::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.22/2017.
Date of filing: 20.03.2017.
Date of disposal: 15.10.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Chitanantrao S/o Narsingrao Kardale,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Ahamdabad, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar.
( By Sri.Narayan Ganesh., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Clause Vegetable Seeds Pvt.Ltd.
No.6-98-4 Sy.No.563/Part, Godavelli Village,
Medchal Maudal, Rang Reddy Dist. 501401(TS).
2) Godaveri Krish Kendra
Anna Bhau Sathe Chouk,
New Mondha VIP Road Nanded, 2(M.S).
(By. R.1.Sri. Ajay Kulkarni., Adv.
R.2.Exparte.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This complaint is by a rustic agriculturist u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponents alleging defects in the cauliflower seeds sold to him against considerations. The 1st opponent is the producer of the seeds and the 2nd opponent is a trader under the former. The facts alleged are as follows:-
2. That, he is owner of agriculture land in Survey No.9 Hissa 4 comprising of 04 Acre. 13 guntas in Ahmadabad (village), Bhalki (Tq) Bidar (District) and used to cultivate vegetables in his land. On 24.08.2015, he purchased six pouches of cauliflower seeds named as “C” flower GARIMA (CLX 33256) LOT No.F1 against payment of RS.450/- to plant the same in a patch of Ac.1.00 forming part of the land holding. Within two days of such procurement the seeds were planted along with required fertilizers and pesticides. Irrigation was being done by drip irrigation system available in his land.
3. That, the complainant observed even after four months of such sowing, even though the plant had come up properly, there was no budding in the plants. Cauliflowers were never visible in the plants grown. He complained to the seed company so also the dealer and Reven we officials, consequent upon which the Village Accountant of Ahmadabad visited the spot and has drawn Panchanama. On appraisal an officer of the Department of Horticulture of Government of Karnataka had also inspected the agriculture field and has submitted a report.
4. The complainant claims that, he has sustained loss and consequential losses as the spurious seeds sold to him was of no consequence, flowering not having taken place. Such loss, due to no yield. Pre-cultivation land preparation land preparation, Labour, pesticides and Fertilizers has been calculated in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and he claims such amount as compensatory cost and damages along with 18% interest.
5. Upon notice only the O.P.No.1 has put up appearance through Counsel, participated in the proceedings by submitting written versions, affidavits and few documents. O.P.No.2 not appearing has been placed exparte.
6. In the versions, the O.P.No.1 has denied all the averments of the complaint and has raised fallacious questions regarding the time limit. Clarifying further, the O.P.No.1 has asserted that he was not provided opportunity to have an expert assessment. It is further claimed by the O.P.No.1 that, there was unfavorable climatic conditions i.e. high temperature at the time of sowing the seeds and hence due to stressful atmosphere conditions the bud formation did not take place. In his arguments he has also raised certain flimsy objections highlighting hypo graphical errors which were later rectified. It is claimed by the O.P. that, the seeds were imported and had undergone extensive quality control tests and were not defective at all.
7. Both sides have filed respective evidence affidavits, written arguments and documents described at the end of this order. The earlier decisions submitted by the O.P. having dealt with different aspects of the case is not helpful to his case. Rather, the ratios of the case laws submitted by the complainant i.e. M/s National Seeds Corporation limited v/s M.Madhusudan Reddy and Anr. laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Maharashtra State seeds corporation Limited and others v/s Arvind Baji Rao Borkar and others reported in (2011) CJ 35 (N.C.) hit the bulls’ eye.
8. Considering the pleadings of the rival parties, there evidences, arguments and meticulously observing the documents submitted by them, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Does the complainant prove that, the cauliflower seeds produced and marketed by the opponents were spurious and defective?
- What orders?
9. Our answers to the points raised are as following:-
- In the affirmative.
- As per final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
10. Point.No.1: The important question to be dealt here is as to whether, the complainant has indulged into any mis-adventures as claimed by the opponent by planting the seeds when high atmospheric temperature was prevailing. We analyze the six pouches submitted by the complainant which were containers of the sown seeds. No where any stipulation regarding temperature is mentioned. Rather a bland stipulation is at the Label that, “All India plain sowing-August-October-Avoid stress” is only printed. There is no pleadings from the side of the opponent No.1that, the farmer was ever explained the significance of such print or any demonstration was made. The seed pouches as Annexure-S to S-4 were sold to the complainant mechanically and the poor gullible farmer had sown them in the land. Then we indulge to observe the color photographs of the plants in the field as Annexure-M to Q(‘O’ excluded). The germination and plant growth on these photographs taken on 12.01.2016 appears to be robust without any buds. Never any flowering has taken place. Albeit as claimed by the O.P.No.1. The inspections has taken place at a slightly delayed dates i.e. by the V.A. on 15.01.2016 and by the Assistant Horticulture officer on 27.07.2016, and so also the legal notice was issued during the month of October 2016, the color photographs bearing ht dates cannot be completely ignored.
11. The hoopla raised by the opponent No.1 regarding the provisions of seeds Act and Rules, has been effectively dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paras 35,36 of the case law M/s National Seeds Corpn. Limited v/s M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another as hereunder.
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 there under 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 there of 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 naove 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.
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 byf the appellant were defective.
12. Hence considering, the cases and evidences laid, we perceive that, the seeds provided by the opponents were defective, of masculine variety totally, for which though robust plant growth had taken place, no budding happened and hence we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.
13. Point .No.2: NO evidence is laid before us by the complainant that, his computation of loss and damages deserve to be given cent percent credence. Although, the revenue official i.e. V.A. in his Panchanama (Annexure-T) has mentioned a loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. The same aspect is missing from the investigation of the Assistant Horticulture officer at Annexure-U. In the absence of any expert opinion, we have to take resort to guess work and a wise, reasonable guess would be that, the farmer had sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- to be compensated and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant together with an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of sale of seeds i.e. 24.08.2015 till realisation;
- The O.P.s are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (each) towards litigation expenses,
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 15th day of October 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Original R.T.C. of survey No.9/4 Ahamdabad Village
Bhalki Tq, Bidar District. - Annexure.B– Office copy of legal notice date:18.08.2016 to the
opponents. - Annexure.C- Reply of opponents date:08.09.2016 to the legal notice.
- Annexures.D– Corrigendum to legal notice bearing date:27.10.2016.
- Annexure.E to H- Original postal receipts.
- Annexure.J- Track consignment extract of postal department.
- Annexure.K- Undelivered postal covered in respect of O.P.No.2.
- Annexure.L- Postal acknowledgement in respect of notice sent to
O.P.No.2. - Annexure.M to Q(o-ommited)- Color photographs of the fields
and crops grown date:12.01.2016. - Annexure.R- Tax invoice (original) date:24.08.2015 of the O.P.No.2.
- Annexure.S to S-4- Five Cut and empty pouches of Garima F1
(CLX 33256).
- Annexure.T- Original panchanama of village Accountant
Ahamadabad date:15.01.2016. - Annexure.U- Original report of Assistant Horticultural Officer
date:27.07.2016.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1-Original authorisation letter date:22.05.2017..
- Annexure.R.2- Copy of quality information sheet date:27.04.2015.
- Annexure.R.3- Original letter providing certified copy of
temperature data for Bidar District of the Director
Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring
Centre of Government of Karnataka.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Chitanand Rao S/o Narsing Rao Kardale(Complainant).
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Sri Vinodkumar S/o Gurucharan Pande Sales department
officer HM Clause India Private Limited.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
