Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons v. Anu Challana

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

CHANDIGARH.

1. First Appeal No.493 of 2019 Date of institution : 01.08.2019 Reserved on : 23.09.2020 Date of decision : 25.09.2020 M/s Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, SCF 78, Opposite Bus Stand, New Grain Market, Malout, through its Partner/Proprietor, Hemant Kumar Birla son of Mahesh Kumar Birla, resident of Ward No.3, Street No.8, Dashmesh Colony, City Malout, Tehsil Malout and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

…….Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1. Anu Challana son of Shri Chand Challana, Resident of Village Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. ….Respondent No.1-Complainant

2. Monsanto Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ahuria Centre, 5^thFloor, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 through its Managing Director.

……..Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

2. First Appeal No.540 of 2019 Date of institution : 19.08.2019 Reserved on : 23.09.2020 Date of decision : 25.09.2020 M/s Monsanto Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ahuria Centre, 5^thFloor, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 through its Managing Director.

…….Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

1

2

Versus

1. Anu Challana, aged about 36 years son of Shri Chand Challana, Resident of Village Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Mobile No.98147-80077.

….Respondent No.1-Complainant

2. M/s Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, SCF 78, Opposite Bus Stand, New Grain Market, Malout, through its Partner/Proprietor, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

……..Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

First Appeals against the order dated

28.6.2019 of the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar

Sahib.

Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:- (In FA No.493 of 2019):

For the appellant : None.

For respondent No.1: Shri S.M. Wadhera, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Shri Yogesh K. Saini, Advocate through video conferencing.

JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:

Proceedings were conducted through video conferencing as well as physically due to pandemic of Covid-19.

2. Both the above mentioned First Appeals have been filed against the same order dated 28.6.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short,

3

"District Forum") (now District Commission), whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent No.1-Anu Challana, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") was allowed and the appellant-opposite party No.1 and respondent No.2- opposite party No.2 were directed to pay ₹2,43,000/- to the complainant along with ₹5,000/-, as compensation, for mental tension, pain and harassment and ₹3,000/-, as litigation expenses. They were further directed to comply with the said order jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy thereof, failing which the complainant was held entitled to recover the amount with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 23.3.2018 till realization. Aggrieved against the impugned order, First Appeal No.493 of 2019 has been filed by opposite party No.1 and First Appeal No.540 of 2019 has been filed by opposite party No.2 for setting aside the same. Facts are taken from First Appeal No.493 of 2019.

3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the complaint (FA No.493 of 2019):

4. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant is an agriculturist and took 5 killas of land on 'theka'/lease at the rate of ₹35,000/- per killa from Amar Kumar son of Surja Ram. Opposite party No.1 is the seed dealer and runs its business at NGM, Malout whereas opposite party No.2 is the producer of Narma/cotton seed; namely, Deltapine BG-II. In Sauni, 2017, opposite parties advertised

4

that narma/cotton seed (Deltapine BG-II) is of very high quality having average yield of crop at least 16 to 18 quintals per Killa. The complainant is a progressive farmer, who used to read literature of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. So impressed from the advertisements of opposite parties he went to the shop of opposite party No.1 where opposite party no.1 told him that Narma/cotton seed (Deltapine BG-II) is the best seed available in the market, germination of which will be at least 95% and no disease would cause any harm to the crop. On the assurance of opposite party No.1, complainant purchased 35 packets of 450 grams of Narma seed (Deltapine BG-II) at a total cost of ₹28,000/-, vide bill No.178 dated 19.4.2017. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that seven packets of said seed were sufficient for one killa. The Agriculture Department, Punjab reimbursed ₹16,000/-, as subsidy to complainant for purchasing the said seed. To sow the crop of Narma/Cotton seed (Deltapine BG-II) in 5 killas of land, the complainant spent ₹75,000/- for cultivation of land, fertilizers, watering etc. He sowed the seed and used fertilizers in the recommended time frame specified by PAU. But despite that, after growth of the crop, the plants did not acquire full height resulting very less cotton balls on the plants as the seed was duplicate/spurious. He moved an application dated 27.09.2017 to the Chief Agriculture Officer stating therein about the less growth of cotton plants, resulting less quantity of produce of crop than recommended by the opposite parties. The Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Malout and

