DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  31^st day of October,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                :   Smt.Vidya A., Member             

CC/148/2017

Date of Filing: 12/10/2017

Paul Raj,

S/o. Arogyaswamy,

Nalla Veetu Kalam, Menonpara (PO),

Palakkad.

(By Adv.E  Ramachandran)                                   -                             Complainant

                                                                            Vs

1. Manager,

    M/s.Green Farms, 4/131 D, Rangasamudram,

    Pichanur (PO), Coimbatore 641 405.

2.Managing Director,

   HM Clause India (Pvt) Ltd.,

   D.No.6-98/4, Sy.no.563/pt, Medchal Mandal,

   Ranga Reddy Street, Telengana State 501 401               -                  Opposite parties

  (OP 1. Adv.P Gopinath)

   OP 2. Adv.T  Mahesh)

O R D E R 

By Smt.Vidya A., Member

Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

1. The complainant is  an agriculturist and he earns his livelihood from the produce which he sells based on the various cultivations done in his property.  The 1^st opposite party represented to the complainant that they are the authorized agent of ‘CLAUSE’ branded lady’s finger seeds developed and marketed by the 2^nd opposite party and it is an excellent variety capable of providing best results and enabling the farmers to get huge profits.  Believing the 1^st opposite party’s words, the complainant purchased 1.25 kg of lady’s finger seeds of ‘CLAUSE OKRA SURAKSHA’ variety on 05.04.2017.

As per the normal conventional method of cultivating lady’s finger, it will start producing yield within 45 days from the date of sowing.  But by using this variety of seeds, the complainant found that the produce is very less and are of inferior quality with white patches on each lady’s finger.  Due to this, the complainant could not sell it and the entire produce started perishing from his farm itself.

The complainant spent almost 1 lakh rupees for the cultivation including irrigation facilities expecting to get huge profit.  Due to the inferior quality seeds supplied by the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party, the complainant suffered a damage of Rs.2 lakhs.  Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the damages suffered by him.  The complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice calling upon them to pay Rs. 2 lakh as compensation, but they sent reply raising false allegations.

In the reply letter 1^st opposite party stated that they sold the product in the sealed packet and only the conditions mentioned in the packet could be implied.  They further stated that they did not get any complaints from any other person regarding that variety of Lady’s finger.

The complainant contended that the seeds manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and sold by the 1^st opposite party did not conform to the minimum standards prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1996.  The cultivation using the ÓKRA’ branded seeds were done as per the practice recommended by the 1^st opposite party.  No conditions for cultivations are stated in the cover in which the seeds are supplied.

There is clear Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by him.  So this complaint is filed to get a total compensation of Rs.2, 09,000/- under various heads with interest at 12% from the opposite parties.

2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions.
3. Pleadings of 1^st opposite party in their version.

The 1^st opposite party never exaggerated the quality of the ‘Clause’ branded lady’s finger seeds sold by him.  It is a good brand in the market with no complaints so far.  Agricultural operation is dependent on many factors especially vagaries of nature and hence seller of agriculture seeds will not give a warranty for their products. The yield depends on many factors beyond their control.  The 1^st opposite party had no knowledge about the problems faced by the complainant till the receipt of lawyer notice.  The complainant being an experienced agriculturist, as claimed by him, need not rely on the 1^st opposite party for the purchase of the seeds.  The opposite party had purchased the seeds from Sri. Udumalpet   Hi-tech Seeds and they are necessary party to the complaint and the complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties.  The 1^st opposite party had sold good seeds manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and if any loss is caused to the complainant using that, he has to prove that.

Agricultural operations are dependent on various environmental factors and hence the complaint put forward by the complainant is a frivolous one and it has to be dismissed with their cost.

4. Pleadings of the 2^nd opposite party in their version.

Complainant is not a Consumer as he is not a farmer and the seeds were purchased by him for commercial purpose.  As per the complaint, the complainant purchased the seeds on 05.04.2017 and the first picking starts from 45 days from the date of sowing. 

The first complaint from the complainant was received by the 2^nd opposite party in June 2017 and one of the representatives from the company visited the complainant’s field on 03.06.2017.  Till that time the complainant had harvested the fields for at least 8-10 pickings and had already reaped the benefits of the crop.  It was found that the seeds were germinated into full plants with excellent vegetative growth which means that the seeds manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party were of good quality and meeting all the standards laid down by the Seeds Act.  The photographs produced by the complainant also prove the fact.

  On inspection of the field, it was found that the standing crop of the complainant was infected with Yellow Vein Mosaic Virus (YVMV) disease.  Conventionally the ideal time for sowing of Okra crop in Tamil Nadu and Kerala is December to January and the complainant had sown the seeds in April when the weather conditions are hot and humid and not suitable for sowing which resulted in speedy and excessive growth of YVMV Virus.

