State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi ... vs Amrika Bai Sahu & Others on 23 October, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/12/694
Instituted on : 30.11.2012
Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Through : Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Behind Kamla College,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Amrika Bai Sahu, W/o Shri Ashwini Kumar Sahu,
R/o - Pandripathra, Post - Belargondi,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Krishi Vikas Adhikari,
Block - Chhuria, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3. Samiti Prabandhak,
Seva Sahkari Samiti, Salhetola,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4. Prabandhak,
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents
Appeal No.FA/12/695
Instituted on : 30.11.2012
Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Through : Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Behind Kamla College,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Kunjlal, S/o Shri Ramji Mali,
R/o - Pandripathra, Post - Belargondi,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Krishi Vikas Adhikari,
Block - Chhuria, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
// 2 //
3. Samiti Prabandhak,
Seva Sahkari Samiti, Salhetola,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4. Prabandhak,
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents
Appeal No.FA/12/696
Instituted on : 30.11.2012
Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Through : Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Behind Kamla College,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sakharam Sahu,S/o Shri Dhirpal Sahu,
R/o - Pandripathra, Post - Belargondi,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Krishi Vikas Adhikari,
Block - Chhuria, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3. Samiti Prabandhak,
Seva Sahkari Samiti, Salhetola,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4. Prabandhak,
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents
Appeal No.FA/12/697
Instituted on : 30.11.2012
Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Through : Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Behind Kamla College,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
// 3 //
1. Govind Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Bahur Singh Sahu,
R/o - Pandripathra, Post - Belargondi,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Krishi Vikas Adhikari,
Block - Chhuria, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
3. Samiti Prabandhak,
Seva Sahkari Samiti, Salhetola,
Tahsil - Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4. Prabandhak,
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil & District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN ALL FOUR APPEALS :
Shri Manish Vyas, for appellant/O.P.No.2.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent No.1/complainant.
None for respondent No.2./O.P.No.1.
Smt. Nivedita Mishra, for respondent Nos.3 & 4./O.P.Nos.3 & 4.
ORDER
DATED : 23/10/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
Appeal No.FA/12/694, has been filed against order dated 31.10.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.85/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the O.P.No.2/appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1 as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation & Advocate fee along with interest @ 6% p.a. // 4 // Complainant has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to O.P.Nos.01, 03 and 04 as cost of litigation and Advocate fee within a month from the date of order.
2. Similar orders have been passed in Complaint Case Nos.86/2011, 87/2011 and 88/2011 on 31.10.2012 and the appellant/O.P.No.2 has preferred appeal Nos.FA/12/696, FA/12/697 and FA/12/698 against those orders also. For the purpose of convenience all these appeals are taken up altogether for hearing by this Commission and are being decided by a common order. The questions of law and questions of fact involved in the matters are similar, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of further convenience, henceforth in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint cases. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No.FA/12/694 and it's copy be placed in the file of Appeal Nos.FA/695, FA/12/696 & FA/12/697.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that :-
3.1 The complainants of complaint case Nos.85/2011, 86/2011, 87/2011 and 88/2011 are resident of Village Pandripathra, Post -
Belargondi, Tahsil Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and they are agriculturists by profession. They are having their own separate agriculture land of more than 5 acres, 5 acres, 4 acres and 5 acres // 5 // respectively at Village Pandripathra, Post Belargoni, Tahsil Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon. O.P.No.2/appellant herein - C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, is a Corporation, O.P.No.1/respondent No.2 is Krishi Viastar Adhikari (Agriculture Development Officer), O.P.No.3/respondent No.3 is a Co-operative Society and O.P.No.4/respondent No.4 is Co-operative Bank. The complainants of complaint No.85/2011 & 86/2011 purchased 2 qtls. Soyabean Seeds from O.P.No.3 at the price of Rs.4,600/- each. The complainants of complaint Nos.87/2011 & 88/2011 purchased 1 qtl. & 60 Kgs Soyabean Seeds from O.P.No.3. at the price of Rs.3,600/- each. Complainants of Complaint Case No.85/2011 & 86/2011 also purchased fertilizer from O.P.No.3 vide permit No.3519 dated 19.05.2011 and complainants of Complaint Case No.87/2011 and 88/2011 also purchased fertilizer from O.P.No.3 vide permit No. No.3527 dated 23.05.2011 and they sprinkled it in their fields. The complainants sown the seeds in their fields. After some days, they noticed that germination of seeds were sub-standard and not satisfactory. On 09.07.2011 Panchanama was prepared by Sarpanch in the presence of some villagers and complainants and thereafter the complaints were made by the complainants to O.P.No.1 Agriculture Development Officer, Chhuria, District Rajnandgaon for selling sub-standard seeds by the appellant, but no proceeding was initiated against the appellant and appellant did not respond the complaints made by the complainants. In the // 6 // Panchnama it is mentioned that the seeds were not properly germinated and it's germination is sub-standard in quality. According to the complainants they suffered loss of price of seeds, fertilizer and labour charges for preparation of land for sowing seeds, loss of crops and also mental torture.