5

Agriculture Development Officer, Malout after spot inspection, reported that the height of the plants was 2 to 2.5 feet and plants had very less fruit/cotton balls. The total loss of produce was assessed 85 to 90%. It is further averred that complainant suffered huge loss as opposite party No.1 sold the spurious/defective seed. The average yield of Narma/cotton seed (Deltapine BG-II) is about 16/18 quintals per killa and last year, the average price of Narma (Deltapine BG-II) crop was ₹4,500/- per quintal. Only 1.60 quintal cotton could be produced from 5 killas of land, which was sold at the rate of ₹4,525/- per quintal for ₹7219.72P. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 about the condition of the crop, who assured that he would contact opposite party no.2 and would compensate him accordingly. But in spite of repeated requests, opposite parties paid no heed to his requests and ultimately refused to pay any compensation. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of mal trade practice, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund ₹12,000/- i.e. remaining amount of total amount paid by the complainant to opposite party No.1 for purchasing Narma/Cotton Seed in question and to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation, on account of loss suffered due to sale of defective cotton seed and ₹20,000/-, as litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written replies.

6

Defence of Opposite Party No.1:

6. Opposite party no.1 in its reply raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that complainant has neither any cause of action nor locus-standi to file the complaint against it. The complainant has filed the complaint just to harass, humiliate and in order to grab the money from opposite parties. The complainant does not qualify as 'consumer' under the C.P. Act, as he had purchased the alleged goods for commercial purpose of selling yield and not self consumption. The complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as seed in question fulfill all requirements under the Seed Act & Rules. When complainant purchased the seed in question from opposite party No.1, it was properly stored, sealed, marked and labeled in the manner hereinafter specified in the Seed Rules. Opposite party No.1 had purchased the seed from Singla Seed Store, # 150, New Grain Market, Malout, vide bill No.031 dated 8.4.2017, who is the distributor of seed in question in duly sealed and packed condition, which was sold to complainant in same condition. The Agriculture Development Officer has not issued any notice to opposite party no.1 at the time of inspection of the field and, as such, it is not clear that which field was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer. Moreover, he has not mentioned any Khasra Number and Killa Number in his report which shows that he himself did not know which field he has inspected. He did not take any sample from the field of complainant which shows that Agriculture Officer prepared the false report while sitting in his office

7

in connivance with complainant. The growth of seed depends upon various factors like fertilizers, pesticides, weather conditions, climatic conditions, irrigation etc. Opposite party No.1 is not held liable as per Section 7 of the Seed Rules. On merits, opposite party no.1 admitted that opposite party No.2 is manufacturer and it had sold the said seed to the complainant. The seed sold to the complainant was of the best quality and not defective/sub-standard seed. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service or adoption of mal-trade practice on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it, was made.

Defence of Opposite Party No.2:

7. Opposite party No.2 in its separate reply raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not legally maintainable in the present form. The complainant has neither any locus standi nor cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint in order to mislead the District Commission and to harass and humiliate opposite party no.2. According to Rule-23 (A) (amendment) of the Seeds Rules, 1974, if a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that there is a failure of crop due to defective quality of seeds of any notified kind of variety supplied to him, the seed inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed container and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from complainant for establishing source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the cause of failure of his crop by sending sample of

8

the lot of the seed to analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his finding as soon as possible to the competent authority. In case the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provision of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The quality of producing the yield of considerable range and size and shape of maize of the plant in question depend upon so many factors like fertility, quality and preparation of the land, mode of sowing of seed, weather and atmosphere, ability and qualification of the grower. Mixing of seed can be possible due to old foreign seed already in the land where seed was sown. It is not shown by complainant that in which circumstances he had sown the seed in question. According to Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, where the complaint alleges defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Commission shall obtain a sample of goods from complainant, seal it, authenticate it and refer the same to the appropriate laboratory to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint but in the complaint, no such application is filed by complainant. The complaint is bad for want of requirement as provided u/s 13 (1) (c) of the C.P. Act. No Genetic Purity testing has been conducted which is essential requirement. The contents of the complaint itself are

