National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs Kishor Ranjan Murumkar & Ors. on 22 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 971 OF 2010 (From order dated 30.09.2009 in First Appeal No. 2445 of 2005 of the Mumbai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, at Aurangabad) M/s Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Keshar Complex, Dist. Jalna, Maharashtra Petitioner Versus 1. Kishor Ranjan Murumkar 2. Nitin Ranjan Murumkar Both R/o Bhanashiwre, Taluq Newqasa, Dist. Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 3. M/s V. Manmohandas & Sons, R/o Gunj Bazar, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : NEMO Pronounced on 22nd January, 2015 O R D E R
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This is another case by farmers of Maharashtra where they allege to have suffered losses due to supply of defective seeds made by the OP/petitioner. The OP/petitioner has called into question the concurrent -2- findings rendered by both the fora. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. None is present for the respondents despite service. The respondents are proceeded against ex parte. Arguments heard.
2. Shri Kishor Ranjan Murumkar and Shri Nitin Ranjan Murumkar, the complainants purchased seeds of sunflower from opposite party No. 1, Manmohanas & Sons. The said sunflower seeds were of Modern Sunflower variety lot No. 853/p/16714. The complainants cultivated the field properly and sew the said seeds in their field. It transpired that even after the lapse of one month, the germination was good and plants bore flowers. However, there was no seed setting in the flowers. The complainant approached the Agriculture Development Officer, Zila Parishad. The report was submitted by the above said authority. According to the said report, in 80% plants there was no seed setting. Therefore, the complainants suffered loss.
2. The complainants filed a complaint with the District Forum demanding a sum of Rs.1,76,520/-.
3. According to the opposite party No. 1/respondent No.3, it was a dealer of the said company and he sold the seeds in sealed packets, which were packed by opposite party No. 2/petitioner. The objection raised by the opposite party/petitioner was that the Agriculture Development Officer visited the field without following the Government -3- Circular, but alleged that setting of seeds in the flower is process, which depends on many factors. There was no expert evidence.
4. The District Forum directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.33,000/- each towards compensation. The District Forum also directed the opposite party No. 2 to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the mental agony to each of the complainants and Rs.500/- as costs to each complainants.
5. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party No. 2, Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Keshar Complex, Jalna, Maharashtra filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that no expert report was filed. The proceedings did not take place in accordance with the notification issued by Maharasthra Government. The petitioner was not called when the Agriculture Development Officer visited the field. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority reported in Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. Vs. Vijayakumar Shankarao & Anr. II (2007) CPJ 148 (NC), para 4 of which runs as under:
4. It is not disputed that the appellant is a producer of certain Broccoli seed, hence the case has to be -4- decided on the strength or otherwise of the quality of product. We repeatedly asked the learned Cousel 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 -5- 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.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards ground E in the revision petition. It has also been pointed out that there are number of reasons for which the crops could not be sown. It is also pointed out that the Government has granted the certificate that the seeds are correct.
8. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The view taken by the Supreme Court is whether the company had preserved a sample of the seeds in question so that the same may be got examined through the recognised laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that they have not preserved any sample. Before the District -6- Forum no such offer was made by the opposite party that he has preserved a sample and the same can be scientifically examined.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the decision in National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another (2012) 2 SCC 506. The Apex Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another (supra) was pleased to hold:
Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is nave to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.
In none of these cases, had the appellant offered to produce samples of the variety of the seeds -7- sold/supplied to the respondents and made a prayer before the District Forum that the same may be got tested/analysed in an appropriate laboratory. There was abject failure on the appellants part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers.
Therefore, as per Rule 13(3) it was expected to keep the samples of varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the complaint was filed on 15.4.2005 and these seeds bearing from lot No. 434 was got certified from A.P. State Seed Certification Agency on 17.5.2004 , which showed the quantity of the seed as under
Pure Seed..99.9% Inter matter0.1% Germination..75% Moisture.7.9 % -8- The said seeds were purchased after four months. Except the lot number, there is no evidence that these seeds pertain to this certificate. As a matter of fact the OP should have preserved a sample to remove all the doubts.
11. The seeds were purchased on 7.8.2004 and the seed committee visited the field on 21.11.2004 i.e. after 3-4 months. The committee consisted of local officer and other experts in the field of agriculture. The report reveals the following observation and impression:
Observation:
1. Soil type Medium & Black
2. Irrigation facility is available
3. Crop is at maturity stage and ready to harvest. Leaves of crop are dried and fallen.
4. In sunflower crop 20% seed filling is observed and 80% is chaffy.
Impression As per the opinion of the committee 80% chaffy seeds were observed in sunflower morden lot no. 653(P) 16714 produced by Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd., sown by farmer, due to which farmer suffered 80% loss.
Following members are present at the time of plot visit.
1. Shri V. N. Nalage, Dist.
Agricultural Officer, Zila Parishad, Ahmednagar -9-
2. Shri S. S. Walke, Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samitte, Nevasa
3. Shri S. K. Korde, Quality Control Inspector, Panchayat Samittee, Nevasa
4. Shri Balasaheb Sahebrao Halnor, Farmer
5. Shri Shivaji Vithal Chindhe, Farmer
6. Shri Ajay Wamanrao Chindhe, Farmer
7. Shri Ranjan Sahebrao Murumkar, Farmer.
12. The State Commission in its para 12 observed:
The Committee concluded that farmer will suffer loss due to non-setting of seeds upto 80%. Quality Control Officer was one of the member of Committee. The report cannot be discarded on the ground that Committee did not mention the cause for non-setting of seeds in the flower. The complainant filed counter affidavit and challenged the pleading of appellant. The complaint was not about germination but about non-setting of seeds in flower due to bogus seeds supplied by the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that report is silent about defectiveness of seeds. The proof about adverse agronomitic conditions also is not produced by the appellant. Hence, we are of the view to dismiss the appeal.
13. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/reserved