State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naveen Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti & ... vs Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm on 15 June, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/113
Instituted on : 06.02.2017
1. Naveen Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti,
Banstall, Hospital Ward,
Raipur (C.G.) 492001
2. Manager, Naveen Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti,
Banstall, Hospital Ward,
Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ..... Appellants (OPs.)
Vs.
Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm,
Through : Partner, Jaikishan Jakhodiya,
Aged about 58 years,
Address : Jakhodiya Krishi Farm,
Kumhari, Block Dhamdha,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Avocate for the appellants (OPs).
Shri Apurv Goyal, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 15/06/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./2016/382. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
// 2 // (1) The OPs will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.8,03,540/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred Forty) within a period of one month from the date of order to the complainant.
(2) The OPs will jointly and severally pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.05.2016 till realistion.
(3) The OPs will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(4) The OPs will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is involved in agricultural activities for the past several years and its partner is a farmer who is dependent on agriculture activities for his livelihood. The land belongs to the complainant and he is the sole owner of the land and the land is only used for agricultural activities. The complainant for its agricultural activities, had bought 720 kgs of Soyabean-JS-335 30 Kg belonging to M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg Chhattisgarh at the rate of 80,00 per kg and had paid a total amount of Rs.57,600/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand and Six Hundred) to the OPs on 01.07.2014. The complainant had intended // 3 // to cultivate the 720 kilograms of soyabean seeds in near about 24 acres of land of the agriculture farm from July till October. The complainant was shocked to see the results of the germination of seeds as only 10 percent of the seeds were germinated. Apart from low germination, it was also found that there was only few grains in the soyabean seeds. The low germination and negligible number of grains immensely affected the soyabean crop of the complainant. The complainant as soon as he got the knowledge about the low germination and poor quality of seeds, wrote a letter to the OPs and all concerned authorities dated 28.10.2014 wherein the complainant informed every detail about the low germination and poor quality of seeds. The complainant also provided the OPs an account of the total loss that was caused to the complainant. The complainant further asked whether the Company which had supplied the Soya Bean seeds was black listed by the State Government. The OPs replied vide letter dated 17.11.2014 wherein instead of verifying or inspecting the quality of seeds came up with baseless allegations and accused the complainant for the low germination and poor quality of seeds. The OPs failed to provide an answer to the question whether the Company which had supplied Soya Bean had been black listed by the State Government. The complainant had made all arrangements in his agriculture farm regarding the soya bean crop. The complainant had also invested an amount to the tune of Rs.2,99,540/- on fertilizers, insecticides and miscellaneous expenses. A loss of Rs.5,04,000/- was // 4 // caused to the complainant because of no yield from the soya bean seeds. The complainant was later informed through an RTI from the Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh that M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg, Chhattisgarh, the Company which had supplied Soya Bean seeds to the OPs and the OPs had then supplied the same to the complainant, had already been blacklisted by the Department wherein seeds supplied by M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Durg were not to be supplied by the OPs. Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture had even ordered for an inspection of the premises of the complainant. However, due to unreasonable delay, the same could not be carried out by the concerned authorities. The OPs did not make any efforts to either inspect the premises of the complainant or resolve the issues of the complainant despite several representations. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.01.2016 (date written as 21.01.2015 due to typographical error) to the OPs claiming the amount of repairs and the interest caused because of delay. The OPs replied to the legal notice on 08.02.2016, wherein they rejected all the claims made by the complainant and further made false claims that M/s Ankur Been Utpadak Samiti, Durg, Chhattisgarh is entitled to sell till 20.06.2017 and that it has not been blacklisted. It was the duty of the OPs to supply the seeds to the complainant only after verification of quality and germination of the seeds and to further check whether the seeds supplied do not come under the blacklisted category prescribed by the // 5 // State Government. The poor quality of seeds supplied by the OPs clearly comes within the ambit of "deficiency" as provided under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs have committed gross negligence by supplying the seeds which were legally not permissible from a Company which was blacklisted by the State Government. The OPs have been engaged in unfair trade practices by selling defective and blacklisted seeds to its consumers. The OPs have further failed to compensated the complainant for the loss that has been caused to him which clearly amounts deficiency in service as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant has bought seeds from the OPs for a consideration for the purposes of carrying out agricultural activities for his own livelihood and the OPs sold the seeds to the complainant and the refusal to reimburse the claimed amount on wrong reasons and presumptions amounts to deficiency in services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The OPs have filed their written statement and averred that the complainant used words "for livelihood" in the complaint to bring him in the category of consumer whereas in the notice dated 21.01.2016, the complainant did not use the above word. The production of excessive // 6 // quantity of oil seeds comes in the category of commercial purpose. The OPs have no concern with M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Durg. Production of oil seeds in 24 acres land affirms that it is commercial agriculture. The complainant was required to inform the seller of the seeds or its manufacturer/producer regarding the less germination of the seeds within 14 days of sowing the seeds, but the complainant did not do so. The complainant did not follow the required instructions given for cultivation. The soyabean crop is completed within 95-100 days. The complainant has not filed any Certificate of recognized agriculture expert as evidence under Section 2(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also did not rebut that the notification issued by the Government regarding the small farmers. The complainant was using Soyabean for production of oil seed, which comes in the category of commercial purpose and in this regard report of expert has not been filed. The complainant himself admitted that M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg (C.G.) has been blacklisted. The complainant himself admitted that the OPs are doing their business at Raipur and they have no concern with M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg. The seeds approved by the Government was provided. The complainant has not filed any evidence to show that the seeds which were provided to the complainant were of sub-standard quality. The complainant has not filed report of any recognized laboratory or recognized expert that the OPs have provided sub-
// 7 // standard quality seeds to the complainant. The complainant has not proved that there is branch of M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg (C.G.) and OPs. The District Forum has jurisdiction regarding valuation of the complaint, but the OPs have no branch at Durg (C.G.). The bills which were filed are relating to Raipur (C.G.), therefore, the District Forum, Durg (C.G.) has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OPs.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A/1(colly) are copy of Rin Pustika and Kisan Credit Pass book, Annexure A/2 is copy of invoice and receipt, Annexure A/3 is copy of letter dated 28.10.2014, Annexure A/4 is copy of letter dated 17.11.2014, Annexure A/5 is copy of expenses, Annexure A/6 is copy of document of blacklisting, Annexure A/7 is copy of document showing inspection, Annexure A/8 is copy of legal notice dated 20.01.2016, Annexure A/9 is copy of reply to legal notice dated 08.02.2016.
5. The OPs have filed documents. Document Annexure I is letter dated 22.05.2014 sent by Licensing Authority, Addl. Director of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur to M/s Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Annexure II is Licence and terms and conditions of licence, Annexure III is Annexure I List of Crops Varieties Approved in the Licence.