9

confusing and contradictory. On merits, it has been pleaded that opposite party no.2 is in the business of production and marketing of seeds in India and maintains a highly advanced research laboratory (which is affiliated with International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) based at Geneva and Switzerland) that certifies marketability of the seeds produced and marketed by it. In order to maintain quality of the seeds, it adopts rigorous technical process leaving little chance of production of any substandard seeds. The seeds sold by opposite party no.2 are of excellent quality and there has been no complaint pertaining to the seeds produced by it. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service or adoption of mal-trade practice on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it, was made.

Evidence of the Parties:

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1 along with photocopies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9. The complainant also examined CW-1 Sh. Harbans Singh, Agriculture Officer, Gidderbaha, who proved application moved to CAO for less production of Narma crop, photocopy of which is Ex.C-10 and endorsement upon same by CAO, Sri Muktsar Sahib Ex.C-11. He also proved bill no.178 dated 19.04.2017, photocopy of the same is already on file as Ex.C-3. He further proved report dated 10.10.2017 prepared by him alongwith Parminder Singh, ADO, copy of which is already on record as Ex.C6. He further deposed that complainant purchased the seed under High

10

Density Scheme of Agriculture Department and the application submitted by complainant in that regard is already on file as Ex.C-8. The Department reimbursed ₹16,000/-, as subsidy, to complainant which was directly deposited in his bank account and proved the photocopy of the relevant record as Ex.C-12. Said witness being expert, was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Thereafter, affidavit of Chaudhary Amar Kumar was also tendered as Ex.C-13.

9. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Hemant Birla as Ex.OP-1/1, attested copy of bill as Ex.OP-1/2, whereas opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Katyal as Ex.OP-2/1, copy of seed test report as Ex.OP-2/2, copy of statement-I as Ex.OP-2/3 and copy of statement- II as Ex.OP-2/4.

Finding of the District Forum:

10. After going through the evidence tendered by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for them, the District Commission allowed the complaint against both the opposite parties in the above mentioned terms, vide impugned order. Hence First Appeal No.493 of 2019 has been filed by opposite party No.1 and First Appeal No.540 of 2019 has been filed by opposite party No.2 for setting aside the impugned order.

11. I have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1-complainant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-opposite party No.2, as none is present on behalf of opposite party No.1 and have carefully

11

gone through the records of the case. I have also gone through the written arguments submitted by respondent No.1-complainant as well as respondent No.2-opposite party No.2.

Contentions of the Parties:

12. No written arguments have been submitted by appellant- opposite party No.1. Even none appeared on its behalf through videoconferencing or physically to address oral arguments.

13. The sum and substance of oral as well as written arguments of Monsanto Holding Private Limited i.e. opposite party No.2 (appellant in FA No.540 of 2019) is that the complainant has failed to produce any material on record regarding any loss or profit. The District Commission arbitrarily calculated the percentage of loss without any evidence. There is nothing on record to prove that the seeds were of poor quality. The complainant challenged quality of seeds without any proper and adequate evidence. Seeds cannot be proved as defective without proper analysis through a laboratory test under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act, which is mandatory in nature. In the absence of laboratory test of seeds, defect cannot be proved. When there was no complaint from any other purchaser and neither there was any laboratory test report about defective seed, compensation cannot be allowed. When the seeds were alleged to be defective, the defect in the same cannot be proved without laboratory test. It is further argued that the District Commission has not even discussed the Seed Test Report, Ex.OP-2/2, produced by opposite party No.2 and has passed an illegal and arbitrary order. Moreover, it has been