Further it was observed that the field had Green flies (leaf hoppers), red mites and white flies which act as carriers of the virus and which if not controlled with proper and timely spraying of, and pesticides will affect the yields which is not attributable to the quality of the seeds.  The representative of the 2^nd opposite party company advised the complainant to give appropriate chemicals and fertilizers to control the disease and increase the yield.  After the receipt of legal notice from the complainant, the representative again visited the field on 17.07.2017 and observed that the complainant had not followed the advice of the expert and had left maintaining his field.  The crop loss to the complainant, if any, had occurred due to external factors for which the opposite party is in no way liable.  The opposite party had done all stringent quality control test and sold good quality seeds.

     The complaint is premature as the complainant without giving any information sought in the reply to the Lawyer notice, filed this complaint.  There are various external factors affecting the growth, flowering and fruit setting stages of the plant growth like diseases, insects, moisture content, temperature and use of fertilizers and chemicals.  The opposite parties did not receive any complaints regarding the seeds from anywhere.  It is purely because of the complainant’s fault and because of the stressful climatic conditions, the complainant suffered loss. So the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

5.  From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

      1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

      2.  Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

      3. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the lady’s finger

 seeds (namely  CLAUSE OKRA SURAKSHA) manufactured and sold by    

  the opposite parties were of poor quality?

  4. Whether the loss in the cultivation was due to climate conditions and

        lack of proper   maintenance by the complainant?

   5 . Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

        6. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

        7. Reliefs, if any, as cost and compensation.

6.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence, Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 to A7 marked (A6 in series). Opposite parties also filed their proof affidavit and no documents were marked from their side. PW2 to PW4 were examined from complainant’s side as witness and the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1.

7.  Point No.1

       The 2^nd opposite party had raised the contention that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as he is not a farmer at all and the seeds were purchased by him for commercial purpose.

           The complaint pleadings are to the effect that the complainant is an agriculturist and he earns his livelihood from the produce which he sells based on the various cultivations in his property.

          In order to prove his contention, he produced the Certificate from the Agricultural officer, Vadakarapathy which is marked as Exhibit A7 (Subject to proof).  Later on agricultural officer was examined as PW4 and he deposed that the certificate was issued after verifying all the documents relating to the survey numbers mentioned in Exhibit A7. This shows that the complainant is a farmer who earns his livelihood from the cultivations in his land. So he is a ‘Consumer’ within the ambit of definition of Consumer Protection Act. Point No: 1 is found in favour the complainant.  

8. Point No.2

    The 1^st opposite party had raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary party in their version According to the 1^st opposite party, they had purchased the seeds from Sri. Udumalpet Hitech seeds and they are a necessary party to the proceeding.

     But there is no merit in this contention.  The complainant had purchased the seeds from 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party and he made both of them as parties  in the complaint.  The complainant need not look into the party from whom the 1^st opposite party had purchased the seeds. There is no need to  make them  party in the complaint to resolve his issue.  So they are not a necessary party.  Point no.2 is decided accordingly.

9.  Points 3 & 4

     It is admitted that the complainant purchased lady’s finger seeds of ‘l Cause okra Suraksha’ variety from the 1^st opposite party which is produced by the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext A1 invoice /credit bill dated 05.04.2017 is the bill issued for the purchase of seeds (250 gm x 5) costing Rs.3500/-. The complainant’s contention is that he purchased the seeds on the assurance given by 1^st opposite party that this variety of seeds is an excellent one which gives good results and the complainant will get huge profit out of this.

     The 1^st opposite party denied this and stated that agricultural production is dependent on many factors especially vagaries of nature and no seller of agriculture seeds gives warranty for their products.  Further he states that the complainant being an agriculturist having experience (as claimed by the complainant) could have selected the seeds himself and there is no question of relying on the skill of 1^st opposite party.

     Other than the submission, no evidence is adduced to show that the complainant purchased the seeds on the inducement of opposite party.  Nothing was brought out in the cross examination of 1^st opposite party.   It is true that agriculture is dependent on various factors like climate, texture of soil, availability of proper fertilizers, water, etc.  So no one can give a warranty about the yield, but only can express their opinion about the quality of the seeds.

10.    The complainant’s main grievance is that the seeds which are sold to him by the 1^st opposite party and produced by the second opposite party were of substandard quality.  They did not meet the minimum standard prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966.  They did not give the expected yield.

          He further contended that as per the normal conventional method relating to the lady’s finger cultivation, the seeds should develop into a plant and should start giving the produce within 45 days of sowing.

As per PW1’s deposition, he sowed the seeds on 06.04.2017.  PW2 who is an agriculturist having land near PW1 deposed that the complainant had reaped the lady’s finger cultivation in his land on May 20^th.  This indicates that the lady’s finger seeds used by the complainant developed into plants and started giving yields within 45 days itself.  The complainant also deposed that he had reaped the cultivation 3 times.  Deposition page no.5 (1^st sentence) F{X XhW sh­¡ ]dn¨v amÀ¡än sIm­p t]mbn sImSp¯n«p­v? 3 XhW. tat\m³]mdbnse ISbnemWv hnäXv .

