NAMDEO BAJIRAO RAUT vs HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.

THIS complaint is as regards the sale of defective cotton seed to the complainant. The facts extracted from the complaint are that the complainant is a cultivator in Wardha District. He wanted to grow cotton in his land. According to complainant, M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. is a producer of ''Paras Seeds'' and also markets the same. The O.P. No. 2 is the distributor of Paras seeds for Wardha District. The opposite party No. 3 is the co-operative society which sells the Paras seeds. The complainant found that the seeds marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. is comparatively good and, therefore, purchased 8 bags of cotton seeds from opposite party No. 3 on 19.6.1990, 20.6.1990 and 3.2.1990. According to complainant, the aforesaid 8 bags of cotton seed were marketed and produced by Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay. Thereafter, the complainant sow the said cotton seed in 12 acres area in his field S.No. 89. The complainant stated that he had made arrangements to irrigate the cotton crops in his field. The complainant further stated that he used insecticides, fertilizers to get the maximum yield of cotton and claimed that he has spent Rs. 5,000/- per acre for raising the cotton crops. According to the complainant, he spent about Rs. 60,000/- for cultivation of 12 acres of land in the manner mentioned in the complaint.

IT is the case of the complainant that the hyborid cotton crops normally start giving cotton buds in about 45 days. But in his case, even after two months after sowing and there were no buds appearing to the plants. He became anxious and to his surprise even after the maturity of plants the cotton plants did not show the signs of flowers and buds. The complainant, therefore, having confirmed that there was failure of cotton crops due to non-appearance of flowers and buds on the cotton plants in his field made complaint to (1) Collector, Wardha, (2) Agricultural Officer, Z.P., Wardha and (3) Agricultural Officer, P.S. Seloo (4) M/s. Anant Krishi Seva Kendra, (5) General Manager, Paras Seeds, (6) Hindustan Lever Ltd., (7) District Seeds Officer, Wardha (8) District Quality Control Inspector, Wardha and (9) Hingne Bagayat Krishi Sahakari Sangh by a written common complaint dated 4.4.1990. In response to the aforesaid complaint the District Quality Control Inspector visited the field of complainant on 21.9.90 and acknow ledged to have received the necessary labels for inspection. The Opposite Party 1 also responded by sending a letter dated 15.10.90 assuring the complainant to make enquiry into the matter. IT is also the case of the complainant that representative of Opposite Party No. 1 visited the field of complainant and assured the complainant to compensate the loss due to failure of crops. IT is further the case of the complainant that the controlling authority of Zilla Parishad, Wardha lodged the report to the Police Station at Seloo on 25.10.90 and offence u/Sec. 420 IPC has been registered vide Crime No. 161/90 against M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. For the reasons mentioned in the complaint the complainant alleged that the seeds sold by the O.P. 1 was defective and as a result of which he has been put to huge losses. The complainant stated in the complaint that the failure of crops in his field was published in local daily on 13.12.90 and 14.12.90 as the ''News ITem''. IT is further alleged that the issue was discussed in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The complainant has annexed the paper clipping of the news-item. The complainant, therefore, claimed apart from Rs. 60,000/- towards expenses for cultivation also compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards loss of crop. The opposite parties filed their separate written versions. The opposite party No. 1 denied its liability to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 claims that it is a distribution agency for the Wardha District and, therefore, not liable for the payment of compensation, to the complainant. Similarly, O.P. No. 3, which sold the seed to the complainant denied its liability for payment of compensation.

Most of the facts are admitted. The sale of seed to the complainant has been admitted by the opposite parties. The complainant has filed on record the bills of purchase at Annexures A, B & C. The O.P. 1 admitted to have marketed the seed in question. The opposite party No. 1 admitted to have sent the reply to the complainant on 15.10.1990. The complainant has filed relevant documents. Ext. is the extract of 7/12 land record. Annexure ''E'' dated 4.9.90 is the copy of the complaint made by the complainant to various authorities. The complainant has also filed other documents. The notable among them is a certification tag and yellow label giving the description about the seed and one empty packet of the purchased seed on which there is a printed matter.