3.2. Complainant of Complaint Case No.85/2011, therefore, prayed the District Forum that OPs / respondents, may be directed to pay her compensation of Rs.4,600/- in respect of price of seeds, Rs.13,160/- in respect of price of D.A.P. fertilizer, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of crop, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation, totaling Rs.1,82,760/-.
3.3. Complainant of Complaint Case No.86/2011, therefore, prayed the District Forum that OPs / respondents may be directed to pay him compensation of Rs.4,600/- in respect of price of seeds, Rs.5,000/- in respect of price of D.A.P. fertilizer, Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of crop, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation, totaling Rs.1,74,600/-. 3.4. Complainant of Complaint Case No.87/2011, therefore, prayed the District Forum that OPs / respondents may be directed to pay him compensation of Rs.3,600/- in respect of price of seeds, Rs.4,000/- in respect of price of D.A.P. fertilizer, Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of crop, // 7 // Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental & physical agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation, totaling Rs.1,42,600/. 3.5. Complainant of Complaint Case No.88/2011, therefore, prayed the District Forum that OPs / respondents may be directed to pay him compensation of Rs.3,600/- in respect of price of seed, Rs.4,000/- in respect of price of D.A.P. fertilizer, Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of crop, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental & physical agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation, totaling Rs.1,42,600/.
4. In reply of the consumer complaints, OPs filed their reply separately and they denied the allegations made by the complainants in their complaints. O.P.No.2 stated that complaints were not maintainable against it. The seeds were purchased by the complainants from the Co-operative Society and the complainants would not established that when they sown the crop in their fields. The complainants did not mention specific date of sowing the seeds in their fields. The complainants could not show that the crop had suffered loss due to poor germination of seeds. The seeds were duly certified by the Authority, therefore, the complaints of the complainants were not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.
5. O.P.No.1 / Agriculture Development Officer and O.P.No.3 Co-operative Society & O.P.No.4 Co-operative Bank, have also denied the allegations made by the complainants in their complaints.
// 8 //
6. After due appreciation of the evidence and documents submitted by both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaints and directed the O.P.No.2/appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- to the complainant of Complaint Case No.85/2011, Rs.57,000/- to complainant of Complaint Case No.86/2011, Rs.47,000/- to complainant of Complaint Case No.87/2011, Rs.50,000/- to complainant of Complaint No.88/2011 as compensation and to pay all the complainants Rs.2,000/- as Advocate fee along with interest @ 6% p.a. Complainants of all complaint cases have also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to O.P.Nos.01, 03 and 04 as cost of litigation and Advocate fee within a month from the date of order.
7. In the in instant case, the appellant/O.P.No.2 filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking some documents on record as additional evidence at the appellate stage. Firstly we have considered the aforesaid application to decide whether the appellant has shown sufficient ground for allowing this application.
8. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC reads as under :-
"27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court -
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if -
// 9 //
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
9. Looking to the provision under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court could grant permission to adduce additional evidence only if conditions and limitation prescribed in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is exist. In the instant case, the complainant pleaded that seed was of sub standard quality and its germination was poor. The above facts were well known to the O.P.No.2 / appellant at initial stage. In the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellant mentioned that these documents could not be filed before the District Forum as they were made available to the O.P.No.2 / appellant only after filing the appeal.
10. The above averment of the O.P.No.2/appellant is not acceptable. The documents filed by the O.P.No.2/appellant itself // 10 // shows that the Certificate issued by Chhattisgarh State Seed Certification Institution was issued prior to the date of orders of the District Forum and the appellant had ample opportunity to file above documents before the District Forum but the appellant could not file said documents before the District Forum when complaint was pending. The appellant cannot be permitted to file additional evidence at the appellate stage in order to enable one of the parties to remove its lacuna. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, is not acceptable, hence the same is dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 / appellant, argued that the District Forum had committed an error of law and jurisdiction. He further argued that appellant is a Corporation. It supplied seeds to the Society and the Society sold seeds to the complainants. The complainants never made complaints before the appellant. The said Panchanama was prepared by the Sarpanch, who is not competent authority, therefore, the Panchanama prepared by the Sarpanch has no legal sanctity and it cannot be used as evidence. He further argued that the District Forum had not considered the Panchanama dated 09.07.2011 in its proper perspective. He further argued that the complainants utterly failed to prove that seed was sub-standard and below quality. He further argued that the complainants did not produce expert report under provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (henceforth called "The Act 1986"). It // 11 // is the duty of the complainants to prove that seeds purchased by them were sub-standard, but the complainants failed to prove it. He further argued that the quality of seeds were depending upon various factors viz water, moisture and time of sowing etc. The complainants did not submit expert report before the District Forum, therefore, the orders passed by the District Forum, are not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, the orders passed by the District Forum deserve to be set aside and complaints are liable to be dismissed.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on various decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble National Commission and State Commissions i.e. Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Another., (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198; Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana., I (2009) CPJ 180 (NC); MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC); National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal & Ors., II (2010) CPJ 215 (Madhya Pradesh State Commission)., MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. Subhash Shrihari Devkore & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150 (Mah. State Commission).
