National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vinod vs Lekhra Beej Bhandar & Anr. on 26 December, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1012 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 09/12/2015 in Appeal No. 288/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. VINOD S/O RAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE RAM NAGAR, TEHSIL-GANAUR DISTRICT-SONEPAT HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LEKHRA BEEJ BHANDAR & ANR. THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, BEEJ MARKET, NEAR BUS STAND, DISTRICT-SONEPAT HARYANA 2. SHAKTI VARDHAK HYBRID SEED PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, NEW RISHI NAGAR, HISSAR HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. PAWAN KUMAR RAY For the Respondent : For Respondent no.1 NONE For Respondent no.2 Mr Pradeep S Ahluwalia, Advocate (with authority letter) Dated : 26 Dec 2022 ORDER PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA
1. This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 288 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015 arising out of order dated 20.11.2014 in complaint no. 415 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (in short, 'District Forum').
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that he is an agriculturist owning land in Ram Nagar village, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. He had bought 3 kg okra (bhindi) seeds at the rate of Rs 1200/- per kg vide bill no 230 dated 22.05.2013 from respondent no. 1. The seeds were sown as per instructions and supervision directed by the respondent no. 1 after preparing the fields as per good agricultural practice. However, the crop of the okra planted was yellowish in colour and completely useless for sale in the market. On approaching the respondent no.1 the petitioner was informed that he was only the retailer of the seeds which were manufactured by respondent no. 2, M/s Prerna Okra Hybrid Seeds. The petitioner approached the District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat who after inspecting the okra crop opined that the okra was unfit for human consumption. The petitioner then approached the respondents seeking compensation of Rs 1,28,600/- for the loss incurred on account of the defective seeds supplied, comprising cost of Rs 3600/- for the seeds, expenses of Rs 25,000/- in cultivation and Rs 1,00,000/- for the loss in earnings from sale. Rs 25,000/- was also claimed for harassment. As there was no response, a legal notice was served on 05.09.2013 which also did not elicit any response. He then filed consumer complaint no. 415 of 2013. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum which awarded Rs 35,000/- as lumpsum compensation to be paid by respondent no.2.
3. Respondent no. 2 filed First Appeal no. 288 of 2015 against this order before the State Commission which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. This order is impugned before this Commission on the grounds that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the bill/invoice was proof of purchase of the seeds that were planted and erroneously took the view that quality of seeds alone could not be the cause of the failure of the crop as there were several other factors involved in agriculture. It is averred that the State Commission failed to appreciate the report of the District Horticulture Office, Sonepat which reported the okra to be yellowish on account of defective seeds. This report did not mention that the crop had not been tended to properly as claimed by the respondent. It also failed to appreciate that only the okra crop was defective out of the multiple varieties of seeds sown by the petitioner. It is also averred that the respondents could have had the seeds tested which they did not choose to do. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy & Anr., - 2012 (2) SCC 506 wherein it was held that the report of the local commissioner/Agriculture officer should be considered in such cases and that it was the respondent/manufacturer's obligation to have the seeds tested in such cases. It is prayed that the order of the State Commission be set aside and that of the District Forum be affirmed.
4. The impugned order of the State Commission held as under:
"6. According to the appellants, it is a matter of common knowledge as well as based on the expert opinion of agriculturist and horticulturist that the successful growth of the plants does not necessarily depend upon the quality of seeds, but various other factors also. These factors include proper care and cultivation of the plants, use of proper and good quality of manure and pesticide, timely and adequate watering, removal of wild grass and weeds from the fields etc. We have seen the photographs of the fields of the complainant available on the record as well as the report of the District Horticulture Officer. It is evident from these documents that the crop was no doubt yellowish but the same were surrounded by wild grass and weeds.
7. Moreover, in the report it is nowhere mentioned that the seeds were defective or sub-standard. Further, there is no proof that the same seeds which were supplied by the appellant actual used by the complainant.
8. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., vs Sandhu and Anr. II (2005) SLT 569 - 11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC - (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd., Vs Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2428 of 2008 wherein it has been held that variation in condition of crops needs not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds.
9. On these premises the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the impugned order passed the learned District Forum deserves to be set aside.
10. On the other side, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently reiterated the contentions and conclusions of the learned District Forum on the basis whereof, the complaint has been allowed by awarding the compensation.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in complete agreement with the appellant and find that there is no cogent evidence on record on the basis whereof it could be concluded that the seeds sold by the appellant had actually been sown by the complainant and the same were defective or sub-standard.
12. So, crops turned yellow and was found badly defective, same were surrounded by wild grass and weeds. We are also satisfied that the crop got damaged due to the carelessness of the complainant. There being no deficiency in service or sale of defective and sub-standard on the part of the appellant.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside".
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully.
6. The impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that the report of the District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat was not given any weightage since no seeds were available with the petitioner for testing. It has averred that this should have been done in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Madhusudan Reddy & Anr.(supra) which held that:
"The onus passes on to the petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of "Arkajyothi" of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under section 13 (c) of the C P Act. Learned counsel's plea that respondent/ complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement."
It has also been challenged on the ground that the basis for the State Commission's finding that the crop was damaged due to the carelessness of the complainant since the crop was infested with weeds was incorrect since it was on account of the failure of the okra crop that the petitioner stopped tending to it, and not the other way around.
7. On the part of the respondent, however, it is contended that the seeds were not defective and that the petitioner has not been able to produce any expert's report or the report of any authorized laboratory that the seeds were defective. Respondent has contended that the yield of a crop is dependent upon several factors including sound agricultural practices including use of manure, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation and weather. It is his case that the State Commission has rightly set aside the order of District Commission.
8. From the above facts of this case and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission, it is apparent that the onus to prove that seeds were of good quality lay with the respondent who cannot take shelter under section 13 (1) (c) of the CP Act. No application was also filed by the respondent before the District Forum for a laboratory test to assess the quality of seeds when they are confident the seeds were of good quality. The test of seeds as envisaged under the Act is intended to establish its 'quality' which is in question. Germination of seeds and their yield is clearly a function of its quality. A test by an appropriate laboratory would have settled the issue one way or another. However, the petitioner chose not to get such a test done in an 'appropriate laboratory'.
9. Respondent no. 2 has not brought on record any report to substantiate his claim that the okra seeds in question were not defective. No laboratory tests or expert opinion have been submitted. It is not to be expected from a farmer that he will retain seeds in anticipation of the same requiring testing in a laboratory. Respondent no. 2, as the manufacturer of the seeds should have been in a position to produce records to the contrary, especially since it is his case that the seeds were not defective. The petitioner has done his due diligence in approaching the District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat who is an expert in the field.
10. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the okra seeds planted by the petitioner were defective which resulted in their yielding a yellowish crop that was rated as unfit for human consumption by the District Horticulture Officer, Sonepat and therefore, could not be sold, resulting in financial loss to the petitioner. The impugned order of the State Commission has clearly erred in not appreciating the facts and the law laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court properly and arriving at a finding that is legally not sustainable. For these reasons, the petition is liable to succeed.
11. In view of the foregoing, we find merit in the petition which is accordingly allowed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and the order dated 20.11.2014 in complaint no. 415 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat is affirmed.
...................... C. VISWANATH PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SUBHASH CHANDRA MEMBER