WE have heard the complainant through Shri Y.R. Wankhede, Advocate, O.P. 1 by Ms K.S. Bhatiya, O.P. 2 by Shri Bhamburkar, Advocate and O.P. No. 3 by Shri Unhale, Advocate. WE have carefully gone through the relevant documents and also heard the respective Counsels at length. The following points arise for our consideration. 1. Whether cotton seed sold to the complainant was defective? 2. Whether the complainant has been put to loss as a result of the defective seed?, and 3. Which of the opposite party is responsible to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant?

The complainant in his complaint dated 4.4.90 addressed to various authorities at Annexure ''B'' has clearly alleged that the ''8'' bags of cotton H-4 seed from Lot No. Feb/96/06/56/166 from O.P. No. 3 and sown in his field on 20.6.90 did not bear flowers and buds. It is also stated in the said complaint that on 18.8.90 the representation of the O.P. 2 visited the spot on 28.8.90. The reply sent by O.P. 1 dated 15.10.90 in response to the aforesaid complaint is at Annexure ''G'' in which it was promised to take up the matter with the concerned authorities. At Ex. dated 16.11.1990 is the finding of the Agricultural Development Officer, Z.P., Wardha. In that report it is stated that after personal verification, all the seed in question was found with purity of seed at 12% in which female percentage was 75 and the adulteration was found 13%. Coupled with the allegations of the complainant in his complaint duly supported by his affidavit and the finding of the agricultural officer at Annexure H, clearly proves that the cotton seed in question was defective. None of the opposite parties even though made aware about the defective nature of the seed in any way denied the impurity of the cotton seed in question. Thus the complainant has proved beyond doubt that the seeds sold to him was defective inasmuch as it did not conform to the standard germination test which is expected from hybrid variety. Perusal of the Yellow label show the lot number and the validity period upto December, 1990. It is printed on Yellow label that the purity was minimum 98% and insert matter maximum 2%. The germination was stated to be minimum 65%. The said label is as regards the Paras Seed produced by and marketed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Similarly, the empty bag of the seed also show ''Produced by and marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd., Hyderabad, Head Office, Bombay The complainant in his complaint and affidavit has stated that he incurred the expenses of cultivation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre and thus sustained the loss of Rs. 60,000/- for 12 acres. This statement of the complainant has not been controverted by the opposite parties. Another affidavit of Prabhakar Mohal filed by the complainant also shows that the minimum expenditure on an average for such cultivation comes to Rs. 4,000/- per acre. Third affidavit of Yadavrao Patil filed by complainant also shows that the seed sown in the complainant''s field was a failure. The complainant has spent Rs. 1,840/- for purchase of seeds and alleged to have spent Rs. 60,000/- for cultivation of the 12 acres of land, so far as the expenses of cultivation are concerned we allow the claim for Rs. 40,000/-. The complainant has stated that his normal yield per year of the cotton is Rs. 1,80,000/-. He has calculated the quantum of loss on the basis of the yield of the previous year which was Rs. 2,00,000/-, according to him. But we find that complainant has not placed on record any oral or documentary evidence to establish the yield per acre and the probable loss suffered by him. In any case, the complainant suffered the loss of seed price, cost of cultivation and the prospective yield. Although the complainant has not placed before us the necessary material for the annual yield of the cotton in his 12 acres of land, we can safely calculate it in a conservative manner to the extent of about Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, in our view the complainant has suffered the total loss of Rs. 66,840/- towards the price of seed, cost of cultivation and likely loss of cotton crops.

