National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indo American Hybrid Seeds And Anr. vs Vijayakumar Shankarao And Anr. on 19 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2(2007)CPJ148(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellants were the opposite parties before the State Commission, where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that a number of complainants purchased seeds produced by the appellant from one M/s. Soni Food. The arrangements were that M/s. Soni Food will sell the seed to M/s. Temptation Food Limited, Pune, who guaranteed to buy whatever produce of the crop would be there. The rate of produce was also fixed and likewise an agreement was made with M/s. Temptation Food Limited. The seed for Broccoli crop was purchased which was a produce of the appellants and was planted in December 1993. Due care was taken and necessary cropping practices were adopted. Complainants also attended a get-together organised by the appellants at Hotel Sangam at Karhad on 21.2.1994. When the complainant did not find the crop growth upto the expectations in the third week of February, the complainants contacted the officials of the appellant company, who made certain suggestions, but yet seeing no improvement in the expected crop output, they reported the matter to the agriculture authorities who submitted a report, according to which the complainants would get only about 10% of the Broccoli thus causing a grave loss. Thus alleging deficiency in service a complaint was filed before the District Forum, claiming slightly over Rs. 9,00,000 with interest. The State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 9,07,500 on account of sale of defective seed which amounted to an unfair trade practice by the appellants. The amount was to be paid within 4 weeks of the passing of the order failing which it was to carry interest © 18%p.a. A compensation of Rs. 15,000each was granted to each of the individual agriculturists along with cost of the seed purchased from the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at some length and perused the material on record. It is interesting to see that while in the complaint itself it is mentioned that they purchased the seed from M/s. Soni Food/ M/S. Temptation Food Limited and it is with the latter that they got into an agreement for purchase of the final produce, yet they were not Wade parties before the State Commission. What surprises us is that despite this, the State Commission has gone on to give an award against appellants.
4. It is not disputed that the appellant is a producer of certain Broccoli seed, hence the case has to be decided on the strength or otherwise of the quality of product. We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant to show us even an iota of evidence, wherein any qualified person or laboratory has found fault with the 'Quality of seed', reportedly supplied by the appellant. The learned Counsel wishes us to rely upon the report dated 2.4.1994 prepared by the Agriculture Development Officer, Seed Officer, Seed Certification Officer, Quality Control Inspector and one more member. We have very carefully gone through this report, even though written in Marathi, but a free translated copy in English has been brought on record in which it is stated, "It was found that in case 90% crop, there was no development of Broccoli Flower (Gadda), and the crop had grown in abnormal fashion and crop cannot, therefore, fetch any price in the market, only 10% crop was found to be with the proper Broccoli Flower (Gadda) while the 90% crop was not up to the expected quality." Rest of the two pages of the report deal with compensation, loss, etc., etc. The above observation at no stage can be held against the appellant for supplying seed of any poor quality resulting in the above deficit. We are still more surprised that since this team comprised the District Seed Certification Officer and the Quality Control Inspector, yet not a word has been stated against or about the quality of 'seeds' supplied. The variation in yield could be on account of preparation of land and care, use of pesticides, insecticides, fertilisers, climate, temperature and the like. Those are external consideration.
5. We have to fix the responsibilities of the appellant only with regard to the quality of seed supplied on which there is no evidence brought on record by the complainants in support of the contention that the seeds supplied Were of standard or non-standard quality. We are unable to appreciate the conclusion reached by the State Commission that "sale of defective seed was a case of unfair trade practice by O.P.". We are yet more shocked that the State Commission goes on to observe in its order, "It is stated that these seeds were certified by the officers of the Agriculture Department as defective." As referred to earlier, we have gone through the same report very carefully. There is not a word on the quality of seed, let alone the Department Officers, certifying the seed as defective. Perhaps the State Commission was in great hurry to dispose of this complaint. It should not be forgotten that we are to be led by the "evidence' and "proof on the subject. In the absence of any proof or evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the seeds supplied by the appellant were in any way defective, hence in our view, in these circumstances, no liability can be fastened on the appellant.
6. In view of above we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission, hence set aside. The appeal is allowed, complaints are dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.