12

admitted by the Agriculture Officer in his statement that no notice was ever served upon opposite party No.2 before the alleged land was inspected by him. In the cross-examination the Agriculture Officer has not mentioned that the seed was of bad quality. When admittedly the seeds were not available with Agriculture Officer, judging the quality of seeds on the basis of yield of crops is absolutely not acceptable and is contrary to the scientific procedure. When hybrid seeds were found to be defective resulting in low yield causing loss of crop, award of compensation without following procedure contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act cannot be sustained. The identity of land was also not established by the complainant. The Agriculture Officer admitted in his cross- examination that the complainant had not attached any jamabandi/girdawari with the application, which was forwarded to him for field inspection. Moreover, no notice was ever served upon opposite party No.2. As such, the Inspection Report, Ex.C-6, cannot be relied upon as the same also does not mention any specified killa numbers qua which the said report was submitted. The impugned order is against Rule 23(A) of the Seed Rules of 1968. Learned counsel made reference to the following judgments:-

i) "Jasdev Singh v. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambala & another" 1993 CPC 530 (Haryana State Commission);

ii) "Syngenta India Ltd. v. Velaga Narasimha Rao."

reported in 2010(2) CPC 423 (NC);

13

iii) "National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Grahak Suraksha Mandal and Anr." reported in 1992 CPC 500 (NC);

iv) "Suresh Kumar v. Haryana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd." 2000 (1) CPC 365 (Haryana State Commission);

v) "Jallandhar Singh v. Tau Agrotech Private Ltd. and Anr." reported in 2010(3) CPC 338 (Punjab State Commission); and

vi) "Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Parchuri Narayana" reported in 2009(1) CPC 471 (NC). It has been prayed that the appeals filed by the opposite parties be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Commission be set aside.

14. Per contra, the sum and substance of oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the District Commission has passed a well reasoned order after duly appreciating the pleadings and the evidence on record. The seeds purchased from opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.2 were duplicate and spurious and this fact was brought to the notice of concerned Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide application dated 27.9.2017, Ex.C-4, mentioning therein that there was less growth of the plants resulting in very less produce of the growth than recommended by the opposite parties. Thereafter Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Malout and Agriculture Development Officer, Malout visited the fields of the complainant and

14

after inspection of the standing crop made report, Ex.C-6, to the effect that the growth of the plant was 2 feet to 2.5 feet and the plants bore very less cotton balls. The total loss of the produce was assessed as 85% to 90%. In these circumstances it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to file an application under Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act to send the seeds to an appropriate laboratory for testing. Thus, the onus passed on the opposite parties to prove that seeds, which were used, were not defective and of good quality. They failed to produce any scientific evidence to prove that there was no defect in the seeds of variety sold to the complainant. However, they failed to prove the same and, as such, they are restrained from taking such an objection. Learned counsel relied upon following judgments:-

i) "Traders Syndicate v. Union Of India" 1983 AIR (Calcutta) 337;

ii) "NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. v. BHEEM REDDY MALLY REDDY" reported in I(2008) CPJ 492 (NC);

iii) "ANKUR SEEDS P. LTD. v KONDABROLU HASEN RAO & ORS." II (2008) CPJ 165 (NC);

iv) Revision Petition No.1008 of 2017 "Kanta Kantha Rao

v. Y Surya Narayana" decided on 3.5.2017;

v) Revision Petition No.457 of 2018 "Medaram Venu and 2 Ors. v. Penthala Mahendra and another" decided on 16.2.2018; and

15

vi) "National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr." reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506. It has been prayed that there is no merit in both the appeals filed by the opposite parties and the same are liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions:

15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the oral as well as written contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties.

16. So far as the issue whether the complainant is a 'consumer' or not is no more res integra as this issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Madhusudhan Reddy's case (supra). It has also been held in the said judgment that to prove defect farmers could not be expected to keeping a sample before sowing.

