Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/7

Balvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ankur Seeds Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

06 Mar 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                   7 of 2018

Date of Institution :   12.01.2018

Date of Decision :       6.03.2019

Balvir Singh aged 72 years s/o Sant Singh r/o village Kohar Wala near Gurudwara Sahib, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Ankur Seeds Pvt Ltd having its registered office : 27, New Cotton Market Layout, Nagpur-440018 (M S) India through its MD/Director/Authorised Signatory /Partner.
2. M/s Aggarwal Seeds Store situated at Old Grain Market Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Proprietor

......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

               

Present:  Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

    Sh B L Malhotra, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

    Sh Vipen Wadhawan, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for selling inferior quality hybrid seeds and for seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of compensation for loss in crop production and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation expenses.

cc no.   7 of 2018

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and OP-1 is the manufacturer of seeds and OP-2 is their retailer. It is submitted that on assurance of OP-2 for good quality and better yield, complainant purchased two packets of Ankur 3028 BG-II cotton seeds vide bill no 9010 dt 28.04.2017 for Rs.1600/- from OP-2. Complainant has about one and half acres of land and before sowing seeds, complainant prepared the land with utmost care, he gave due care to the fields and used prescribed quantity of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and other material for the development of agriculture and crop. He spent huge amount in preparation of land, fertilizers, diesel, pesticides, insecticides, irrigation, labour and machinery work since the day of sowing the cotton seeds till the date of plucking the cotton balls in the hope of obtaining good yield worth Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/-, but in the month of August when plants grew up, complainant noticed that plants were small and were short in cotton balls, which resulted in lesser yield and it occurred due to substandard seeds supplied by OPs. Complainant complained about this to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot on 3.09.2017 and thereafter, officials of Department checked and inspected the fields of complainant and made report dated 6.10.2017 wherein mentioned that average height of cotton plant is 5.5 feet and approximately 10-12 cotton flowers are grown, but in the present case, size of plant was small and average 30-35 cotton balls are grown in block. Complainant again approached OPs with request to pay compensation for loss caused to him, but all in vain as they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant made many requests to Ops to accept his claim, but all in vain. It is further contended that OPs intentionally sold defective, substandard seeds to complainant in the garb of good and fertile seeds and defrauded the complainant due to which complainant has to face many

cc no.   7 of 2018

problems and due to supply of defective/sub standard seeds by OPs, complainant has suffered huge loss, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for granting him compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of crop alongwith Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.01.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that by his own act and conduct, complainant is barred from filing the present complaint and no cause of action arises against them. complainant is not their consumer as complainant has not used the seeds for his livelihood and thus, he does not fall under the definition of consumer. He has concealed material facts from this Forum and even no expert report is produced on record by complainant that seeds were defective. Answering Op sold the seeds to complainant in sealed condition and they never made any assurance to complainant regarding quality of yield of crop. However, on merits OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and  reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Inspection was not done in the presence of OP and even report procured by complainant is also false one. Seeds were not defective, rather complainant himself was negligent in doing farming practices. Moreover, complainant never approached answering OP regarding his grievance to them. no cause of action arises against answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.   7 of 2018

5                               OP-2 also filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and even complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is based on concocted facts. Complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 (1) (c) of the Act  as he has not got seeds in question analyzed from any appropriate laboratory. It as averred that yield or germination of crop depends on various factors from preparation of land upto plucking of crop i.e preparation, levelling, fertilizers, type of land, proper irrigation, climate, seasonal conditions and methods of sowing etc and in complaint, complainant has not mentioned whether level of land is same everywhere in which alleged seeds were sown. Complainant has not followed the instructions and recommendations given by Punjab Agriculture University. It is admitted that complainant purchased two packets of seeds from them and at the time of purchasing the seeds, answering OP told complainant to that as per recommendations of PAU, 750 gms is recommended for one acre and not more nor less than 750 grams, but neglected the instructions of PAU and sew the tolal two packets in one acre of land i.e 900 grams meaning thereby 150 grams excess seeds for the greed of heavy crop. Every single plant needs its proper space to grow to its normal height and to give proper fruit but when 150 grams seeds were sown extras, the space of plant got less and it would not grow to its normal height nor will give proper fruit and thus, yield will not come properly due to lack of nutrients and space. It is further averred that OP-2 have provided very good quality of seeds to complainant, but complainant sowed 150 gram excess seeds in his fields to obtain heavy crop and ignored the instructions and recommendations of PAU. As per OP-2 report of department is no report in the eyes of law and no notice was given to