He did not mention in the complaint that he had reaped the lady’s finger cultivation 3 times before making complaints to the opposite parties regarding the quality of seeds.  Only on re-examination he stated that

  “3 XhW tat\m³]mdbn sImSp¯Xv 10 apX 20 In.{Kmw BWv.

    t\mÀa BsW¦n AXv 400 In.{Kmw hcpw.”

11.    Even though the complainant stated that he used the conventional method for cultivation, he did not mention what exactly he did for cultivation. The complainant had caused issuance of ‘Lawyer Notice’ to the opposite parties on 10^th July 2017 complaining that the yield he got is very less and are of inferior quality with white patches on lady’s finger.  Due to this, nobody was willing to purchase the product and the entire produce perished in the farm itself. 

12.    As reply to this, the opposite parties send a letter on 18.07.2017 which is marked as Exhibit A4 requesting to provide some details such as; pictures of the field showing performance of the variety with date of picture (No.4), Date of sowing (No.5) details of picking (No.6), Details of pesticides/fertilizers used (No.8), to give a solution for the complainant’s grievance.

        No evidence is produced to show that the complainant had given the above details to the opposite party and they did not do anything even after giving the details.  The complainant averred that these queries were put forth by the opposite parties to harass him and according to him the 2^nd opposite party was seeking unwanted information from him.  But the questions appears to be relevant in determining the actual issue whether that the damage is caused due to the substandard quality of seeds or other environmental factors.

13.    Normally if the seeds are of substandard quality they will not germinate and  produce fruits.  Here the complainant had reaped his crops 3 times.  He had not mentioned   whether the problem of white patches on the lady’s finger appeared in the first instance itself.  He produced some photographs (without date) showing the affected crops.  From this, it is not possible to identify the problems clearly.  Some leaves had obviously color change and seen affected with insects.

        Whether it is due to the substandard quality of seeds or due to the lack of proper maintenance and failure to apply pesticides in time is not clear.

        The opposite parties had taken the plea that the agricultural yield depends on various factors existing at the time of planting of seeds like the season for planting the seeds, the use of fertilizers, availability of water and other factors like quality of the soil.

        The complainant had not succeeded in proving that the fungal infection in the crop has lead to bad produce which is the result of inferior quality seeds manufactured and sold by the opposite parties.

 14.   The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that he had properly maintained his fields by giving proper irrigation and used fertilizers in time. He has not produced report from any technical expert stating that the yield reduction is due to poor quality of seeds and not because of improper maintenance of the crops. 

                       So points No.3+4 are decided against the complainant.

Points 5 to 7

15.    In view of the findings in points 3 &4, the complainant failed to prove that the damages caused to him were the result of sub standard quality of the seeds produced& sold by the opposite parties.  So there is no Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Further the 2^nd opposite party on receiving the lawyer notice, send  reply seeking details regarding cultivation to solve the issue.  But the complainant had not seen provided the required information to the opposite party.

        As per the 2^nd opposite party’s affidavit the representative of the 2^nd opposite party visited the complainant’s field on 03.06.2017 and found that the complainant had harvested the fields for at least 8-10 picking and the standing crops were found infested with a virus disease.  He advised the complainant to give appropriate pesticides to control the disease and increase the yield.  On his second visit on 17.07.2017, the representative found the crops unattended and the complainant had not followed the advice given by them.  Their contention is not countered by the complainant.

              Hence the complainant failed to prove that that substandard quality seeds produced & sold by the opposite parties were the cause of damages caused to the complainant. So we are not inclined to allow the prayer in the complaint.

           In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

     Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st day of October,  2022.

                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                           Presiden

                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                             Vidya.A

                          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –   Bill issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant dated 05.04.2017

                (original)

Ext.A2  –  The original cover in which the seeds were supplied to the complainant

                 by the 1^st opposite party.  

Ext.A3  –   Copy of lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the  

                  opposite  parties dated 10.07.2017.

Ext.A4  –    The reply notice issued on behalf of the 2^nd opposite parties to the

                  complainant ’s counsel, dated 18.07.2017.

Ext.A5   –   The reply notice issued on behalf of the 1^st opposite party to the

                 complainant’s counsel dated 26.07.2017.

Ext. A6  – (series ) Photographs showing the cultivation and the produce (5 Nos)

 Ext.A7   –  Certificate issued by “Agricultural Officer,Vadkarapathy dated

                 22.05.2019.

  Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties    -  Nil

  Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1    -   Paulraj (Complainant)

PW2     -   Devadas

PW3     - Anthonisami

PW4     -  Jiji Allen(Agricultural Officer, Elapully)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

 DW1   - Selvan. R   (Manager, Opposite party 1)