17. So far as the applicability of Seeds Act is concerned, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Madhusudhan Reddy's case (supra) that though the Seeds Act is a special legislation enacted for ensuring that there is no compromise with the quality of seeds sold to the farmers and others and provisions have been made for imposition of substantive punishment on a person found guilty of violating the provisions relating the quality of the seeds, the legislature has not put in place any adjudicatory mechanism for compensating the farmers/growers of seeds and other similarly situated persons, who may suffer loss of crop or who may get insufficient yield due to use of defective seeds sold/supplied by the

16

appellant or any other authorised person. It has further been held as under:-

"(i) The Seeds Act is totally silent on the issue of payment of compensation for the loss of crop on account of use of defective seeds.

(ii) A farmer who may suffer loss of crop due to defective seeds can approach the Seed Inspector and make a request for prosecution of the person from whom he purchased the seeds. If found guilty, such person can be imprisoned, but this cannot redeem the loss suffered by the farmer."

Thus, the complaint under the provisions of the C.P. Act seeking compensation for loss of crop is very much maintainable.

18. So far as the objection of opposite party No.2 that the seeds must be got tested from the laboratory as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act is concerned, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.34 of its judgment as under:-

"34. We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the

17

complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In

18

our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed."

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment the objection raised by opposite party No.2 is hereby rejected.

19. The complainant has proved on record that he took 5 killas of land on lease/theka @ ₹32,000/- per killa from Chaudhary Amar Kumar, who tendered his affidavit, Ex.C-13 to that effect. Chaudhary Amar Kumar has also admitted in the said affidavit that he had received the lease money amounting to ₹1,60,000/- from the complainant at the rate of ₹32,000/- per killa. The complainant further proved that he had purchased the seed from opposite party No.1, which was produced and manufactured by opposite party No.2 for ₹28,000/-, vide bill Ex.C-3 and the complainant had sown the same in the above said land as per the instructions after preparing the fields in accordance with the settled practice as he is farming since long. Neither the growth of the plants was proper nor the cotton balls were properly grown on the plants of the crop. The only option for the complainant was to complain to the concerned

19

Agriculture Development Officer, which he did, vide complaint dated 21.9.2017, Ex.C-4 stating therein that he had purchased 35 packets of 450 grams each of Narma Seed produced by Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. from M/s Shiv Narain Periwal & Sons, SCF 78, Opposite Bus Stand, New Grain Market, Malout under Bill No.178 dated 19.4.2017 and that the total price of the said 35 packets of 450 grams was ₹28,000/- out of which the Agriculture Department, Punjab, reimbursed ₹16,000/-, as subsidy. It has further been stated in that complaint that as per recommendation the seed was sown in the 5 Acres area and thereafter recommended pesticide was sprayed but the plants did not acquire full height resulting in very less cotton balls on plants. He requested therein that concerned Agriculture Development Officer be deputed to inspect the Narma fields in order to know the reasons for improper development of Narma plants by preparing a detailed report. Accordingly the Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib constituted a team comprising of Agriculture Development Officer, Gidderbaha and Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Malout, vide order dated 29.9.2017 and directed them to inspect the fields of the complainant and submit their technical report. Thereafter the said team inspected the fields of the complainant and submitted its report to Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide letter No.2010 dated 10.10.2017, Ex.C-6, stating therein that they inspected the fields of complainant, Anu Challana son of Shri Chand Challana and the seed was purchased by him from opposite party No.1. It is further stated in the said report that

20

there is railway phatak Burjan near the fields of the complainant. After inspection of the fields it has been found that the height of the cotton plants was 2 to 2.5 feet. There were less cotton balls on the plants. There was loss of 85 to 90% to the cotton yield. This report is also corroborated by examining Shri Harbans Singh, Agriculture Officer, Gidderbaha, who proved application moved to Chief Agriculture Officer for less production of Narma crop, Ex.C-10 and the endorsement made upon it by Chief Agriculture Officer, Sri Muktsar Sahib as Ex.C-11. He further proved report dated 10.10.2017 prepared by him along with Parminder Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Ex.C-6. In this manner, it is proved that less cotton balls had come up on the plants and it was against the average in the area/block. It was certainly due to some problem/defect in the seed, which the complainant had purchased from the opposite parties.

