CLAIM UNDER THE PUNJAB CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2005.
Rana Munawar Ali the claimant filed a claim for recovery of Rs. 15,71,600/- as actual financial loss suffered by him, mental torture and damages under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 against the defendants.
2. The claimant is a cultivator by profession. He intended to sow onion crop. He contacted Bashir Ahmad , Kisan Corporation Ghallah Mandi, Kassowal who asked him to approach Harvest Agro Vision Company (seeds division) for the purpose as he himself was not selling onion seeds. The claimant contacted with Shahid Nadeem, the defendant NO. 2 through telephone who asked him to stay there because he alongwith others, were coming to him. After sometime all the three defendants Amjad Ali Zia managing director, Shahid Nadeem and Muhammad Waseem agents of Harvest Agro Vision contacted the claimant and introduced themselves with reference to their prospectus. They persuaded him to purchase Red Indian Variety onion seeds which, as per their version, were giving good results. On assurance of the defendant, on 12-11-10 the claimant paid Rs.
35,000/- to the defendants. The defendant No. 2&3 issued the receipt in favour of the claimant regarding receipt of Rs. 35,000/-. Thereafter Indian Red variety onion seeds were handed over to the claimant. The claimant sowed it, adopted all precautionary measures, used pesticides and accurately irrigated the land by spending Rs. 1,22,600/- but the crop did not give good results. The claimant alleged that the seeds sold by the defendants were of inferior and substandard quality and at the same time, those had not been approved by the Government for purposes of sowing.
On 1-4-11 during proceedings conducted under the supervision of Kisan Board, it was resolved that the seeds sold and supplied by the defendants were poor in quality. The claimant submitted that due to substandard and defective seeds, he had to suffer a financial loss besides mental tension.
He assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- in addition to the actual amount spent by him for purchase of seeds and preparation of land for sowing purposes. The claimant claimed Rs.
15,71,600/- from the defendants.
3. Muhammad Waseem the defendant No. 2 did not appear in the court despite all modes adopted for procuring his attendance. He was therefore proceeded against exparte.
4. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by way of filing his written statement. At one stage of proceedings, defendant No. 2 was proceeded against exparte. However, on 21-4-11 exparte proceedings against him were set aside. The defendant No. 2 stated before court that the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 may be treated as written statement filed by him.
Therefore, it was ordered on the same day that the defendant No. 2 was not supposed to file fresh written statement and consequently, the defence taken by defendant No. 1 would also be treated as the defence of defendant No. 2.
5. The defendants raised some preliminary objections. They also refuted the allegations leveled by the claimant. According to them Harvest Agro Vision Company did not deal with seed business. Its sole business was of pesticides. This company had not seed division nor it had any site office. They also submitted that no brochure or pamphlet was ever issued, distributed or published showing as if they were dealing with business of seeds. They further submitted that an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was never received by them nor seeds were ever sold to the claimant nor the claimant was ever persuaded to purchase any seed from the defendant's company.
6. An attempt was made to bring the parties to some settlement amicably but failed. Thereafter, the parties were directed to produce their evidence in support of their respective versions.
7. The claimant examined himself as Pw-1 and reiterated facts incorporated in the claim. In support of his contention he examined Muhammad Bashir Pw-2 and Muhammad Saddique as Pw-3.
8. The documentary evidence of the claimant comprised of original receipt Ex-P1, brochure P2, certificate issued by Deputy Director Agriculture Chichawatni Ex-P3, letter dated 12-4-11 issued by Federal Seed Certification Department Ex-P4, registration crop variety Ex-P5, proceedings of Kisan Board E-P6, receipts regarding purchase of pesticides etc Ex-P7 to Ex-P11, legal notice P12 to P14, postal receipts P15 to P20, registered envelope letters of legal notice with receipt AD Ex-P21 and P22.
9. Amjad Ali Zia placed on record his affidavit Ex-D1 as his statement in chief. The same job was done by Nadeem Shahid Dw-2 vide affidavit Ex-D2 and Muhammad Zubar vide Ex-D3.
10. The defendants also produced on record documents i.e dealer ship certificate Ex-D4, brochure Ex-D5to D7, receipt of original company Ex-D8, photocopy of registration of company Mark A, Delivery receipt Mark B and C, photocopy NTN mark-D photocopy PCPA mark E, certificate of chamber of commerce Multan Mark F, application to police station New Multan Mark G, clipping of newspaper Khabrain Mark H, copy of registration of firm Mark I, farm D partnership deed Mark K, certification of registration Mark L, renewal certificate Mark M , application to agriculture Department Mark N and certificate Mark O.
11. Rana Munawar claimant Pw-1 reiterated facts incorporated in the claim. During cross examination he admitted that receipt was signed by Muhamm Waseem, defendant No. 3. He explained that original receipt was not issued by the defendants.
