Haryana

StateCommission

A/259/2016

SUNGRO SEEDS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 259 & 444 of 2016

Date of Institution: 25.03.2016 & 19.05.2016

Date of Decision: 02.06.2017

Appeal No.259 of 2016

Sungro Seeds Limited, Plot No.Manish Chambers, IInd Floor, B.N. Block Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Surender s/o Sh. Randhir, Resident of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Binni Bij Bhandar, Shop No.16, Beej Market, Near Bus Stand, Sonipat-131001.

Respondent No.2

Appeal No.444 of 2016

 

M/s Binni Bij Bhandar, Shop No.16, Beej Market, Near Bus Stand, Sonipat, District Sonipat, through its Proprietor Satish Kumar.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Surender s/o Sh. Randhir, Resident of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Sungro Seeds Limited, Plot No.Manish Chambers, IInd Floor, B.N. Block Local Shopping Centre, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88 through its managing Director. 

 Respondent No.1

 

CORAM:             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for Sungro Seeds Limited.

                             Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for Binni Beej Bhandar.

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No. 259 and 444 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated February 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Complaint No.211 of 2014 filed by Surender-complainant.

2.                Surender s/o Randhir Resident of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (complainant) purchased 9 Kgs. of carrot seeds from Binni Beej Bhandar-Opposite Party No.2, manufactured by Sungro Seeds Limited-Opposite Party No.1, vide receipt dated 9^th August, 2013 (Exhibit C-1) on payment of Rs.5040/-. The opposite party No.2 is a licensee and authorised dealer of opposite party No.1. The above mentioned carrot seeds were sown by the complainant approximately in two acres agricultural land owned by him situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhaproda. The carrot seeds were sown after proper cultivation and taking proper care and precautions as per norms and directions of the agricultural department. The land was irrigated properly as and when needed and required dose of fertilizer was also used. Due to poor germination of the carrot seeds, the complainant could not achieve the desired result of yield from his land. The complainant reported the matter to the concerned department.

3.                As per expert report after inspection, the carrot seeds were found defective and sub-standard. Due to poor quality of carrot seeds, the complainant had to suffer monetary losses to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs on account of income from crop; an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of labour and cultivation expenses and an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony. The complainant also had to suffer monetary loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in connection with next crop. In this way, the complainant suffered total monetary loss to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is prayed that complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986), be allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

4.                As per written version of the opposite party No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct. It is pleaded that it appears that the complainant at the time of sowing carrot seeds did not follow instructions given on the packet of the seeds and did not follow the required practice regarding agricultural produce. No time and season is mentioned when the carrot seeds were sown by the complainant. Regarding the same brand of carrot seeds, the opposite parties have not received even a single complaint from the farmers. It is pleaded that after sowing the seeds generation, genetic and physical purity can only be determined by a scientist in laboratory but the complainant never moved any application to the horticulture department in this regard. It appears that the complainant has adopted wrong method at the time of sowing seeds. Apart from it, other factors like soil, moisture, fertilizer, humidity, irrigation facilities etc also may affect germination and production of the crop. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The opposite party No.2 in its written version has taken plea that the opposite party No.2 is a valid licence holder for selling the seeds manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and the seeds were sold against proper bill. The complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own mistakes as he has not given details about the nature of soil and water, whether suitable to the carrot crop or not. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

7.                After going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated February 25^th, 2016 allowed complaint filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of monetary losses suffered by the complainant due to defective seeds along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint; an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony as well as an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has filed appeal No.259 of 2016 and the opposite party No.2 has filed appeal No.444 of 2016 for setting aside the impugned order.

9.                I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.

10.              During the course of arguments, it was common case of the parties that nine kilograms carrot seeds were purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs.5040/-, vide bill dated 9^th August, 2013 (Exhibit C-1), being authorised dealer of the opposite party No.1-manufacturer.  Version of the complainant is that he had sown the above mentioned carrot seeds in his agricultural land measuring two acres situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhaproda. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 (Exhibit C-8) as well as copy of mutation sanctioned on 27^th September, 2009, are adduced in evidence. These documents show that the complainant became owner in possession qua 1/3^rd share of the total agricultural land measuring 61 Kanals - 4 Marlas, as mentioned in document Exhibit C-8, after death of his father on 8^th February, 2008. Copy of Khasra Girdawari regarding sowing carrot seeds of the relevant season, has not been adduced in evidence in this case. Exhibits C-4 and C-5 are the photographs of the standing carrot crop.  After inspection of the agricultural land owned by the complainant on 12^th December, 2013, the inspection report (Exhibit C-3) was prepared which bears signatures of District Horticulture Officer, Assistant Project Officer and Horticulture Development Officer.  In the report, it is not mentioned that there was any problem in germination of the carrot seeds. In the report (Exhibit C-3), it is mentioned that roots of 90% carrot plants were found in various branches and in bunches. In the inspection report (Exhibit C-3) it was not mentioned a case of total loss of crop.