cc no.   7 of 2018

them for inspection and it is prepared falsely in connivance with officials. Even no description of land is mentioned in the report and it is silent about killa number, khasra number. All the allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

6                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar as Ex OP-1/1 and then, evidence of OP-1 was closed by the order of this Forum. Counsel for OP-2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar as Ex OP-2/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-2.                         

8                                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is an agriculturist and is doing farming for his livelihood. OP-1 is the manufacturer of seeds and OP-2 is their retailer. On assurance of OP-2, complainant purchased two packets of Ankur 3028 BG-II cotton seeds against proper bill and sowed the same in his land. He gave due care to the fields and spent huge amount in preparation of land, fertilizers, diesel, pesticides, insecticides, irrigation, labour and machinery work since the day of sowing the cotton seeds till the date of plucking the cotton balls in the hope of obtaining good yield, but when plants grew up, he noticed that plants were small and were short in cotton balls, which resulted in lesser yield and it occurred due to substandard seeds supplied by OPs. Complainant complained about this to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot on 3.09.2017 and on inspection

cc no.   7 of 2018

their officials made report dated 6.10.2017 wherein mentioned that average height of cotton plant is 5.5 feet and approximately 10-12 cotton flowers are grown, size of plant was small and average 30-35 cotton balls are grown in block. Complainant approached OPs with request to pay compensation for loss caused to him, but despite his requests, OPs did not accept his claim.

9                                               To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that complainant is not their consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The present complaint is not maintainable. They sold the seeds in sealed condition and they never made any assurance to complainant regarding quality of yield of crop. OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that inspection was not done in their presence and even report procured by complainant is also false one. Seeds were not defective, rather complainant himself was negligent in doing farming practices. It is further argued that complainant never approached answering OP regarding his grievance to them. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-1. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against OP-1 and same may be dismissed.

10                                       The Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued that the complainant is doing farming business and sells his crop in the market for commercial purpose and therefore, seeds purchased by him for commercial purpose and as it is a commercial transaction so he does not fall in the definition of consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So, present complaint may be dismissed on this ground. The allegations of complainant are not based on scientific or laboratory tests and are an abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency in

cc no.   7 of 2018

service on the part of OP-2 and he is not the service provider. Complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13 (1) (c) of the Act  as he has not got seeds in question analyzed from any appropriate laboratory. It as averred that yield or germination of crop depends on various factors from preparation of land upto plucking of crop i.e preparation, levelling, fertilizers, type of land, proper irrigation, climate, seasonal conditions and methods of sowing etc and in complaint, complainant has not mentioned whether level of land is same everywhere in which alleged seeds were sown. He has not followed the instructions and recommendations given by Punjab Agriculture University. It is admitted that complainant purchased seeds in question and at that time, he was asked to follow the instructions of PAU and as per recommendations of PAU, 750 gms is recommended for one acre and not more nor less than 750 grams, but complainant neglected the instructions of PAU and sowed total two packets in one acre of land i.e 900 grams meaning thereby 150 grams excess seeds for the greed of heavy crop. Every single plant needs its proper space to grow to its normal height and to give proper fruit but when 150 grams seeds were sown extra, the space of plant got less and it would not grow to its normal height nor will give proper fruit and thus, yield will not come properly due to lack of nutrients and space. OP-2  sold very good quality of seeds, but complainant sowed 150 gram excess seeds in his fields to obtain heavy crop and ignored the instructions and recommendations of PAU. As per OP-2 report of department is prepared falsely in connivance with officials. Even no description of land is mentioned in the report and it is silent about killa number, khasra number. All the allegations of complainant are refuted with prayer for dismissal of complaint.