13. Learned counsel for the complainants on the other hand supported the impugned orders of the District Forum. It has been submitted by him that after considering the evidence on record and perusing the affidavits and Panchanama filed by the complainants, // 12 // learned District Forum was right in observing that the Panchanama dated 09.07.2011 was admissible and the seed was of sub standard quality. He supported the impugned orders and submitted that impugned orders passed by the District Forum do not call for any interference of this Commission, hence appeals are liable to be dismissed.
14. Counsel for the complainants placed reliance on decisions of Honble Supreme Court H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka., II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC) & M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another., 2013 (3) CPR 589 (SC).
15. None appeared for respondent No.2 before us. Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/O.P.No.2.
16. We have heard arguments of learned counsels for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum and the impugned orders.
17. Before us, the appellant / O.P.No.2 filed affidavits of Lekhchand, S/o Murali Verma, Radhelal Verma, S/o Shiv Prasad Verma, Dhur Singh, S/o Shri Jahjit Verma. Before the District Forum the appellant filed affidavit of one Shri O.P. Rahangdale, Officer In // 13 // Charge of Seed Corporation. Before the District Forum, the affidavit of Prabhat Mishra was also filed by O.P.Nos.3 & 4.
18)(i). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (Supra) has observed in paragraph No.38 as under :-
"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. 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 // 14 // 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."
18)(ii). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v Sadhu and another (Supra) has observed in paragraph Nos.12 & 13 as under :-
"12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission deserve to be set aside. From the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an Expert Committee. The said Committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. It conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent". It further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seeds. The Committee stated :
Hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand."
13. In the operative part, the Committee concluded :-
"It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."
// 15 //
18)(iii).Hon'ble National Commission in the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. (Supra) has observed in paragraph no.9 as under :-
"9. 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. Respondent's 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. v. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569."
18)(iv).Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. vs Subhash Shrihari Devkore & Ors. (Supra) has observed in paragraph nos. 17 & 18 as under :-
"17. These Panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of Jawar seeds. Both Panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. Moreover these Panchanamas reflect that as per // 16 // the say of the complainants the Jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth. Panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray Biozyme and D.A.P. pesticides. Further Panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by Revenue Circle Inspector, Petwadaj clearly reflects that Jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. Thus, on any count both the Panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. On the contrary, both these Panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that Jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
18. Lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the District Consumer Forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. According to him as per the Government Circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the Guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground complainants should not suffer. But for the forgoing reasons that Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal, submission of Mr. Lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. As far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of National Commission in the case of J.K. Agri-Genetics & Ors. V. Siddula Ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) CPR 42 (NC) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this Commission in M/s Nirmitee Biotech v. Shri Anandrao Namdev Patil. But with due respect both these citations of National Commission as well as these State Commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. In the present cases, as sample of disputed Jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. Considering the facts of the present // 17 // cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to District Consumer Forum. Therefore, submission of Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered."
19) It is not expected that every farmers, who purchased seeds from Seed Corporation set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing, but it is expected that if the seeds was 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 filed and they can make complaints before the competent authority for inspecting the field. But in the instant case undisputedly the complainant had not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act 1986. Complainants had also not moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory. Even the complainants did not move any application before Revenue Authority or Agriculture Development Authority for inspecting the field. The report (Panchanama) of Sarpanch cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of the field was given to the appellant / Corporation. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable on the facts of the instant case.
// 18 //
20. In the instant case, the complainants did not file any application before the District Forum for testing seed by a competent authority u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act 1986. The Agriculture Development Officer did not visit the field of the complainants and no Panchanama was made by the Agriculture Development Officer or Revenue Officer. Complainants did not issue notice to the appellant for inspection of field and for preparing Panchanama and Panchanama dated 09.07.2011 was prepared by the Sarpanch in absence of representative of the appellant. Sarpanch is not an expert under the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of Act 1986, therefore, said Panchanama cannot be used as substantive evidence against the appellant.
21. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion all the appeals of the appellant / O.P.No.2 deserve to be allowed. Therefore, all the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and consumer complaints shall stand dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/10/2013 /10/2013