National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. vs M. Madhusudan Reddy on 24 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ122(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner, National Seeds Corporation (NSC) was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondents/complainants had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
R.P. No. 507 of 2003 :
2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing the complaint by the complainants are that the complainants purchased 36 kgs. of caster seeds in June, 1999 from the Area Manager of the petitioner which is a national level 'public sector undertaking' dealing in producing and marketing of quality seeds. When after growing the seeds in July 1999 the plant growth was not of normal size and not anticipating the expected yield, brought this to the notice of the Area Manager of the petitioner in October 1999 requesting the petitioner to visit the fields. At the time of harvesting yield turned out to be about quarter per acre as against the promised yield of 8-10 quintals per acre resulting in huge losses to the complainants. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, a complaint came to be filed asking for compensation. The District Forum after hearing the parties held the petitioner deficient in rendering service to the complainants and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 89,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of failure till the date of payment.
R.P. No. 508 of 2003 :
3. In this case also the -two complainants filed complaints against the same parties. The seed in the case was of sunflower and dates of purchase were different. Other facts were the same. In this case also the District Forum after hearing the parties directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 1.10 lakhs on account of loss of crop and costs of fertilizer purchased and along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of failure of the crop till payment.
4. Two separate appeals filed by the petitioners before the State Commission were dismissed, hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued on two points of law before us. The first argument is that Seeds Act, 1966 is a special Act and it must prevail over the General Act which according to him what Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 1986 is. For this he relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Union of India v. M. Adai Kalam, 11(1993) CPJ 146 (NC). In view of the provision of Seeds Act, provision of CPA is not applicable. Second line of argument is that in this case provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have not been followed. Onus to prove defect is on the complaint which cannot be passed on the respondent. Intent of the Legislature is quite clear when they enacted/provided for Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Pretection Act, 1986. For this he relied upon the judgment of this Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, I (2002) CPJ 13 (NC). On both these points, orders of both the lower Fora cannot be sustained, hence set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, VIII (1998) SLT 317=III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC)=(1998) 6 SCC 738 :
"In the light of the above findings and in view of the conduct of the appellants in this case we do not consider that we should exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order under appeal. Accordingly, we leave the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case and dismiss the appeal on the facts of this case. There will be no order as costs."
It was the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is time that law is settled on the point of jurisdiction as to where does the remedy lie. Seeds Act, 1996 or Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
6. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Preamble of the Seeds Act reads as follows :
"An Act to provide for regulating the quality of certain seeds for sale and matters connected therewith'. The body of the statute from Section 1 onwards makes the scheme of the Act quite clear. It was to ensure production of quality seed and ensure its sale, maintaining the given quality parameters; the Seed Act provided for Seed Laboratory, Seed Certificate Agency, Seed Analysis and Seed Inspectors. In our view the most relevant section for our purpose shall be Section 9 of the Act which reads as follows :
"Grants of Certificate by Certification Agency.--(1) Any person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety may, if he desires to have such seed certified by the certification agency, apply to the certification agency for the grant of a certificate for the purpose.
(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made in such form, shall contain such particulars and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of any such application for the grant of a certificate, the certification agency may, after such inquiry as it thinks fit and after satisfying itself that the seed to which the application relates conforms to the (prescribed standard) grant a certificate in such form and on such conditions as may be prescribed."
There is no other section, which is as eloquent as this section on the point of sale.
We have not been referred to any particular section of the Seeds Act, under which the petitioner is taking shelter.
7. The powers of the Seed Inspector are limited to draw samples of seed of the notified kind from the seller. The Act is completely silent on the situation wherein a farmer has purchased seed from an authorized dealer and of a 'released' variety but it fails to give the desired yields even after following the agricultural practices provided for the purpose. Seeds Act does not deal with the pathos of the farmer and (loss of crop) who has invested his time, money and resources to get the fruits of 'green revolution' but fails to get it on account of poor quality/defective seed,
8. In the absence of any clear provision in Seeds Act for compensating the farmer/ consumer for his loss. We have no doubt whatsoever that his remedy lies under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of absence of any provisions in Seeds Act about compensating the farmer under 'tort' first judgment of this Commission in M. Adai Kalam's case (supra), has no relevance.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act have not been followed and the onus of proof of any defect was on the complainant as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of CP Act on the issue in Guruswamy's case (supra) this Commission had held as follows:
"5. There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis of test of the goods, there, 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 reporting 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 bona fides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of petitioner-NSC 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 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 too because 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 except this arrangement." (p-15) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited earlier also has no application as the main ground of Their Lordships' observation was on account of the fact that National Commission disposed of the case in a summary manner. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"The question of law raises, namely, whether respondents 1 and 2 were justified in moving the Consumer Forum for redressal on the facts of the case, is not free from doubt. However, we do not consider it necessary to decide that question of law in this case as the findings of the State Commission on facts stare at the appellant, which cannot be lightly brushed aside."
10. In view of the above discussion on the two points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner our clear view is that it is only under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that remedy lies for the farmer to be compensated for defective seeds as also the fact that when the provision of Section 13(1)(c) becomes unimplementable then one has to resort to alternative methods, which in this case was the report of Commissioner who was a retired Assistant Director of Agriculture. It cannot be the case of the petitioner to implement an unimplementable proposition, it is not the case of the petitioner that either under the Seeds Act or on the label of the product or under any other provisions of law, that the farmer is expected to conserve certain portion of seed to meet the ludicrous expectation of the petitioner, for the farmer to produce some seeds from somewhere to get it tested to meet the requirements of Section 13(1)(c).
We see no merit on the points raised by the petitioner. These revision petitions stand dismissed.