 

cc no.   7 of 2018

11                                            We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by parties.

12.                                   The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist and OP-1 is the manufacturer of seeds and OP-2 is their dealer. On assurance of OP-2 that  the seeds manufactured by them are of good quality and give good yield, he purchased seeds in question manufactured by OP-1 through OP-2 and sown these seeds in his land but when the crop grew up, he found that the plants were lesser height and even cotton balls were also lesser in number on every plant. He reported the matter to OP-2 and also to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot, who inspected the land of complainant and made report regarding it. In his Technical Report Ex C-3, Agriculture Department has clearly mentioned that height of plants is less than average height acquired by plants and even cotton balls on these plants were also lesser in number. Normally 30-35 cotton balls grow in block, which is due to defective or substandard quality of seeds provided by OPs. Grievance of complainant is that he has suffered huge financial loss due to substandard quality of seeds supplied by OPs to him. In reply OP-1 pleaded that complainant is not their consumer and even seeds sold by them were not defective, rather complainant himself was negligent in doing farming practices. OP asserted that they sold two packets of good quality of seeds to complainant, but complainant sowed 150 gram excess seeds in his fields to obtain heavy crop and ignored the instructions and recommendations of PAU. Complainant did not follow the right farming practices and even report procured by complainant is also false one as no notice was given to them for inspection and it is prepared falsely in connivance with officials of Agriculture Department. No description of land is given in the report and it is silent

cc no.   7 of 2018

about killa number, khasra number. All the allegations of complainant are refuted and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

13                                             The first issue of the OPs is that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he purchased the seeds for commercial purpose and as he had to sell his crop in the market and he does not fall under definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. On this point, ld counsel complainant has placed reliance on the citation 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC) titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs M Madhusudhan Reddy and another, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(d)(i)-Consumer – the farmers/growers who purchased good by paying price would fall within the ambit of Section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Act. He put reliance on the citation I (1996) CPJ 110 (NC) titled as Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs A. Karuppanan Servai & Ors wherein our Hon’ble National Commission held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (d) and (g)- “Agriculturists”  -  “Seeds” – “Commercial Purpose” – Agriculturists purchased paddy seeds known as IR-20 – Paddy raised – Found that paddy seeds did not belong to the said variety but was a mixture of other course variety – Yield was much less and paddy harvested could not be sold at a good price – District Forum allowed the complaint – State Commission upheld the finding – Hence revision – Whether the manufacturer of seeds are liable ? – (yes) –m Whether the complainants are consumers? -  (yes).

14                                     The second point raised by OPs is that the complainant failed to prove that he had sown the same seeds in his fields, which were manufactured by OP-1 and purchased by him from OP-2  and it requires  strict

cc no.   7 of 2018

proof. On it ld counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 838 (SC) titled as National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs M Madhusudhan Reddy and another, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section13(1) (c) and 12 – Seeds Purchased by Farmers from Seed Corporation – Seeds found to be defective – Farmer unable to produce defective sample before Consumer Forum as entire seed was sown and no sample was retained – Complaint could not be rejected – To prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing – Defective sample otherwise proved by Horticulture and Agriculturist experts.

