National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs Trimbak @ Balasaheb on 7 August, 2007
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These 129 revision petitions arise from a common cause of action, i.e., relating to the quality of Hybrid Cotton Seed Variety CAHH-468.
2. Undoubtedly, this seed was developed by Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (P.K.V.) in the form what is termed as Breeder-seed, which was passed on to M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (Petitioner in RP Nos. 1960 -1972 /1999 and RP No. 524/1997), of which, 'Female line' was passed by M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. to M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. (Petitioner in RP Nos. 868-959/1999, RP No. 1134/1999), who using their 'male line' produced from elsewhere, developed this variety what is termed as 'foundation seed' and was subsequently produced and marketed by them after getting it duly certified by the State Seed Certification Agency. During the sowing season of 1992-93, when it was sown by large number of farmers, and when they did not get any cotton yield, the matter was reported to the seed manufacturer, i.e., M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. as also to the State Agriculture Authorities. The noise relating to the quality of this variety of hybrid cotton was so loud that it found its echo in the State Assembly and matter was further investigated by an 'Expert panel'.
3. Be that as it may, when the large number of cultivators was not getting any yield of cotton from this particular variety, a large number of complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, allowed the complaint filed by different cultivators and granted relief holding deficient the three OPs before the District Forum, namely, M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd., their 'Dealer' who had sold the seed, and the Government of Maharashtra through Director, State Seed Certification Agency, Pune, and directed them to pay jointly and severally the amounts worked out in terms of the area of each cultivator along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till full payment. The retailers were directed to refund the cost of seed along with interest ® 18% p.a. from 16.7.1993 till full payment. All the opposite parties referred to above, also, were directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation for sufferance of injustice and Rs. 2000 towards cost of proceeding.
4. It may be relevant to note that one, 'National Forum for Consumer Education, Akola', also filed a separate complaint against M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd., relating to the same variety of cotton seed and relief was given irrespective of the complainant on whose behalf the complaint was filed by National Forum for Consumer Education against M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. The District Forum gave the same relief as enumerated above with regard to the compensation to the farmer by M/s. Ajeet Seeds as also refund the cost of the seed from the dealer and also compensation of Rs. 5,000 to each of the complainants along with cost of Rs. 2,000 to be paid jointly and severally by the opposite parties, namely, M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. and the Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency.
5. All the aggrieved parties filed appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties by order dated 17.3.99 modified the order passed by the District Forum to the extent that only the seed producers were directed to pay the decreed amount @ Rs. 6,000 per acre of the area sown by each of the farmers/ complainants, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of full payment, compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 to each complainant. The appeal filed by the Directorate of Seed Certification Agency was allowed and they were directed to pay only Rs. 250 as compensation to the complainant. Appeals filed by the dealers were dismissed. It is in these circumstances that aggrieved by this order/not satisfied with the relief, the above mentioned 129 Revision Petitions have been filed by M/s. Nath Seeds, M/s. Ajeet Seeds, Government of Maharashtra through Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency, and 36 farmers.
6. Since the issue involved is common in all cases, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we go on to dispose of all the revision petitions through a common single order.
7. Since there are large number of complainants/parties involved and case has been pending with us for the last about 6 to 8 years, in order to satisfy ourselves about the status of the parties, we had given 10 days' time to the parties to file affidavit about the status of the respondents in each of the revision petition filed before us. As per office report we find that upon service the Notice with regard to Petitioner Nos. 18, 28 and 31 (in RP No. 718 to 753/1999) came back with the postal remarks 'dead'. Since LRs in these cases have not been brought on record and no substitution service has been filed, the revision petition abates against them.
8. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in RP Nos. 868-959/1999, i.e., M/s. Nath Seeds that notices have been served to all the respondents except Mr. Shaikh Kamal Shaikh Jamal (respondent in RP No. 881/ 1999), Eknath Dadobaji Chitalkar (respondent in RP No. 885/1999A), Jagannath Rajendra alias Bapurajoji Thodge (respondent in RP No. 905/1999) Fattu Gangaram Pawar (respondent in RP No. 920/1999), Sakharam Narsing Khandare (respondent in RP No. 949/1999), Shankar Ratan Bhawane (respondent in RP No. 951/1999) and Keshav Mansingh Kakas (respondent in RP No. 932/1999) as they have since expired. Since no application has been filed by the petitioner Nath Seeds to bring LRs on record resulting amending of memo of parties as per settled law, the revision petitions filed against these respondents stand abated.
9. On merits of the case, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the extensive material on record.
10. Basic facts are not disputed that it is the P.K.V. who developed the 'breeder seed'. 'Foundation seed' was developed by M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. who provided its 'line (female)' to M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd., who procured 'Male line' from other source and both these parties M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. and M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. went on to produce the material for production and distribution duly certified by the 'State Seed Certification Agency'. As already mentioned that the State Government appointed an Expert Committee, whose report is on record. The gist of the discussions is being produced in toto:
Sub: Inquiry report of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 complaints during 1993-94.
Sir, During the Kharif season of the year 1993, complaints were received from the farmers regarding cotton hybrid CAHH-468. The matter was raised in the Vidhan Parishad through calling attention motion and through questions in the Vidhan Sabha of Maharashtra.
District level inquiry committees have investigated the complaints of the farmers. It has been found that there was substantial percentage of sterile plants in the crop of hybrid cotton CAHH-468.
The seeds of the said cotton hybrid was duly certified by the Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency.
The said hybrid cotton seeds were produced by Nath Seeds Ltd., Atirangabad. Ajeet Seeds (Pvt.) Ltd., Aurangabad and Ramchandra Patil Seed Producers Marketing-cum Processing Coop. Society Ltd., Aurangabad.
Since a large number of sterile plants were observed, the Experts Committee was constituted to conduct the field tests to investigate the exact level where the lapses had occurred. The said Committee called and received the filed samples from the respective, processing plants of the above named companies.
The District Seed Certification Officer Akola-2, provided the balance samples, available with them, from the stocks received to conduct the field tests.
The District Seed Certification Officer, Aurangabad provided the samples from the balance stocks received by them for germination tests.
The said samples were sowm for field testing (grow out test) at M.P.K.V. Rahuri, on March 3rd, 4th, 5th, 1994.
The Expert Committee visited the fields of Grow Out Test regularly and recorded observations. The detailed report (Marathi Version) of observations is appended herewith.
The Grow Out Test report of the Expert Committee was thoroughly discussed at the Commissionerate on 25.10.1994. All the members of the Committee, Managing Director of Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation, Akola and Director, Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency, were present for this meeting.
Various aspects of the said Committee report on the Grow Out Test, were thoroughly discussed. Based on the discussions during this meeting and also based on the detailed report submitted by the Expert Committee, this investigation report has been prepared. The report is also duly appended.
The salient and important findings in the report are as below:
1. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola had supplied defective (impure) seeds of the Male parent (DHY-286-1R) of this hybrid and also failed to provide the complete set of characteristics at a time.
2. Seed Certification Agency has not taken due precautions and care while declaring the results of tests conducted & certifying the seeds.
3. The hybrid CAHH-468 was newly being produced on a large scale and was being introduced for sales, the producers, therefore, should have been careful regarding the characteristics and technical details of this hybrid.
11. Equal importantly we also reproduce the 'Observation' and 'Findings' of this expert group, in toto Observations:
One Agriculture Officer and two Agriculture Assistants were deputed on field to take care of germinated seed plots. The Seed Testing Officer Pune and Chief Seed Testing Officer, Pune has also visited the field during germination period in order to maintain proper vegetative growth.
