Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mr. Y. Krishan & Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Members
LAXMI AGRICULTURE SEED STORE—Petitioner
versus
DHOOP SINGH & ORS. —Respondents
Revision No. 469 of 1993—Decided on 21.10.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Nirwani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P.D. Choudhary, Advocate.
The purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is not a purchase for commercial purpose.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - SALE OF SEEDS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - PURCHASE OF SEEDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IS NOT A PURCHASE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - AGRICULTURE IS A GENUS DISTINCT FROM COMMERCE - COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE ARE GENETICALLY DIFFERENT - PURCHASE OF SEEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE IS NOT A PURCHASE OF AN ARTICLE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainants purchased Sunflower hybrid Mega 363 Seed from the Revision Petitioner, Laxmi Agricultural Seed Store. The seeds did not germinate despite being sown in well-prepared fields according to the instructions given in the relevant brochure of the Supplier. The Complainants filed complaints before the District Forum, Hissar, alleging that the seeds were defective and sub-standard. The District Forum found the seeds to be defective and ordered the Revision Petitioner and the importers of the seeds, Omega Agriculture Seed (India) Limited and Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd., to pay compensation to the Complainants. The Revision Petitioner appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal. The Revision Petitioner then filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is not a purchase of an article for commercial purpose. The Commission relied on its own order in Surender Kumar v. M/s. Escorts Ltd. & Anr., I (1993) CPJ 438, in which it had held that "agriculture' is a genus distinct from 'commerce' and consequently "commercial purpose" and "agricultural' purpose are genetically different."
Issues: Whether the purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is a purchase for commercial purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The National Commission held that the purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is not a purchase for commercial purpose. The Commission relied on the following reasoning: * The definition of "consumer" in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not include persons who purchase goods for commercial purposes. * Agriculture is a distinct and distinguishable economic activity from commerce. * The purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is not a purchase for the purpose of resale or profit-making. * The fact that agricultural income is excluded from the purview of the Income Tax Act is not a test to decide whether agriculture is a totally different form of activity void of any 'commercial purpose'.
Final Decision: The National Commission dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum.
Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—This Revision Petition is against a common order dated 20.8.1993 passed in Appeal Nos. 263, 274 to 277 and 279 of 1993 by the District Forum, Hissar. Those appeals were in the nature of cross appeals preferred by the Complainants and Opposite Parties.
2. The facts are that six separate complaints were preferred before the District Forum, Hissar by the present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants). It was the common case of the Complainants that they have purchased Sunflower hybrid Mega 363 Seed from M/s. Laxmi Agricultural Seed Store (now Revision Petitioner). The common grievance of all the Complainants was that the said Seeds did not at all germinate despite the fact that they were shown in well prepared fields according to the instructions given in the relevant brochure of the Supplier. According to the Complainants that was due to the supply of sub-standard, inferior and defective quality of seeds. The matter was brought to the notice of Agriculture Department and other authorities in the State and it was acknowledged that as a matter of fact the seed was defective. Shri Harish Mehta, one of the Complainants, is in Government service and he is posted as the Circular Agricultural Officer. According to him the Hansi based Laxmi Agriculture Seed Store had widely distributed printed material about the prospects and better yield of the said Seed. Relying upon said assurances the Complainant and his brothers had purchased Sunflower seeds from the said Dealer which was sown as per instructions contained in distributed pamphlets. However, there was hardly any germination. Consequently, he had suffered heavy financial loss. Shri Mulkh Raj Mehta one of the other Complainants had pleaded that he had returned 7kg. seeds to the Dealer who refunded the price thereof and admitted the poor quality of the seeds.
3. The Dealer—present Revision Petitioner herein contested those complaints. It was pleaded that they were not liable for the loss because as a matter of fact the seed is imported from Australia by M/s. Omega Agriculture Seed, Bombay and the supplier thereof was Omega Agro, New Delhi as well as the Zamindara Sewa Centre, Shahabad Markanda. The objection was that non-joining of these parties was fatal to the case. It was, however, admitted that the Sunflower seed was sold to the Complainants but in sealed packets as supplied to them by M/s. Zamindara Sewa Centre. The whole blame for the sub-standard and inferior quality of Seed was sought to be shifted to the importers as well as the distributor. It was also denied that agricultural fields were properly prepared or that the requisite amount of fertilizers etc. was put in by the Complainants.
4. In the complaints filed before the District Forum in addition to the present petition which was added as Opposite Party No. 1, Omega Agriculture Seed (India) Limited, 40 Bank Street, Fort Bombay, Omega Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and M/s. Zamindara Sewa Centre, Shahabad had also been arrayed as Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 respectively. As noticed earlier Omega companies had imported and supplied the seeds in question. In a detailed judgment the District Forum found that the seeds were defective. The operative part of the order of the District Forum runs as follows:
(A) (i) Laxmi Agriculture Seed Store would refund the amount of Rs. 22,200/- to Mehta Brothers as already directed by Haryana Government vide letter dated 17.3.1993.
(ii) This agency would also refund Rs. 1200/- to Dhup Singh and further Rs. 5700/- to Mulakh Raj Mehta.
(B) (i) Omega A.G. Bombay and Omega Agro, New Delhi would pay the amount of Rs. 64,000/- to Mehta Brothers as calculated at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per acre for 37 acres. The area has been calculated at the rate of 2.2. kg. seed per Killa and quantity of seed purchased by them is 74 kg.
(ii) These Companies would further pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to Dhup Singh at the rate of Rs. 1500/- Killa. He had purchased only