20. Now it is well settled that a farmer is not required to keep the sample; rather, it is for the manufacturer or the dealer to retain the same. The Agriculture Department is expert in the agriculture field and the reports submitted by their officers/officials in discharge of their official duties are also independent. No doubt, if such report is to be obtained, it is necessary that opposite parties must be summoned for that purpose. However, in the present case, once the Government agency gave its report, which has no personal interest and no bias has been alleged by the opposite parties against the said agency, the report is to be accepted.

21

21. So far as the contention that the report, Ex.C-6, cannot be read as it is not in accordance with the Seeds Act is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reasons that the farmers are rustic villagers. They make complaints to the concerned Agriculture Officers in case of any such problem with regard to yield or germination of crop and it is for them to follow the procedure in accordance with law but fact remains that the report is there, which indicated that less cotton balls had grown and there was approximate loss of 85 to 90% to the complainant.

22. So far as the Seed Test Report, Ex.OP2/2, submitted by opposite party No.2 is concerned, the same may be true but the report of the Agriculture Department, Ex.C-6, cannot be brushed aside regarding less yield and it cannot be said that the complainant has not suffered any loss due to the sowing of the seed in question in his fields. Every Seed manufacturing Company get seed produced by them tested in such laboratories. It does not mean that the seed produced by them will not be defective or spurious. It is, therefore, held that this Seed Testing Report has no evidentiary value.

23. While allowing the complaint, the District Commission has observed in para nos.17 and 18 of the impugned order as under:-

"17. Sale of seed is admitted. Complainant produced copy of agreement of lease with Amar Kumar Ex.C-2 from whom he took the land on lease but he did not produce proof of ownership of Amar Kumar. The bill Ex.C-3 is in the name of Love Challana S/o Annu Challana. Complainant himself did not purchase the seed in question. But opposite party no.1 admitted the

22

purchase of seed. Hence, complainant is beneficiary consumer. This Forum relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means things speak for itself. If the complainant has some grievance, that's why, he approached this Forum and due to these minor technicalities, relief cannot be ignored. ADO specifically mentioned in his report that height of the plants is about 2 to 2.5 feet and there are very less fruit on the plants, is sufficient to prove that seed was of defective/bad quality. Moreover, opposite parties did not produce any scientific evidence to prove that there was no defect in the seeds of the variety sold to complainant. Hence, opposite party no.2 is held liable for selling defective/bad quality seed. But if a consumer purchases some product from the retailer and finds it defective or of inferior quality, the retailer cannot shrug off his shoulder and cannot escape from this responsibility towards the consumer merely by saying that it is the manufacturer who has manufactured such product. It is also the duty of the retailer to sale such products which are not of defective or of inferior quality. If a product is found defective or of inferior quality, then he should replace it with non defective or refund its cost to the consumer. Hence, both the parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss of crop due to selling of defective seed.

18. When, it is held that both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to complainant, then question arises to what extent? Generally, the average yield of Narma crop in the Malwa belt of Punjab is about

12 Quintals per acre and price of the same is about ₹4,500/- to ₹5,000/- per Quintal. Complainant has sown seed in question in five acres of land and suffered about 90% loss. So, as per rate of ₹4,500/- per quintal, he is entitled for compensation of ₹48,600/- per acre from the opposite parties."

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the above observations made by the District Commission after relying upon the judgments mentioned in the impugned order.

24. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 are concerned, the same are not applicable to

23

the facts of the present case and are superseded by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Madhusudhan Reddy's case (supra).

25. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. There is no merit in any of the appeals filed by both the opposite parties. Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

26. The appellant-opposite party No.1 had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal (FA No.493 of 2019). This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

27. Similarly appellant-opposite party No.2 had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal (FA No.540 of 2019). It deposited another sum of ₹1,63,250/-, vide receipt dated 14.1.2020 in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2019. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. The complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.

24

28. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL)

PRESIDENT

September 25, 2020 Bansal