15                                            The Ld Counsel for OP-1 argued that they never assured complainant regarding the quality of the seeds and seeds produced by them were of good quality. They also challenged the report of Agriculture Department and argued that it is procured one. On it, the ld Counsel for complainant put reliance on the citation (I) (1994 ) CPJ 80 National Commission titled as The Malaprabha Neerwari Balakedarara (irrigation Consumer ) Co-operative Sangha Ltd Vs The State of Karnataka, Department of Agriculture & Ors wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14 (1) (d) – “Seeds” – “Compensation” – A seed produced represented to farmers that there Cotton Seed ‘Shivnath’ has a better yield performance than ‘DCH 32’ Cotton Seeds – Farmers purchased the seeds – Where the seeds sprouted, the farmers realised the low resistance and poor germination capacity of the Cotton plants to pest – Consequently the farmers suffered heavy loss in the yield of Cotton – Hence complaint – Evidence was gathered through a two member committee to find out inter alia evidence – Whether Shivnath Cotton Seed was defective in quality – Committee constituted submitted its finding, excluding that performance of this

cc no.   7 of 2018

Cotton Seed was poor both in yield and quality – Farmers have incurred loss both in terms of field and market price.

          Held : We have gone through the report of the Commissioners and find that they have considered all the relevant evidences. Their findings are not vitiated in any manner. Therefore, we uphold the report of Commissioners.

The Commissioners have prepared a statement showing the estimated loss incurred by the farmers of Arekurahatti village due to Shiv Nath cotton seeds grown during 1988-89. That statement is at pages 40 to 46 of the report of the Commissioners. Names and addresses of farmers who incurred loss on account of sowing of Shiv Nath Cotton seeds supplied by M/s Nath Seeds Ltd i.e the Company has also been prepared y the Company and it is at pages 47 to 49. We order that both the lists shall form the part of this order. The various farmers mentioned in the list are awarded amounts as estimated by the Commissioners in the list which is at pages 40 to 46 of the report. These amounts will be payable by the Opposite Parties Nos. 5 to 7 jointly and severally within two months of the receipt of this order. The Complainant is also allowed Rs 5000/-as costs of the present proceedings from the said Opposite Parties.

 16                                           The main stress of the OP-1 that the seeds produced by them are of good quality and are duly certified and they sell their sealed packets after due certification of the competent authority. In support of his case, the complainant produced bill Ex C-2 vide which, he purchased the seeds. On this, the bill it is clearly mentioned regarding the manufacturer of the seeds i.e OP-1. Complainant succeeds in proving that he purchased seeds which were produced

 

cc no.   7 of 2018

by OP-1. Further, complainant produced Ex C-3 copy of Technical Report given by Agriculture Officer, Kotkapura, which is beyond any doubt and is fully authentic. It clearly explains the grievance of complainant that he obtained lesser yield by sowing the seeds manufactured by OP-1. Ex C-7 is copy of jamabandi that proves the fact that complainant owns a land where he planted these seeds and affidavits of Bachitar Singh and Kulwant Singh Ex C-8 and Ex C-9 respectively prove that complainant had been doing farming for a long time and has been observing right farming practices and have never ignored or neglected the instructions and recommendations of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana in growing and plantings crops. No report of any independent laboratory  has been placed on record by OP to show that seeds in question were not substandard or of inferior quality. In these circumstances, complainant has proved that loss to his crop has occurred due to supply of sub standard seeds by OP-2, which were manufactured by OP-1.

17                          From the above discussion and arguments led by the parties and case law and evidence produced by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that complainant suffered loss due to substandard quality of seeds which were manufactured by OP-1 and this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Now, come to the quantum of compensation to be paid to complainant. As complainant sowed seeds in his one and half acres of land, if the normal average yield of cotton crop in the relevant year is 8 quintals per acre and average rate of cotton crop is Rs.4,500/- per quintal and complainant has suffered loss to his crop to the extent of 50%, then in that case, complainant suffered loss for his cotton crop grown in his one and half acres of land for  6 quintals, which

 

cc no.   7 of 2018

comes to Rs.27,000/-. OP-2 is only retailer and has no role in causing loss to complainant and therefore, complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed.

18                                      In the light of above discussion, complaint against OP-1 is hereby allowed and stands dismissed against OP-2. OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization to complainant on account of loss of crop suffered by him due to substandard seeds manufactured by OP-1. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 6.03.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                 President