.233 of 2010)

Jitender Sood s/o S. Dharampal Sood r/o ward No.11, Near New Telephone Exchange, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

….… Appellant

                                      V E R S U S

1.                 The Managing Director, P.H.I. Seeds Ltd., H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 3rd Floor, Babu Khan Millennium Centre, Raj Bhawan Road, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh)

2.                 To the Manager, P.H.I. Seeds Ltd., SCO-3, 1st Floor, Sec-20/D, Chandigarh.

3.                 The Manager M/s Rajiv Agro Centre, Shop No.78, New Grain Market, Nabha, Distt. Patiala.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. JPS Sidhu, Adv. for appellant

                   Sh. Pankaj Mulwani, Adv. for respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.5.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased 230 bags of Hybrid Pioneer syalu corn 31 Y 45 seeds from OP-3 for Rs.1,69,050/- vide bill dated 2.2.2009 for 105 acres of his land.  At that time, the OPs assured that the green corn crop would ripen within 75-85 days from the date of sowing.  It was stated that out of the above seeds, he sowed 55 acres of land and managed the crop well.  However, when the crop did not ripen for 60-65 days he complained to the officials of the OPs.  They visited the spot and assured that the crop would start ripening within the next 2-3 days.  When the crop did not ripen for 90-100 days, the complainant complained to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib on 1.6.2009 who after visiting his land on 1.6.2009 gave report dated 11.6.2009 stating that the approximate age of the crop was 105-110 days and, thus, approximately 70-80% loss was caused to the crop of the complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.16,000/- per acre, on seeds, DAP Zinc Sulphate, liberal, urea, water, pesticides and insecticides, for proper care of the crop.  He also employed persons but all in vain. It was further stated that after waiting upto 10.7.2009, he applied for compensation through legal notice dated 4.9.2009 which was replied by the OPs through letter dated 14.9.2009. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

3.                           The OPs, in their written reply, admitted the purchase of 230 bags of Hybrid Pioneer Syalu Corn seed by the complainant.  It was stated that the complainant failed to mention how much quantity of seeds was used by him, for sowing the land.  It was further stated that when the Agronomist visited the field of the complainant, he was told that the crop was not managed well in terms of weed control, plant stand irrigation, at the right stage and further that the complainant did not follow the right basic agronomic practices.  It was denied that there was any finding in the report that the seeds were of poor quality.  It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service or indulged into unfair trade practice.  The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong

4.                           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

8.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that 230 bags of Hybrid Pioneer syalu corn 31 Y 45 seeds which were purchased from OP-3 were of inferior quality.  He further submitted that at the time of delivery by OP-3 to the complainant, he was assured that the crop would ripen within 75-85 days.  He further submitted that all the necessary precautions were taken viz. DAP Zinc Sulphate liberal and urea, the pesticides and insecticides were used and crop was irrigated at the right time by the complainant, yet the complainant could not get the desired results.  He further submitted that since the inferior quality of seeds sold to the complainantm by the OPs, he could not get the desired results, as assured by them, at the time of sale of the seeds. He further submitted that the complainant suffered a loss.  He further submitted that the OPs were, therefore, clearly deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice, but the District Forum was wrong in coming to the contrary conclusion.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