// 8 //
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to jointly and severally pay the amounts to the complainant, as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
7. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the respondent (complainant) is a partnership firm and cultivation is being done on behalf of the partnership firm, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not consumer and the dispute between the parties is not a consumer dispute. According to the respondent (complainant) he had bought 720 kgs of soyabean - JS - 335 30 kgs belonging to M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg, Chhattisgarh, which is not related to the appellants (OPs). M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti is a different entity. The appellants are seller of the soyabean seeds and the seeds are manufactured/produced by M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, therefore, M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, is a necessary party, but the respondent (complainant) did not make it party, hence for want of necessary party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. According to the respondent (complainant) he purchased the seeds on 01.07.2014 whereas the soyabean crop was cultivated in the month of July, 2013. If the seed is not germinating properly, then it is the duty of the respondent (complainant) to intimate or to make complaint regarding low germination of the seeds, to the competent authority as well as to the // 9 // appellants (OPs), but the respondent (complainant) did not make any complaint regarding low germination of the seeds and for the first time he send letter to the appellants (OPs) on 28.10.2014. Even the respondent (complainant) submitted an application under Right to Information Act on 09.11.2014 before Public Information Officer and Assistant Director Agriculture, Raipur. It appears that the respondent (complainant) did not make any complaint that the seed is of sub- standard quality or is having low germination. The respondent (complainant) has not filed any Laboratory Report regarding sub- standard quality of seeds. The respondent (complainant) also did not file any expert report regarding the seeds. If the germination in the seeds was not proper and seeds was of sub-standard quality, then it is the duty of the respondent (complainant) to send the seeds to the authorized laboratory for testing and to obtain laboratory report, but the respondent (complainant) did not obtain any such report. Even the respondent (complainant) did not file any report of Agriculture Authorities. The respondent (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that he suffered loss due to low germination of seeds, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appeal may be allowed and impugned order may be set aside. He placed reliance on Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sri Sai Industries & Ors. IV (2016) CPJ 67 (NC); Mohammad Momid Khan Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. and Another, 2015 // 10 // (1) C.G.L.J. (CCC) decided by this Commission vide order dated 25.04.2014; Jagdevrao Vs. Modhi Agro Jentix Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. IV (2016) CPJ 211 (NC); Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare & Ors. II (2016) CPJ 29 (NC) and Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. Vs. Vijaykumar Shankarrao & Anr. II (2017) CPJ 148 (NC).
8. Shri Apurv Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has filed written arguments and contended that the respondent (complainant) is an agriculturist and he cultivated agricultural land for his livelihood. The respondent (complainant) purchased soyabean seeds from Naveen Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Raipur (C.G.) and he paid a sum of Rs.57,600/- to the appellants (OPs) on 01.07.2014. The respondent (complainant) cultivated 720 kgs of soyabean seeds on 24 acres of his agricultural farm. The respondent (complainant) was shocked to see the results of the germination of the seeds as only 10% of the seeds were germinated. Apart from the low germination, it was also found that there were only few grains in the soyabean seeds. The respondent (complainant) wrote letters to the appellants (OPs) and all concerned authorities on 28.10.2014 regarding low germination and poor quality of the seeds. The respondent (complainant) incurred expenditure of Rs.2,99,540/- in cultivation of soyabean seeds and he suffered loss of Rs.5,04,000/-. The respondent (complainant) made efforts for inspection of his field but the authorities had not inspected his field. Even the respondent (complainant) wrote // 11 // letter to the Minister for Agriculture, who ordered for inspection of the premises of the respondent (complainant), but the authorities did not comply the order of Minister for Agriculture. The appellants (OPs) committed deficiency in service and the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and awarded compensation to the respondent (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellants (OPs) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583; M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors., decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.08.1998; Appeal No.FA/2013/422 - Chhattisgarh State Seed and Agriculture Development Corporation Limited Vs. Ramchandra Dilliwar and another, decided by this Commission vide order dated 16.05.2014.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as impugned order passed by the District Forum.
