30% yield was found at the spot. He has not checked the non germination of the seed in the laboratory. After physical verification he found non germination of seed. He cannot gives the scientific reason for non germination of seed. Non germination of the seed can be due to non moister in the air at sowing the seed in the depth. One of the reason can be non proper packing of the seed in the sealed boxes of the seed. He gave his report only after visual verification. Learned counsel for the opposite parties during his cross examination could not get extracted even a single word in their favour. It is not in the evidence of the Kulwant Singh A.D.O. that land was no fit for sowing the narma crop. He has not pointed out any negligence on the part of the complainant with regard to sowing of the seed. So many other reasons for non germination of seed cannot attributed to the complainant. <br /> 19. Dilbag Singh A.D.O. proved report Ex.C-13. Complainant in his evidence have specifically mentioned that he reported non germination of the seed to the opposite party No. 1 and due to this reason the opposite party No. 1 have supplied gap filling seed. So it cannot be said that the opposite party No. 1 had no knowledge about non germination of the seed. The seed was purchased by the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-5 dated 9.5.2006 worth Rs.7950/- Narma BT Major 317 Rasi seed from the opposite party No. 1. Six packets were purchased. Six packets are sufficient for sowing about 5 acres of land. For gap filling two packets were supplied by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. It had zero percent germination. In such like circumstances it is held that complainant had been agitating non germination of the seed with the opposite parties from the very beginning. However the complainant had no occasion to get tested seed from the laboratory. The opposite party No. 1 could get seed tested themselves on reporting supply of defective seed by the complainant. They have not done so. They cannot take benefit of their own wrongs. As per K. Anjaiah Versus National Seeds Corporation Ltd. reported in Consumer Protection And Trade Practices Journal 2005-449 where there is a supply of defective seed twice despite the fact subject seeds had not been got tested in a laboratory the respondent could have itself applied to the Forum for sending a sample for a laboratory it is or it could have itself sent a sample to a laboratory. If nothing of the sort done by it then respondent was also not correct in questioning the complainant's status as a consumer by contending that by growing carrots he was engaged in a commercial activity. So respondent was held to be guilty of supplying defective seed.<br /> 20. As per Sanjay Agro International Versus Khazan Singh reported in Consumer Protection And Trade Practices Journal 2004-773 (CP) (SCDRC) even if the seed is not tested in a laboratory but Agriculture Development Officer after inspection certified that seed was defective then the complaint is liable to be allowed. <br /> 21. As per National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Versus M. Madhusudan Reddy reported in 2004(2) Consumer Law Today-301 compensation on account of supply of defective and poor quality seed can be awarded to the farmer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When report of Commissioner is obtained then farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of the seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13 (1) (c).<br /> 22. As per Bejo Sheetal Seeds Versus Bolla Venkanna and others reported in 2002 (2) Consumer Law Today-469 if the seed purchased already is sown in the soil it is not possible to test the quality. Statement of Horticulture Officer and another officer on record who were of the opinion that the seeds were of defective quality is to be given weight though the seed has not been sent for its analysis. <br /> 23. In such like circumstances The Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited Versus Sunil Kumar reported in 1999 Judicial Reports Consumer-362, Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Versus Sadhu and another reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Civil)-138 and Jai Narain & Ors. Versus Boda Ram alias Bod Raj reported in 2007(3) Civil Court Cases-232 (P&H) relied upon by the opposite parties are not helpful to them in view of the above noted authorities relied upon by the complainant as the authorities relied upon by the opposite parties are having different facts and circumstances than that of the case in hand. <br /> 24. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances it is held that the opposite parties have supplied defective seed to the complainant and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. Even the license of opposite party No. 1 have been cancelled by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot vide letter Ex.C-23 which is based on the selling of Sub Standard seed to the farmers including the complainant.<br /> 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complainant is held to have cultivated about 5-1/2 acres of land as mentioned in the report of Patwari and the Agriculture Development Officer. Jamabandi Ex.C-9 also shows that complainant is co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share of land measuring 146 Kanals 4 Marlas. However he also have taken land on lease from Sukhmander Singh his brother. Even one co-sharer can cultivate land as per convenience of the co-sharers, so the lease deed writing Ex.C-15 if is having discrepant Khasra numbers of 8 Kanals does not make out that complainant have not cultivated 5-1/2 acres of land.<br /> 26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Since there was germination of Narma seed to the extent of 30%, so complainant have suffered loss of the produce of the crop to the extent of 60% of germination which is considered to be 90%. Normal produce of the Narma crop is reported to be 7-1/2 Quintals per acre. The rate of Narma cotton during the relevant period can be said approximately to the extent of Rs.2,000/- per quintal. By working out loss, compensation, damages, harassment to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to loss of produce of the crop amounting to Rs.50,000/- in all. So out of Rs.50,000/- ,the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 1 and 2 shall pay interest to the complainant on the amounts of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively as mentioned above at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. These amounts neither are meager nor exaggerated in the attending circumstances of the case. 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: 9.1.2008