9.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that, no doubt, the aforesaid seeds were purchased by the complainant from him vide invoice (Annexure C-1).  He further submitted that, as per the pamphlet attached with C-2, the period of ripening of the crop in respect of the seeds purchased by the complainant was 105-115 days.  He further submitted that the pamphlet placed by the complainant at page 15 of the District Forum record did not relate to the crop in respect whereof the seeds were purchased.  He further submitted that the ripening of the crop, to the fullest extent, was not only on account of the quality of seeds.  He further submitted that if proper care and caution is not taken by irrigating the fields, in time, or weeding out the same at the appropriate time, or pesticides or insecticides are not used, then certainly, delay would be caused in ripening of crop.  He further submitted that the seeds sold by the OPs were not of inferior quality.  He further submitted that the OPs were, thus, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The main reliance was placed by the complainant on a brochure attached with  C-2, , supplied by the OPs, at page 15 of the paperbook, according to which green corn crop shall be ready within a period of 75-85 days, in the case of Pioneer syalu corn 31Y45 seed crop.  The report of the Agriculture Development Officer dated 11.6.2009, Annexure C-4, to the effect, that the crop, in question, had not ripened well in time resulting into an estimated loss of 70-80% to the same, was relied upon by the complainant.  The question arises, as to whether, only the quality of seed could be said to be the contributory factor, for non ripening of the crop, within the stipulated time.  At page 14 of the paperbook, there is a brochure, which is attached with C-2. It is evident from this document that the crop, in question, was to ripen between 105-115 days.  The affidavits of Jora Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh, Avtar Singh s/o Gurmail Singh, Kala Singh s/o Sun Singh, Major Singh s/o Arjan Singh, Pargat Singh s/o Jagjeet Singh and Kulwinder Singh s/o Surjeet Singh, the neighbouring farmers of the complainant were placed, on record, by the OPs. According to these affidavits, these farmers used the same kind of seeds. They testified, in their affidavits, that they were fully satisfied with the produce of the aforesaid seeds.  Annexure R-2/24 to Annexure R-2/26, are the photographs of the standing crop of the neighbouring farmers, placed on record by the OPs showing that the same was good.  Two photographs at pages 31 & 32 relating to the crop of the complainant, were also placed, on record, by the OPs, which clearly show that there were weeds in the same and also the same had not been properly irrigated, as the fields were lying dry. The report dated 11.6.2009 (C-4) of the Agriculture Development Officer, Sirhind is not based on any data.  He did not state, in this report, as to whether all precautions were taken by the complainant, such as sowing the seeds in time, irrigating the fields in time, putting the requisite, fertilizers pesticides and insecticides, removing the weeds therefrom etc. etc.  This report, being not based on any material or data, no reliance thereon, could be placed.  The District Forum was also right in holding so.

11.                       On the other hand, R-4, is the affidavit of Vivek Kwatra, Regional Agronomist, PHI Seeds Ltd. submitted by the OPs on the record.  In this affidavit, he testified as under :-

                   “1.     That I am working in PHI Seeds Ltd. as Regional Agronomist for the past 2 ½ years.  Visited the field on 18 May 2009, the under mentioned observations raised regarding complaint of 31Y45 :-

(a)            The difference in timing of 1^st sown crop and last sown crop as was claimed by him was 15 days duration, but the height and growth shown by 20 Feb., Crop and 5^th March crop looks to be more than 50 days, as early crop is near maturity, lush green and 6 ft. in height but later on sown crop is hardly 2.3 ft. in height, also it is dry in most of the places and emergence of lag left is not therein.

In conversation he had said that there is a transformer failure in 40 acre plot so initially he was not able to give irrigation on time, but used generator after word.  Looking at the crop there were wide gaps due to poor germination and also proper weed control was not there.

The patch of land which he claim that the crop was of 75 days and he has to leave before 30^th May, shows no sign of tassel emergence and it would have taken another 15 days for emergence, the crop in that patch in my opinion is not more than 50 days old.”

Vivek Kwatra, being the expert, in the relevant field, and had been working as Regional Agronomist in PHI Seeds Ltd. for the last 2 ½ years, at the time of submitting his affidavit dated 17.2.2010, could be said to be a person very well versed  with the growth, height etc., of the crop, in question.  R-3 is the Seed Analysis Report of PHI Seeds Ltd.  It shows that Corn 31Y45 carry genetic purity to the extent of 95%.  From R-3, it was proved that there was no defect in the seed. In his affidavit Mr. Vivek Kwatra, in clear-cut terms, stated that there was nothing wrong with the crop where the height of the seed was upto 6 ft., when it was sown, well in time, but the part of the crop, which was sown later on, the height of the plant was 2.3 ft.  He also, in clear cut terms, stated that in the said affidavit that the crop in question had not been properly irrigated in about 40 acres of plot.  From the affidavit of Vivek Kwatra, an expert Agronomist, it is clear that there were other factors, which contributed to the non-ripening of the crop, upto a certain height. In Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr.-AIR 2005 SC 2023 the Hon’ble Apex Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case, held that the claim for compensation, on the ground ,that the seeds were substandard was not maintainable.  Since the ripening of the crop did not solely rest on the quality of the seed, but was also dependant upon other factors, like timely sowing, weed control, proper irrigation of the crop, use of fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides and overall care and management, on the basis of agronomic practices, no single factor could determine the condition of crop as good or bad.  Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right in holding that the seeds were not of sub- standard quality and, as such, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.  The order of the District Forum, thus, deserves to be upheld

12.                       In view of the above, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 

13.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

14.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

19^th May, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

hg