11.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that no compensation amount should be awarded to the complainant as the carrot crop was sown by the complainant for commercial purpose. It is argued that the crop was not sown by the complainant for his personal use.

12.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Sowing of carrot seeds and thereafter selling the crop, cannot be considered as an act of commercial activities. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the complainant placed his reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) & ANR, 2016(2) CLT 377.  The above cited case law Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) & ANR (Supra) fully supports the version of the complainant. The facts of the case in hand and of the above cited case are almost similar. In these circumstances findings can be safely given that it is not a case of involvement of the complainant in commercial activities and certainly it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

13.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties-appellants, argued that the report Exhibit C-3 prepared by District Horticulture Officer, Jhajjar and others, cannot be given any weight as findings have not been given in the report regarding cause of defective growth and germination of carrot seeds. There may be so many reasons for poor germination and growth of carrot crop i.e. climatic conditions, use of fertilizers and pesticides, nature of soil, proper irrigation etc. 

14.              Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant should have got tested and examined the soil as well as the seeds from the expert.  In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited Versus Sadhu and another, Civil Appeal No.1308 of 2005, decided on 18.02.2005. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also argued that onus is always upon the complainant to prove that there was defect in the seeds.  In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding Revision Petition No.1295 of 2014 Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co. Op Ltd. versus Ram Swaroop, decided on 26.11.2014.

15.              As per facts of case law Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited Versus Sadhu and another (Supra), the poor yield of crop was not attributable to germination of the seeds as per expert report.  Findings were given that in such a situation poor yield of crop might be due to some other reasons like adverse weather, use of fertilizers or pesticides etc.  Keeping in view the expert report Exhibit C-3 in this case, the above cited case law is not of much help to the opposite parties.

16.              Similarly, cited case law above in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co. Op Ltd. versus Ram Swaroop (Supra), is also of not much help to the opposite parties. In case referred above, only findings were given that onus is always upon the complainant to prove that there was defect in the seeds and report obtained by the complainant without notice to the opposite parties cannot be relied upon in the light of certificate of Haryana Seeds Certification Agency. It will be pertinent to mention here that the District Horticulture Officer in his report, Exhibit C-3, has not mentioned anything regarding quality of seeds. In that report only it is mentioned that roots of carrot were found in branches and bunches.

17.              On the other side on this point of controversy, learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding Revision Petition No.1833 of 2015, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus Shivaputrappa Vithaltadas etc. 

 

18.              I have closely perused the above cited case law. In case law referred above findings were given that when complainant had established his case and there is a scientist report, onus shifted upon manufacturer and other opposite parties. In such a situation, manufacturer of the seeds should have filed an application before the District Forum seeking the seeds tested in laboratory. It was held that State Commission has rightly relied upon scientist report which indicates that potato seeds were not good and not as per proper specifications.

19.              As per discussions above in detail the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus Shivaputrappa Vithaltadas etc.  (Supra), supports the version of the complainant that when the complainant had obtained report (Exhibit C-3) of the expert, the opposite party No.1 had an opportunity to get the seeds and soil tested and to obtain expert opinion regarding quality of soil and seeds etc.

20.              Regarding per acre produce of carrot in the National Horticultural Database, 2011 (Annexure-A), per acre yield of carrot is mentioned as 100 Quintals. In this table obtained from internet per acre average profit from carrot crop in India is Rs.38,000/- considering sale price as Rs.5/- per Kg. Similarly, in Operational Guidelines for the year 2014 (Annexure-B), under integrated scheme for agricultural market, the figures obtained from internet also placed on the file. The rate of carrot per quintal as on 31.12.2013 is mentioned as Rs.500/-, in the area of District Jhajjar, Haryana. Similarly, as per Date Wise Prices for Specified Commodity in December, 2013 (Annexure-C), the minimum price of carrot in the area of District Jhajjar is shown regarding the month of December, 2013, minimum as Rs.200/- per quintal and maximum as Rs.600/- per quintal.