10. Firstly, we shall examine whether the respondent (complainant) is a "consumer" ?
// 12 //
11. In title of the complaint, the respondent (complainant) mentioned that "Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm, Through its Partner Shri Jaikishan Jakhodiya. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant is involved in agricultural activities for the past several years and its partner is a farmer. The respondent (complainant) filed copy of letter dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure A/3) which was sent by Jaikishan Jakhodiya, Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm to Naveen Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Shri K. R. Chandrakar, Manager, in which it is mentioned that Jaikishan Jakhodiya, Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm, Kumhari, District Durg, Block Dhamdha (Chhattisgarh). The respondent (complainant) also filed copy of legal notice dated 21.01.2015 sent by Apurv Goyal, Advocate on behalf of the respondent (complainant) to the appellants (OPs) in which it is mentioned that Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm Through its partner Mr. Jaikishan Jakhodiya. In para 1 of the legal notice it is mentioned that the respondent (complainant) is an agricultural firm and is engaged in farming and agricultural activities for his livelihood. According to the respondent (complainant), the soyabean seeds were cultivated in near about 24 acres of his agricultural land. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent (complainant) is a partnership firm and soyabean seeds were cultivated in large quantity, which shows that soyabean seeds were cultivated for commercial purpose. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not a // 13 // consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dispute is not consumer dispute, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
12. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that Jakhodiya Agriculture Farm is a partnership firm and Jaikishan Jakhodiya is partner of the firm. The respondent (complainant) filed copy of Bhu - Adhikar Abhilekh & Rin Pustka (Annexure A-1). In the Rin Pustika, it is mentioned that Purshottam Das, Bhagwan Das and others are also co- owners of the land, whereas the instant complaint has been filed by Jaikishan Jakhodiya only. The respondent (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that co-owners of the land or partners of the partnership firm have authorized him to file complaint on their behalf. It appears that Jaikishan Jakhodiya, has not been authorized by the other partners of the firm or co-owners of the land, therefore, Jaikishan Jakhodiya, has no right to file the instant complaint on behalf of other co-owners of land or partners of the firm.
13. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that the respondent (complainant) is agriculturist and had bought 720 kgs of Soyabean-JS- 335 30 Kg belonging to M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg (C.G.) @ Rs.80 per kg and had paid total amount of Rs.57,600/- to the OPs on 01.07.2014. The appellants (OPs) have no relation with M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Samiti. The responent (complainant) has filed // 14 // document annexure A-4 which is legal notice dated 17.11.2014 sent by the appellants (OPs) to the respondent (complainant) in which the appellants (OPs) specifically mentioned that the appellants (OPs) are only seller of the seeds and not manufacturer/producer of the seeds.
14. The respondent (complainant) filed document Annexure 6 and Annexure 6 (i). Annexure 6 (i) is letter dated 02.07.2014 sent by Director Agriculture, Raipur to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg in which it is mentioned that "fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr vkns'k ds rkjrE; esa ys[k gS fd esllZ vadqj cht mRiknd lgdkjh lfefr nqxZ ¼N-x-½ }kjk N-x- jkT; cht ,oa d`f"k fodkl fuxe jk;iqj dks [kjhQ 2014 esa lks;kchu cht iznk; fd;k x;k Fkk tks ekud Lrj ls de ik;k x;k ftlds dkj.k izca/k lapkyd N- x- jkT; cht ,oa d`f"k fodkl fuxe fyfeVsM jk;iqj }kjk esll vadqj cht mRiknd lgdkjh lfefr nqxZ ¼N-x-½ dks dkyh lwph esa Mkyk x;kA rkfd esllZ vadqj cht mRiknd lgdkjh lfefr dks N-x- jkT; ds fy;s nh xbZ cht vuqKk i= dks cht xq.k ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k 1983 ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tk ldsA---------------"
15. Letter dated 04.1.2014 (Annexure A/6) was sent by Assistant Director Agriculture and Public Information Officer, Durg (C.G.) to Jaikishan Jakhodiya, in which it is mentioned thus :-
"fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr i= esa vkids }kjk lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr 6 fcUnqvksa dh tkudkjh ekaxh xbZ gS tks fcUnqokj fuEukuqlkj gS%& // 15 // fcUnq d-1¼d½ N-x- jkT; cht ,oa d`f"k fodkl fuxe :vkcka/kk ls fy;s x;s lks;kchu ds cht uewus ijh{k.k ds mijkar vekud ik;s tkus ij rRdky fod; izfrcaf/kr dj dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;kA fcUnq d-1¼[k½ lsok lgdkjh lfefr;ksa esa HkaMkfjr lks;kchu cht vekud gksus ds mijkar rRdky fod; izfrcaf/kr dj dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds lkFk gh laLFkk dks vekud cht ewyr% okil fd;k x;kA fcUnq d-1¼x½ mijksDr ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ;k laLFkk dk cht vekud ugha gSA fcUnq d-2- gkWa] dqN ek=k dk mi;ksx d`"kdksa }kjk fd;k x;k ,oa dqN ek=k dks lsok lgdkjh lfefr;ksa esa cht okil fd;k x;kA fcUnq d-3- jkgr gsrq 'kklu Lrj ij fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gS] bl laca/k esa orZeku esa vkt fnukad 'kklu ls dksbZ funsZ'k ikIr ugha gq;s gSaA fcUnq d-4- ftys esa futh cht mRiknu laLFkk esllZ vadqj cht mRiknd lgdkjh lfefr nqxZ }kjk lks;kchu dk mRiknu fd;k tkrk gS ftldh vuqefr lapkyuky; }kjk iznk; dh tkrh gSA bl laca/k esa fofnr gks dh mDr laLFkk dks dkyh lwph esa Mky fy;k x;kA fcUnq d-5- ftys esa uksfVl cht mRiknu laLFkk esllZ vadqj cht mRiknd lgdkjh lfefr nqxZ }kjk lks;kchu dk mRiknu fd;k tkrk gS ftldh vuqefr lapkyuky; }kjk iznk; dh tkrh gSA bl laca/k esa fofnr gks dh mDr laLFkk dks dkyh lwph esa Mky fy;k x;kA fcUnq d-6- izfrcaf/kr cht mRikndksa dks dkyh lwph esa Mkys tkus ckor~~ i= dh izfr layXu gSA d``Ik;k lwpukFkZA** // 16 //
16. Looking to the above documents, it appears that the soyabean seeds were manufactured /produced by M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, Durg (C.G.) and the appellants (OPs) are only seller of the seeds and the seeds were produced /manufactured by M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti and the seeds were only sold by the appellants (OPs), therefore, M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti, is necessary party, but the respondent (complainant) did not make party, hence the complaint is liable to dismissed for want of necessary party.
17. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that he cultivated the soyabean seeds in his agriculture farm, but the germination of seeds is only 10%. Generally, the cultivation of soyabean is done in the month of July and within 14-15 days the germination of soyabean is completed. The respondent (complainant) was having knowledge regarding poor germination of the soyabean seeds, in the month of July, 2014 itself, but the respondent (complainant) did not make any complaint regarding the poor germination to the appellants (OPs) or concerned authorities of the State Government. For the first time, the respondent (complainant) sent letter to the appellants (OPs) on 28.10.2014 i.e. after three months of cultivation of the seeds.
18. In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Kumar and Anr. 2017 (2) CPR 329 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission // 17 // has observed that "Allegation of defective seeds must be proved by Lab report."
19. In Jagdevrao Vs. Modhi Agro Jentix Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Panchnama placed on record shows that germination was observed as 7% only. There is no report from any technical authority or laboratory on record to establish that seeds in question were defective. It was duty of complainant to make efforts to have the sample of seeds tested from laboratory or get the opinion of agricultural experts. After learning that there was no germination in Soyabean seeds, complainant took another crop from said field. Impugned award upheld."
20. In Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ishwarbhai Baburao Thakare & Ors. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"11. .... In absence of any definite report about defective seeds, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal partly and complaint is liable to be dismissed in the absence of cogent evidence about defectiveness of seeds."
21. In the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another, 2013 (3) CPR 589 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gaurishankar and India Seed House v.
// 18 // Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :-
"There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case ? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. By the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. 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 Body' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13(c) of the CP 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."
