SANJAY AGRO INTERNATIONAL vs Khazan Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 1.8.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the ''complainant'') was an agriculturist and was earning livelihood by sowing and harvesting different types of agriculture products. He had orally placed an order with the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the "opposite party") for purchase of spawn (Khumba) seeds weighing 55 kgs. through telephone. A representative of the opposite party came to the village of the complainant and delivered 55 kgs. spawn seeds charging Rs. 3,300/- from the complainant as the price of the seeds against bill No. 15 dated 7.10.2002. It was stated by the said representative of the opposite party that the seeds brought by him in his car were of high quality and would give fruitful results of the complainant. For the purpose of sowing the said spawn seeds it was essential to erect sheds with the help of bamboo, labour, polythene, thread, ropes/strings, etc. It was then stated that the complainant had already completed the work of making sheds etc., before purchasing the seeds from the opposite party. The complainant spread/sowed the spawn seeds in his land on 10.10.2002 and 11.10.2002. Usually, it takes 15 days to complete the culture. Despite lapse of that period, no germs of spawn came out from the seeds sown by the complainant in his fields. The complainant had made a complaint in writing with the opposite party on 28.10.2002 requiring them to compensate him for the loss suffered by him, but the opposite party did not pay any heed. On the same day, the complainant had made a complaint to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Amritsar, who directed his subordinate officer to visit the spot and to make report. Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala had visited the spot and confirmed the loss caused to the complainant and reported that no signs of germs had come out from the seeds supplied by the opposite party. A letter dated 29.10.2002 was also written to the Deputy Director Horticulture, Amritsar, recommending action against the opposite party. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant had suffered loss because of defective seeds supplied by the opposite party. The complainant then purchased the seeds another source i.e., Pears Quality Spawn Lab., Solan for Rs. 585/-. It was alleged in the complaint that the opposite party was, thus, guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. A prayer was made to the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,03,885/- (i.e., Rs. 3,300/- as price of seeds, Rs. 50,000/- incurred as expenses to prepare the sheds etc., Rs. 1,50,000/- as loss of profit which the complainant would have earned and Rs. 585/- as expenses incurred by the complainant for purchase of seeds from other agency). Besides this, interest @ 8% p.a. and further compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was also sought for. The opposite party appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had purchased the spawn for commercial purpose and the complainant himself was to be blamed for non-germination of the seeds as he did not follow proper procedure. On merits, supply of spawn seeds to the complainant was admitted. It was also admitted that for the purpose of sowing spawn seeds it was essential to make compost. It was denied if the complainants had completed the work of making the compost before purchasing the seeds and it was asserted that the complainant did not follow the requisite procedure and in case there was no germination, the responsibility lay upon the complainant. The visit of Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala had been denied only for want of knowledge.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, the complaint was allowed. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard Mr. Darshan Singh Chahal, General Attorney of the appellant, who is present in person and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum. WE do not find any merit in this appeal. The points for consideration before the District Forum as well as before us as to whether the complainant was a consumer and as to whether the spawn seeds supplied by the opposite party to the complainant was defective/of inferior quality and the complainant had suffered the loss due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also not denied by the opposite party that the complainant was an agriculturist who earned his livelihood by sowing and harvesting agriculture produce. The purchase of spawn seeds by the complainant was for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and there was no evidence if he had engaged any servant for working in the fields. Hence, it was rightly held by the District Forum that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite party. It was admitted by the opposite party that 55 kgs. of spawn seeds were sold to the complainant vide bill dated 7.10.2002 (Ex. C-4) and the opposite party had charged Rs. 3,300/- from the complainant. The complainant had asserted that he had spread/sown the seeds in his land on 10.10.2002 and 11.10.2002 but there was no germination. The opposite party admitted that usually it takes 15 days to complete the culture. The complainant had written a letter dated 28.10.2002, Ex. C-7 to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Amritsar stating that he had purchased the seeds from the opposite party but there had been no germination. He had requested for spot investigation and for preparation of the report in this regard. On that application, the Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala was deputed to inspect the spot. He made a report, Ex. C-8, that on the spot inspection it had transpired that the seed was not proper. Shri Narinder Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala had filed his affidavit, Ex. C-2, to the effect that he had visited the land of the complainant and found that no sign of germs came out from the seeds sown by the complainant. He had also proved letter dated 29.10.2002, Ex. C-6 addressed to the Deputy Director, Hotriculture. Thus, it was rightly held by the District Forum that it was amply proved by the sworn testimony of Shri Narinder Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala and his report that there was no germination and the seeds supplied by the opposite party was defective. The submission of the opposite party before the District Forum and before us that since the complainant had not taken any steps, it could not be concluded that the seeds were defective, is without any substance. As the entire quantity of seeds purchased by the complainant from the opposite party had been sown in the land and no part of it was retained by him, there was no question of sending the sample or a part of the seeds to the Laboratory for test. To substantiate our point with regard to this matter, the order of the Hon''ble National Commission in case Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd. v. Annapuraddy Vijender Reddy and Another, III (2002) CPJ. 283 (NC), may be referred to. The poor quality of seeds is proved by the report of the Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala and it has rightly been held by the District Forum that the seeds supplied by the opposite party to the complainant was of poor quality as a result of which there was no germination of the seeds. There is no evidence on the record to prove that the complainant had not followed the proper procedure with regard to sowing of spawn seeds. On the other hand, estimate of loss prepared by Shri Narinder Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Baba Bakala, Ex. C-9, established that the complainant had constructed the sheds and compost, etc. and had taken all steps for proper germination of the seeds. In these circumstances, obviously the opposite party supplied the seeds of poor quality and the non-germination was not due to any conduct of the complainant. The opposite party was, thus, deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. No argument has been advanced before us with regard to the compensation paid to the complainant. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.