12. Muhammad Bashir Khan Pw-2 stated that Amjad Ali Zia the defendant No. 1 was known to him.
He was dealing with Harvest Agro Vision seeds division. He had referred the claimant to approach Amjad Ali Zia and Nadeem defendant No. 1 &2 who contacted the claimant in his presence and after negotiations and on having seen brochure given by the defendants, the claimant agreed to purchase onion seeds for consideration of Rs. 35000/-. The claimant paid Rs. 35,000/- to the defendant No. 1. He counted it and handed over to defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 issued receipt and gave it to defendant No. 3 who signed it and delivered it to the claimant. Subsequently, it revealed that the seeds sold by the defendants were defective and substandard. During cross examination he confirmed that on verification it was revealed that defendant No. 3was an employee of the defendant No. 1. He held it incorrect that he had appeared in the court as witness to extend favour to the claimant.
13. Muhammad Saddique Pw-3 stated that all the three defendants were known to him. The claimant had purchased seeds from the defendant No. 1 and on that occasion, Rana Safdar, Bashir Ahamd and many other people were present. All the three defendants had visited the Kassowal together on 12-11-10 when the claimant paid Rs. 35000/- to the defendant No. 1. The Nadeem Shahid the defendant No. 2 prepared receipt which was signed by the defendant No. 3. He deposed that defendants had assured that onion seeds would give a good results. During cross examination he verified that Receipt Eex-P1 was signed by the defendant No. 3 in his presence.
14. Amjad Ali Zia, the defendant No. 1 through his affidavit Ex-D1 stated that his company used to deal with pesticides. He had not issued any brochure showing as If he was also dealing with seeds.
He denied that he ever received a sum of Rs. 35000/- from the claimant. According to him, he had never met with the claimant nor he ever appeared before inquiry conducted by the Kisan Board. He denied that the defendant No. 3 was his employee or representative. During his cross examination he held it incorrect that he used to deal with deeds also. However he admitted that brochure available on record carried his PTCL and Mobile number.
15. Nadeem Shahid Dw-2 and Muhammad Zubair Dw-3 submitted their affidavits as Ex-D2 & D3 and denied that the defendants ever sold any seed to the claimant. According to them, the defendants never received any amount from the claimant. They further stated that the defendant company did not deal with business of seeds. Therefore, they had not sold seed to the claimant.
When subjected to cross examination, Nadeem Shahid Dw-2 admitted that he was working as Sales Officer with the company of the defendant No. 1. He denied that he had prepared any receipt which was signed by defendant No. 3. However he admitted that the claimant was previously known to him. According to him the company of the defendant was not registered as Harvest Agro Vision seed division. He also denied that the defendant No. 3 was the employee of the company.
16. Muhammad Zubair Dw-3 made the same statement through Ex-D3 which was made by Nadeem Shahid Dw-2. Muhammad Zubair during his cross examination denied the suggestion put by the claimant. According to him neither any amount was received from the claimant nor the seeds were sold to the claimant nor the defendant company was dealing with business of seeds.
However, he admitted it correct that the brochure available on record did carry PTCL and mobile number of the defendant No. 1
17. At the outset and also in order to arrive at the just and right conclusion, the spirit of preamble of the Punjab consumer Protection Act 2005 is to be critically examined and seen. The preamble of the said Act laid down that whereas it was expedient to provide for protection and promotion of the rights and interests of the consumers, speedy redress of the consumer complaints and for matters connection therewith, the Act ibid was promulgated. In simple worlds, the sole object of the Act was to provide for protection and promotion of the rights and interests of the consumers. Therefore, when two interpretations of a question of fact and law, were possible, the interpretations favouring the consumer shall be paid significance.
18. The prevailing social set up particularly with reference to rural areas and people residing there having link with agriculture, being the only source of their livelihood, is to be explained and kept in mind. Generally, the agricultural class in rural areas has small holding. Sometime they take land on lease and sow agricultural products to earn their livelihoods. Such type of people are generally uneducated and suffer from poverty. Owing to lack of facilities, they avoid to have direct approach with big companies for the purposes of purchase of seeds and pesticides and prefer to contact with local agents who assure them to provide maximum facilities to fulfill their requirement obviously for some consideration. Such big and registered companies depute their agents to have contact with such agriculturist/cultivators. Sometimes such companies issue them appointment letters to deal with the cultivators on their behalf and some times they orally ask them to visit different places to persuade the cultivators to purchase some particular king of seeds and pesticides. The cultivators being poor, uneducated with small holdings of land generally on lease with meager sources feel reluctant to have direct link with the companies and elect to purchase pesticides and seeds from such authorized or unauthorized agents. It is also observed that the such agents introduce their respective product in such a manner that poor cultivator fell to their prey. The authorized or unauthorized dealers do not act of their own and generally, they do contact with cultivators or they act on behalf of some authorized and registered companies.
19. The defendants stance was that they did not sell any seeds to the claimant and also did not receive any amount from him. On the other hand claimant's version was that he purchased Red Indian onion seeds from the defendants on payment of Rs. 35000/-. He sowed it and adopted all precautionary measures by way of using pesticides etc but despite all that, crop did not bring good results.