// 19 //
22. In the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds v. Garapati Srinivas Rao & Anr., 2014(1) CPR 543 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus :
"25. In M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors., Revision Petition No.4280 of 2007 decided on 20.3.2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Commission observed :
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have also gone through the evidence on record The report of the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum to inspect the affected fields/brinjal crops had after visiting the spot given a finding that there were variations in the Brinjal plants which indicated that there was a mixture of the seeds and it is because of this that flowers as well as the plants were of differing varieties. The report nowhere states that the variation was because of defective seeds. Counsel for Petitioner had submitted that under these circumstances, the Fora below erred in concluding by citing report of the Court Commission that the findings of the Commissioner amounted to supply of defective seeds by Petitioner/its dealers. Counsel for Petitioner also cited a number of judgments to state that the onus to prove that the seeds supply were defective were in fact on the Respondent. We find force in these contentions of the Counsel for Petitioner which is in consonance with our own rulings on this issue. In R.P. 3525/2007 in which Mayhco Seeds was also the Petitioner, this Commission had concluded as follows :-
"Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants. Except for producing the report of the Asstt. Director Agriculture reproduced above, respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds supplied to them were defective. A perusal of the report would show that it nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective. Variation in // 20 // condition of the crops is not and cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds but to some other factors. Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops. The report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpon. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2428/2008) has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is a specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the Complainant. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the report of the Court Commissioner does not state that the variation in the seeds was because of any genetic defect and the Respondent on whom the onus to prove otherwise, has produced no evidence that the Petitioner's seeds had any genetic defect, therefore, cannot uphold the orders of the Fora below and the same are set aside. The revision petitions are allowed and the complaints dismissed with no order as to costs."
23. It is well settled that crop can be affected due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. In the instant case, the respondent (complainant) has simply pleaded that he cultivated soyabean seeds in // 21 // near about 24 acres of the land of agriculture farm, but germination of seeds is only 10%. The respondent (complainant) did not file any documents to prove that he immediately sent letter to the appellants (OPs) and other concerned authorities of the State Government regarding poor germination of the soyabean sees. For the first time, the respondent (complainant) sent letter to the appellants (OPs) on 28.10.2014 i.e. after near about 3 months of the cultivation of the soyabean seeds.
24. It is expected from the cultivator that that if the seeds were not germinating properly or the germination of the seed is below standard and not satisfactory, then the agriculturists can move an application before competent authority for inspecting the field and they can make complaints before the competent authority for inspecting the field, but in the instant case, the respondent (complainant) has only pleaded that Minister for Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh had even ordered for inspection of premises of the respondent (complainant). The respondent (complainant) also tried to resolve the dispute and made several representations. The respondent (complainant) has not filed any letter sent by him to the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh and also to the concerned authorities. Even the respondent (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that the respondent (complainant) wrote letter to the Agriculture Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for inspecting his field. In the instant case // 22 // the respondent (complainant) had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act 1986. The respondent (complainant) had also not moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the seeds of same batch number tested from any laboratory. Even the respondent (complainant) did not move any application before Revenue Authority or Agriculture Development Authority for inspecting the field.
25. Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the respondent (complainant), but the respondent (complainant) did not file any document to prove that the seeds purchased by him were defective. The respondent (complainant) did not make any application before the Agriculture Officer or appellants (OPs) to inspect his field and the respondent (complainant) did not lead any evidence to prove that seeds supplied to him, were defective. Even the respondent (complainant) has not filed any document to prove that he suffered loss as mentioned in para 7 and 8 of the complaint. The respondent (complainant) did not obtained report from Agriculture Department, Patwari or Revenue Inspector, regarding poor germination in the soyabean seeds, therefore, mere allegation made in the complaint is not sufficient. The fact that M/s Ankur Beej Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, has been blacklisted by the Director, C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Raipur, which is manufacturer / producer of the soyabean seeds, is not sufficient to hold that the appellants (OPs) // 23 // sold the inferior or substandard quality soyabean seeds to the respondent (complainant). Merely allegation made in the complaint is not sufficient to establish that the soyabean seeds purchased by the respondent (complainant) are of inferior quality or of sub-standard quality and there is no evidence to show that there was any impurity in the seeds supplied to the respondent (complainant).
26. We are of the opinion that the respondent (complainant) has failed to establish that there was any defect in the quality of seeds or the seeds were of sub-standard quality and due to sub-standard quality of the seeds, germination of the seeds was poor. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellants (OPs). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
27. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants (OPs) is allowed and impugned order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
15/06/2017 15 /06/2017 15/06/2017