21.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant also placed on the file the figures obtained from Market Committee Office, Sampla, District Rohtak (Annexure-D), under the Right to Information Act, on 01.01.2017. In this document placed on the file at the time of arguments, rate per quintal of carrot is shown from Rs.600/- to Rs.1100/- but this figure is only regarding the period from 01.12.2013 up to 15.12.2013. In these circumstances, if the above mentioned documents placed on the file at the time of arguments are considered, findings can be given that per acre yield of carrot in Haryana including District Jhajjar, is 100 quintals. There was fluctuation of rates in the market regarding sale of carrot in the month of December, 2013 from Rs.200/- to Rs.1100/- per quintal. Even if the average sale price of the carrot per quintal in the month of December, 2013 is considered as Rs.600/-, even then total sale price of carrot from one acre land cannot be more than Rs.60,000/-. In the document (Annexure-A), referred above, the average profit from one acre land by sowing carrot is Rs.38,000/-. The above mentioned figures have also been collected during the pendency of the appeal and complaint. In fact, in the complaint the complainant even has not mentioned per acre yield from carrot as well as per quintal sale price of carrot during the month of December, 2013. The carrot seeds as mentioned in bill (Exhibit C-1), were purchased on 9^th August, 2013. In this way, it can be presumed that carrot seeds might have been sown by the complainant sometimes in the month of October, 2013 and by sowing carrot in the last dates of September and October, production of carrot crop is expected in the month of December of the same year.

22.              On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, it is not easy to give exact findings regarding the total loss suffered by the complainant by sowing the seeds purchased by the complainant. Moreover, this fact also cannot be ignored that there was not so much problem regarding germination of the carrot seeds. It is evident from the photographs, Exhibits C-4 and C-5, adduced in evidence, which are of the standing carrot crop belonging to the complainant. From the photographs itself it appears that there was not much problem regarding germination of the seeds. In fact, the main problem was that the roots of the carrot were found with number of branches and in bunches (Guchhas). There cannot be different opinion that regarding germination of the seeds, few other factors like climatic conditions, nature of soil, proper irrigation facilities and using of fertilizer and pesticide etc. are also contributory. Findings cannot be given that proper irrigation facilities were not provided or fertilizer as well as other chemicals were not used at the time of sowing the crop and thereafter. In the photographs also, number of carrot plants taken from the same field are shown in the hands of complainant and another person. In this case, main problem arose because the roots of the carrots were having number of branches and were in bunches. Such type of carrot crop certainly cannot be sold in market at market price. At the same time, findings also cannot be given that carrot which had grown having number of branches and bunches, had no market value. If the complainant was willing to claim total loss of his crop, certainly he should have offered the opposite parties to take away and sell the carrots grown in the land in question. Rates of such type of carrot crop may not be Rs.200/- or Rs.500/- per quintal but that crop also could have been sold at lower rates, may be at the rate of Rs.100/- per quintal or below that, as the case may be.

23.              As per discussions above in detail, certainly it is very difficult to give exact and correct findings regarding total monetary loss suffered by the complainant. Anyhow, findings can be safely given that the main cause of growth of roots of carrot crop in branches and bunches was due to poor quality of seeds. Poor irrigation facilities, less use of fertilizers and chemicals etc, cannot be cause of growth of carrot crop having branches and bunches in roots. In such type of situation when correct and exact findings are not possible on the basis of pleadings and evidence on the file, there is no harm to take some help of guess work on the basis of personal experience also to come to a right conclusion. Keeping in mind, all the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant on account of loss of carrot crop as Rs.1,80,000/- is highly excessive. Keeping in mind the rates of carrot crop in the month of December, 2013 and per acre yield of carrot crop in the area of District Jhajjar and as the complainant might have earned some income by sale or personal use of the carrot crop, in which the only defect was that roots of carrots were in branches and bunches and all other surrounding circumstances, I feel it will be justified to award the complainant as compensation only an amount of Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of monetary losses suffered by sowing carrot seeds purchased from the opposite parties. It is ordered accordingly.

24.              At the same time, this Commission finds that awarding of an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses, is justified. Findings of the learned District Forum regarding this amount awarded to the complainant stands affirmed.

25.              Resultantly, findings are given that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) instead of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation on account of monetary losses suffered by him; an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and both the appeals stand partly allowed.

26.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- (in each appeal) deposited at the time of filing the appeals be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 02.06.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

CL