National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahyco Seeds Ltd. vs G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. on 23 May, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2007 (Against order dtd. 08.2.2007 in Appeal No.1894/2005 of the State Commission, A.P.) Mahyco Seeds Ltd. ....... Petitioner (s) Vs. G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. ........ Respondent (s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Swarup, Mr.Ashok Anand, Mr.Shivendra Swarup, Advocates For Respondent : NEMO Pronounced on 23rd May, 2011 ORDER
PER MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER M/s Mahyco Seeds Ltd., Petitioner in this case has filed the present Revision Petition against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents).
The case of the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum is that he had purchased 18 packets of cotton seeds of 225 gms. each which were manufactured by the Petitioner.
He sowed and nurtured the seeds by applying fertilizers and pesticides as required. He was assured that the yield per acre would be 10 quintals under normal conditions. However, although there was heavy growth of plants, there were no buds and flowers because of which he made a complaint to the Agricultural Officers and requested them to visit his fields for inspection. Agricultural Officers accordingly after inspecting the crops on 02.01.2004 opined that there was failure of crops because no buds and flowers were noticed due to genetically failed seeds resulting in total crop failure.
They also opined that this was because of the manufacturing defect in the seeds of the Respondent. As a result of this, Respondent suffered heavy losses and assessed the same at Rs.2,24,000/- which he would have earned if the normal yield per acre had been 10 quintals. He, therefore, approached the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
Petitioner challenged this complaint as being false and not maintainable on various grounds. Regarding the failure of the crops allegedly due to manufacturing defects, Petitioner has denied it on the grounds that its genetic purity has been confirmed as being 98% in their own Quality Control Laboratory which is recognized by the Ministry of Science & Technology. Further, it is apparent from the Respondents statement as well as the report of the Agricultural Officer that the crop was not sent for any scientific testing and is based only on visual inspections and conjectures. For example, the Respondents contention that the duration of the crop is 90 days and the yield per acre would be 10 quintals are vague and baseless. In fact, the total duration of the crop is 160 to 170 days and the yield depends upon many factors including the fertility and type of land, proper use of fertilizers and pesticides, crop and water management, plant protection, environmental conditions etc. The same seeds were purchased by many farmers and there were no complaints.
Even the report of the Agriculture Officer indicates that the growth was sufficient and satisfactory and the germination was good. Therefore, the question of genetic failure does not arise. Further, Respondent never approached the Petitioner with any complaints and even the inspection by the Agriculture Officer was done behind his back. On the other hand, there is evidence on record that the crops were sowed late and in a rainfed land which was not fit for this crop. The Joint Director (Agriculture) to whom the report was sent by the Agricultural Officer vide its letter dated 07.02.2004 has confirmed that it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the cotton crop as the complaint was filed after 50% of flowering stage i.e. after the crop duration of 5 months and 10 days.
In other words, at the time of inspection the crops had been harvested. The entire contention of the Respondent is, therefore, fabricated and not based on facts for which the Petitioner cannot be held responsible. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that the burden was on the Petitioner to prove that the seed was not of substandard quality with genetic impurity, which the Petitioner failed to prove. The operative part of the order of the District Forum is reproduced:
10. The respondents in his case contended that the failure of the crop was due to non-observation of the instructions and recommendations and not proper using of pesticides and fertilizers and inspection report was prepared without knowledge of the respondent. At the time of visiting of the Agriculture Officer duration of crop was 160 days old and was harvested and the crop duration was completed at that time. The burden was on the respondent to prove that it was not their negligence for deficiency of service towards the complainant and the seed was not substandard with genetic impurity. There was no defect in the seed. The respondent failed to prove the same. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the loss of crop. There was no proper evidence regarding the quantum of compensation for loss of the crop of 70 quintals @ Rs.3,200/- per quintal from the complainant.
The District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the Respondent within three month from the date of the order.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal by concluding that the order of the District Forum is a well reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Counsel for Petitioner was present. None appeared on behalf of Respondent though the notice sent to him has been acknowledged through A.D. card. Since 30 days period from the date of issue of notice has elapsed, Respondent is deemed to have been served and the case is proceeded ex parte.
Respondent, however, has filed written submissions on 01.04.2011 which is on record before us.
Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that the learned fora below failed to appreciate that there was no credible evidence that the Petitioner had supplied genetically defective seeds as alleged by the Respondent. This is confirmed by not only their own laboratory, which is recognized by Ministry of Science & Technology and which clearly indicates that the genetic purity of the seed was 98% but also the report of the Agricultural Officer which states that there was no problem of germination and that seeds germination was sufficient. The report also states that the germination of the Respondents field is the same as from other farmers fields from where no complaints have been received. It is, therefore, strange that in his analysis and comments, the Agricultural Officer concluded that there was failure of crops because there were no buds; Boll flowers noticed and seeds had genetically failed. It is not possible through visual inspection to reach the conclusion that the seeds had genetic defects. On the hand, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent had planted the seeds at the end of July whereas the recommended sowing period is May and June. Further, the seed was sown in rainfed land which is not recommended and it is not clear whether proper fertilizers and pesticides were applied. Counsel for Petitioner further pointed out that this report has also been rejected by the Joint Director(Agriculture) because the inspection was conducted beyond the 50% flowering stage when the crop was harvested and it was, therefore, not possible to assess the genetic purity of the crop. Counsel for Petitioner further contended that the District Forums observations that the onus to prove that there were no defects in the seeds lay on the Petitioner is also not tenable. The onus in fact to prove this is on the Complainant, (in this case the Respondent) and there are several court rulings including of the National Commission as well as of the Apex Court to this effect.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for Petitioner and also taken into account the written arguments filed by Respondent as also the evidence on record.
The report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by counsel for Petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director(Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible.
The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds.
Respondents action in not informing the Petitioner about the so called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. II(2005) CPJ 13 (SC).
For the above reasons, we are of the view that there was no evidence per se to prove that the crops failed because of genetically deficient seeds and the Respondent on whom the onus was to prove that the seeds were defective failed to do so.
We, therefore, set aside the orders of the fora below and accept the revision petition with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/