DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No.140/1.3.2005

Date of order: 12.3.2009



Bhagwant Singh aged 28 years son of Shri Jagmail Singh, resident of Village Lalton, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. M/s Ladhowal Seeds, Opposite P.A. U Gate No.1, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through Shri. Harjinder Singh, its partner/proprietor.



2. Harjinder Singh, partner/proprietor of M/s Ladhowal Seeds, Opposite PAU Gate No.1, Ludhiana.



3. Ramesh, manager partner/proprietor of M/s Ladhowal Seeds, opposite PAU Gate No.1, Ludhiana.



4. M/s Kisan Seeds Store, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana through its partner/Properitor.



5. M/s Kadian Seeds Corporation, Lalani Road, Taraori, Distt. Karnal, Haryana, through its partner/proprietor

(Opposite Parties)



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

…..



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh. Gagandeep Singh Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. M.S. Sethi Advocate for OP No.1& 4

Sh. K.S. Grewal Advocate for OP No.5



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant, who is an agriculturist purchased three bags paddy seeds “PUSA 44”, three bags of PR-114 and three bags of PR-111 vide bill dated 8.4.2004, amounting to Rs. 2950/- from opposite parties no.1 to 3 representing opposite party no.4 & 5. At the time of sale, he was apprised that “PUSA 44” seeds are of good quality and would bear good result. Complainant sowed “PUSA 44” seed in his land on 10.4.2004. After germination of the seeds, saplings were planted in the fields. Complainant followed the procedure while sowing the crop in the fields. But when the plants were of small size, suspicion arose that the seeds supplied were not of “PUSA 44”. Hence, opposite parties no. 1 to 3 were contacted complaining poor quality of plants. They informed the complainant to wait till full growth of the plants and assured that the seeds were of “PUSA 44”. Believing version of opposite parties no.1 to 3, complainant waited till full growth of the plants. On growth of the plants, it was found that the seeds were not of “PUSA 44” but were of inferior quality. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 were again contacted complaining qua inferior quality of seeds instead of “PUSA 44” but they paid no heed to his request. Hence, through Collector, Ludhiana obtained services of Chief Agriculture officer who sent Sh. Pritpal Singh ADO to visit the spot and confirm qua seeds sold by opposite parties no.1 to 3 of “PUSA 44”. He also confirmed the seeds of inferior quality and that they were not “PUSA 44”. This caused financial loss to the complainant, as 80% of his crop suffered loss due to spurious quality of seeds. As such, claiming resorting to unfair trade practice by opposite party , instituted the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for refund of price of seed amounting to Rs.1200 and Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of profit and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment.

2. Opposite party no.1 in its reply claimed that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as manufacturer of the seeds M/s Kadian Seed Corporation was not impleaded. That sealed and packed bags of seeds with tags were purchased from them. Also pleaded that the complainant has not explained how much land was used by him while sowing the seed, as to when noticed inferior quality of seeds, name of inferior seed not disclosed ; what was yield from inferior quality seeds not mentioned and how he presumed that the seeds were inferior to PUSA -44. Complainant has failed to submit the report under Seed Act, 1966 and he never got the seeds tested from any expert. No loss was suffered by the complainant. Neither seed sold were defective or spurious. They sold the seeds in packed and sealed condition in which had procured from the manufacturer. They never indulged in unfair trade practice. There is no proof that seeds purchased by the complainant i.e. “PUSA 44” were sown by him on his land. As in addition to “PUSA 44” had also purchased PR-114 and PR-111 seeds. It is denied that the complainant followed proper procedure for sowing the seed. Also, denied that when the plants grew up, suspicion arose in the mind of the complainant qua quality of the seeds. Complainant never approached them or complained qua quality of the inferior seed. Neither they intimated him to wait till growth of the plants. He has made up false story qua it. M/s Kadian Seed Corporation is approved by Haryana Govt. for sale of “PUSA 44” seeds. Seeds sold by them were of best quality. Hence, complainant has no cause against them.

3. Opposite party no.4 in separate reply pleaded that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant. They never rendered any services to the complainant. Complaint is claimed time barred. They have also taken same pleas in defence as were taken by opposite party no.1. They denied that opposite parties no.1 to 3 were representing opposite party no.4. They had only sold packed and sealed bags of “PUSA 44” to opposite party no.1 as per bill dated 30.3.2004 which had purchased from opposite party no.5 vide bill dated 17.3.2004. But there is no proof that the same seed was sold to the complainant by opposite party no.1.

4. Opposite party no.5 claimed to be manufacturer of the seeds, in reply have also controverted the allegations of the complainant. It is averred by them that as no copy of the bill is supplied to them. “PUSA 44” seeds sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant was not having their mark of manufacturing. There is no proof that “PUSA 44” was of their branch Kadian Seed Corporation or that the seeds sown by complainant were manufactured by them. Further claimed that they have got license and certificate from year to year for renewal of processing plant from Chief Seed Certification Officer, Karnal, who after conducting primary test, validation etc. authorised them to deal in seeds. “PUSA 44” is best quality seed under their brand name. Complainant never approached or apprised them of poor quality of seed. Complainant has not come with clean hands. No test from Chief Agriculture Officer qua seed was got conducted by the complainant. They never supplied inferior seeds to their dealer or distributor. It could be possible that loose bags were sold by the agent of the seeds after mixing the seeds of another variety to the complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

5. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective counsels.