IT has been very strenuously argued by Ms K.S. Bhatiya, Advocate on behalf of opposite party that O.P. 1 is not the manufacturer but only marketed the seed in question. IT is the case of O.P. 1 that the seeds in question was produced by M/s. Ambica Seeds Farm from Gujarat. We have carefully perused the empty bag containing the seeds filed in the complaint and the certification tag and the yellow card attached to it. The yellow card produced before us on the left to and side corner shows ''produced by and marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd.'' There appears a rubber stamp at the bottom of that card showing ''produced by Ambica Seeds Farm''. Similarly, on the empty cotton bag printed letter show ''produced by and marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd., Hyderabad'' and there appears to be a rubber stamp of Ambica Seeds Farm. From the aforesaid two articles, it is clearly seen that the rubber stamp has been put subsequently but the printed matter appears to be uniform. Assuming for the sake of argument that Ambica Seeds Farm is the manufacturer then the opposite party in its first letter dated 15.10.1990 did not mention in that letter that the seeds were manufactured by Ambica Seeds Farm. Had it been a fact then it was expected from the opposite party 1 to have taken up the matter with Ambica Seed Farm. IT seems that M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. feels that they are immuned against any liability towards the consumers about the defect in the seeds marketed by it simply by denying its liability. When the goods are sold by the Hindustan Lever Ltd., then it was its boundened duty to enquire into the complaint of the complainant and take up the matter with Ambica Seed Farm for demand of compensation made by the complainant. In our view, the role played by the Hindustan Lever Ltd. is very much negligent inasmuch as the legitimate complaint by a consumer of a seed marketed by it has not been taken up seriously for purposes of redressal of the grievances. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the manufacturer has been defined u/Sec. 2(j). Under Clause III of Section 2(j) a person who puts or causes to be put his own mark on any goods made or manufactured by any other manufacturer and claims such goods to be made or manufactured by himself means a person who manufactured goods. Combined reading of yellow card and the cotton empty seed bag leaves no doubt that Hindustan Lever Ltd. clearly demonstrates that the seeds sold to complainant were produced and marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. The representation made to the public by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. in general and the complainant in particular was that the H-4 Cotton seed labeled as ''Paras Seeds'' are being manufactured and marketed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. In view of the facts and circumstances and the legal definition of a ''manufacturer'' we hold Hindustan Lever Ltd. as the ''manufacturer'' of the seeds in question and hence they are, therefore, liable for making good the loss suffered the complainant. The negligence on the part of Hindustan Lever Ltd. is to supply and sale defective seed and which has been found defective by the competent recognised authority. The deficiency is further compounded by the inaction on the part of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. not to take up the matter to the so called manufacturer of the seed. The Hindustan Lever Ltd. totally remained callous as regards the complaint made by the complainant. The com plainant has stated in his complaint that he believed the reputation of Hindustan Lever Ltd. As against the other seed manufacturers and, therefore, purchased the seed in question on the implied guarantee and reputation of Hindustan Lever Ltd. IT is important to note that the report about the impurity of the seed dated 16.11.90 at Annexure ''H* has not been denied by the opposite party No. 1 Similarly, the Hindustan Lever Ltd. and two others were issued a show cause notice by the Agricultural Department of the Zilla Parishad, Wardha dated 13.11.90 stating that there was admixture in the crop of the complainants field and that the said sown by the complainant do not conform the minimum limits of genetic purity. Thus, we find that all these findings which were the result of investigation were totally ignored by opposite party and they have simply denied their liability on the slipary grounds of showing no concern about the defective seed marketed by it. In our considered view, it is not a simple case of failure of crops but a deliberate and wilful negligence shown by the Hindustan Lever Ltd., towards a consumer which caused him monetary losses. Further we find that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 also were negligent in their approach of merely denying their duty as seller and tried to the line of opposite party No. 1 under the apprhension of losing the distribution agency. We are pained to observe that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 being the welfare institutions meant for the protection of cultivators'' interest also were negligent and callous in their attitude and behavior, towards the complainant. We, however, find that the Government agencies took prompt action investing the spot collecting the samples and submitting the report about the examination of the quality of the seed. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER The opposite party viz. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay shall compensate the loss of complainant to the tune of Rs. 66,840/- within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost of complaint to be paid by O.P. 1. Rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed. Complaint allowed with costs.