20. The claimant purchased seeds vide receipt Ex-P1 and paid Rs. 35000/-.
According to him, in fact this amount was received by the defendant No. 1. The said receipt was prepared by defendant No. 2 and signed by defendant No.
3. The fact was that claimant purchased seeds and sowed it but failed to get proper results as per certificate dated 21-3-11 Ex-P3 Deputy District Officer Agriculture extension Chichawatni certified that onion field of the claimant was visited on 15-03-11. The condition o f crop was poor regarding size of bulbs. Further crop was tuning to reproduction stage (seed production) which could cause problem for bulb developed. He also opined that apparently it appeared genotypic problem of cultivar as crop is intended to seed production rather than bulb formation.
21. The Government of Pakistan Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department through letter dated 12-04-11 Ex-P4 reported as under
1. the claimed variety, India Red is not approved under Section 10 of the Seed Act 1976 for cultivation and seed production. Since its morphological character and other specifications are not available with this department therefore, it cannot be inspected.
2. any person or company is unauthorized to sell, offer for sale, or advertise or hold in stock for sale, or barter or otherwise supply any seed of any variety or species which are not approved u/s 10 of the Seed Act 1976.
22. According to proceedings conducted by Kisan Board Ex-P6, meeting was conducted which was attending by cultivators and other respectable, of the locality. It resolved that the seeds sold by Harvest Agro Vision company were defective in nature and many cultivators had to suffer damage in lacs. It was also mentioned in the said proceedings that the defendants were summoned to explain their contention but they failed to participate in the proceedings. All the participants of Kisan Board resolved that the defendants had committed fraud with the cultivators for which action should be taken by the higher authorities.
23. According to receipts available on record Ex-P7 to P11, the claimant had to spend other amounts for purchase o f pesticides and other necessary articles in order to get good crop. The factum of issuance of legal notice to the defendants was established from Ex-P12 to Ex-P14 read with postal receipts P15 to P20. The evidence produced by the claimant would show beyond doubt that due to seeds purchased by him from the defendants , he had to suffer loss and seeds could not give proper results.
24. The oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the defendants would show that the defendant company was dealing with pesticides only and it had not concern whatsoever with sale of seeds. Here the question arises as to what link, Waseem the defendant No. 3 had with the defendant company. The witnesses of the claimant clearly, specifically and unequivocally stated that wasim, the defendant No. 3 was one of the defendants who had contacted with the claimant with aim and object to persuade him to purchase onion seeds from the defendants. Meeting which was held at Kassowal with the claimant, all the three defendants were available together. When deal was done, it was defendant No. 1 himself who received Rs. 35000/-. Defendant No. 2 prepared the receipt and defendant No. 3 signed it. On all these points, evidence produced by the claimant remained un-shaken and un impeached during cross examination. It can therefore be said that all the three defendants were inleague with each other. Factually the defendant company was registered for sale of pesticides only. It misused it and also started with business of seeds. Had he not been dealing with seeds business, it would not have issued brochure Ex-P2 which would show that Harvest Agro Vision had its seed division also. The said brochure Ex-P2 was given to the claimant when the deal was done. Brochure Ex-P2 carried PTCL and mobile cell number of the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 who was in fact owner of the company with others, was using defendant No. 2 &3 for sale of seeds and in an indirect manner he misused his company meant for business of pesticides only and started selling seeds but through his agents by using documents different and distinguishable from those which were being used by him for business of pesticides.
The defendant No. 1 had employed Defendant No. 2&3 to persuade poor and innocent cultivators to use seeds of his company. It may also be added here that there appeared no reason to falsely sue defendant No. 1&2 as the claimant had no previous ill will, grudge and animosity with them. These observations have swa yed me to believe that the claimant has been defrauded by all the defendants jointly and severally. The claimant is therefore held entitled to get actual amount spent on purchase of seeds besides other expenses incurred in order to get good crop. This amount comes to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000/-. So far as damages are concerned, the claimant has not been able to prove it beyond any doubt as he failed to produce sufficient and confidence inspiring evidence. Mere assertion that the claimant was entitled to get damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- was not sufficient to held him entitled for the same . Therefore, claim to the extent of damages of Rs.
10,00,000/- is not accepted.
25. The factum of issuance of legal notices stands proved through legal notices Ex-P12 to Ex-P14 and postal receipts Ex-P15 to Ex-P20. The delivery of seeds was made at Kassowal, Tehsil Chichawatni therefore this court has jurisdiction to decide the case. The preliminary objections of the defendants are answered accordingly.
26. In view of my findings and reasons recorded above, claim is accepted in terms that the claimant shall get Rs. 1,22,600/- from the defendants in-addition to counsel fee of Rs. 10,000/-, total Rs. 1,32,600/-. All the defendants are held jointly and severally liable to pay this amount to the claimant within 30 days from this order failing which law will take its own course.