6. In this case, the complainant had been able to prove through his own affidavit as well as invoice Ex.C.1 dated 8.4.2004 that purchased from opposite party no.1 to 3, three bags of “PUSA 44”, three bags of PR-114 and three bags of PR-111 vide bill dated 8.4.2005 for Rs.2950/-. The seeds are not alleged by the complainant having been purchased in packed and sealed packets, packed by manufacturer M/s Kadian Seed Corporation-OP No.5. But opposite party no.1, in reply claimed having sold paddy seeds in sealed packets to the complainant which were manufactured by opposite party no.5 and supplied by opposite party no.4. Opposite party no.4 has admitted selling sealed seed packets to opposite party no.1.

7. It is in such aspects to be seen whether the complainant had purchased paddy seed “PUSA 44” in sealed packets. Though it is so, defence taken by opposite party no.1, but complainant himself no where claimed that had purchased seeds in sealed packets and not in loose condition. In invoice Ex.C.1 only the quantity sold seed bags is given and nothing mentioned whether the seeds were in sealed packets.

8. Even if we take for sake of arguments that sealed packets of the seeds were sold, even then it is manifest that complainant had purchased two kinds of seeds vide Ex.C.1 i.e. one of PUSA -44, PR- 111 and PR-111 He in complaint claimed having sown PUSA-44. But he is silent that what he done with other varieties PR-111 and PR-114 which were purchased by him. Also, there is no proof how much land was owned or possessed or cultivated by the complainant on which had sown the purchased seeds. There is also no proof that on how much land, the complainant exclusively sown “PUSA 44” and in how much land other varieties of seeds.

9. Though complainant has claimed and sworn on oath that when seeds grew, had created doubt in his mind, then contacted opposite party no.1 about quality of the seed, who required him to weight till full growth. On full growth, his complaints by opposite party no.1 were not considered. Then approached Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and on his order Agriculture Officer Sh. Pritpal Singh ADO (Seed) Ludhiana was deputed, who inspected his land where had sown “PUSA 44” and submitted report Ex.P8. For proving this report Ex.P-8, Sh. Pritpal Singh had been examined and also cross-examined by opposite party no.4. As per report Ex.P8, inspection on order of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ludhiana, was carried of the land of Sh. Bhagwant Singh and Sh. Jagwinder Singh complainant where “PUSA 44” seed was sown. 20 acres of Sh.Jaswinder Singh complainant and 11 Acres of Sh. Bhagwant Singh were inspected having crop of “PUSA 44”. On checking, he found that there were many plants mixed in PUSA-44 which had matured and PUSA-44 would mature after one month. This report dated 18.8.2004 of Sh. Pritpal Singh, as such, clearly shows that at the time of inspection two varieties of paddy seeds were found in the fields of the complainant, out of which one variety had already matured and PUSA-44 would mature after one month. It is admitted by him during cross-examination that 8Kg. seeds are required to be cultivated in one acre of land. Though he had not named early variety seeds in the report Ex.P8. But in cross-examination had stated that Govinda was early matured seed but had not mentioned the name of that seed in his report. It was for such reason that he had mentioned in his report, the seeds to be spurious.

10. Even if, we believe such narration of Sh. Pritpal Singh ADO, then we have no material on the record how much loss was occasioned by the complainant due to early maturing of one kind of seed. Though he has mentioned that early matured seed was to the extent of 50 to 55%. What was loss occasioned due to early maturing of seed, compared to other seeds; we have nothing on the record to assess the same. We cannot now term narration of such officer that early seed variety was Gobinda because he had failed to name that variety in his report. Moreover, it is own case of the complainant that had also purchased along with PUSA-44, paddy variety of PR-114 and PR-111 from the opposite party no.1. Possibility consequently can not be over ruled that he might have mixed other varieties with PUSA-44 while sowing to his land or at the time of planting the paddy saplings. Had ADO Sh. Pritpal Singh mentioned in his report Ex.P8 name of early maturing variety of the plants, it would have overruled our suspicion that early plants could be of PR-114, PR-111 and not Gobinda, which he named for the first time while appearing as witness in the Court.

11. In the light of aforesaid aspects, we can not conclude with certainity that seeds sold by opposite party no.1 to the complainant were of spurious nature, kind or quality and in fact were not PUSA-44 as was represented. Therefore, in such scenario of the material on record, opposite party no.1 could not be termed guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice by selling spurious quality of seeds to the complainant which caused loss to him. Hence, having no merit, the complaint is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.



Announced T.N. Vaidya, President.

Dated 12.3.2009