The morphological characters of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468, its male parent, its female parent, maintainer and male parent of AHH-468 were called from cotton breeder Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola by Seed Testing Officer Pune and observation were decided as per these morphological characters. The discussion regarding observation of cotton varieties was held in the meeting of Committee members on 25.4.1994. The characters were decided for observation and Committee members guided the concerned regarding taking notes. The detailed note regarding character is taken in the proceeding register. The concern staff of laboratory started labelling to the observed plants as per the classification based on the characters. The details of labels tagged to the plants as per the character are given below:
1. Male sterile plants (off types)--White label.
2. Plants of another variety (off types)--Red Label.
3. True types plants--Red thread.
As per the decision of meeting dated 25.4.1994 the review of work was discussed by the Committee members in the next meeting dated 16.5.1994. At that time 15 to 20% plants were in flowering. The Committee members ensured time and again that the observations are carried out in proper manner. The characters were matched and verified with the characters of the plants from the control plot.
35 to 40% plants were in flowering during the observations taken on 22.5.1994, 60 to 65% plants were in flowering during the observations taken on 26.5.1994. Final counting of observed plants was done on 21 and 22 June, 1994 after observation of 100% plants was over. All the Committee members were present at the time of final counting.
Findings:
1. 102 samples of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 produced by M/s. Nath Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad were taken for testing in the said field test. It was found after observation that the percentage of male sterile plants was in the range of 30.7 to 87.4% in the field test. 16 samples of Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad were taken for field test and percentage of male sterile plants found in the range of 32.0 to 79.2%. 25 samples of Ramchandra Patil Co-op. Society, Aurangabad were taken for field test and percentage of male sterile plants found in the range of 30.7 to 70.6%. Besides these 3 producers field test of 20 samples of M/s. Gaurav Seeds, Aurangabad was taken up in which 95% true type plants were found in 2 samples, however, 18 samples had about 4.5 to 37.3% male sterile plants this shows that the seed of male parent vised for hybrid seed production might have been adulterated with the seed of DHY-286-1 which is having similar morphological diameters as that of DHY-286-1R. The plants with other morphological characters along with male sterile plants would have been seen if the adulteration were of the seed other than DHY-286-1 (report attached herewith).
2. The field test of male parent DHY-286-IR lot number DEC-91-13-239-3017 was used in the seed production of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 was also taken. A Committee in which Cotton Breeder of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola was one of the members took the observations of field test. They have found 96.1% off type plants in said lot number as per the improved characters given to Seed Testing Officer, Pune (1/c Officer) on 4.4.94. This proves that male parent used for seed production must have been faulty. The field test of said lot was conducted by Seed Certification Agency in 1992. At that time concerned breeder did not communicate new characters to Seed Certification Agency and observations were taken on the basis of old characters and so the seed was certified then. Had the University been communicated new characters (Exerted long and bent Stigma in the male fiower) this lot would have been declared unfit for certification and the said lot might not have been used in the said seed production of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 and hence concerned Cotton Breeder is equally responsible in this case.
3. The field test of foundation seed (DHY-286-1R) produced in kharif season 1993-94 was taken at Rahuri in the year 1994, in which 19 lots were included. All these lots have failed when said plots were observed and inspected by Dr. Meshram Cotton Breeder, Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola on the basis of improved characters. The percentage of off types was in the range of 2.6 to 16.45%.
4. Due to failure of foundation seed of DHY-286-1R in Grow Out Test, Maharashtra State Seed Corporation, Akola have utilised breeder seed of 4 kg. from Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola for Hybrid Cotton seed production in the Kharif 1994 season. Officers conducted field inspection. The seed of lot number BK93-15-7/ 3 supplied by university was only found according to original characters. However, seeds of lot numbers BK-92-15-1/5, BK-93-15-1/5 and BK-92-15-1/4 were not found of proper character because it contains flower with long and bent as well as short stigma.
After the serious problem of male sterility in Hybrid Cotton Seed CAHH-468 aroused in this case, the Cotton Breeder should have been vigilant and careful while giving seed, but the same was not done and hence as both types of plants were present 5 to 10% plants having flowers with short stigma were uprooted.
5. During the field test at Rahuri in March 1994 the seed of Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 lot No. Dec-91-13-239-3010 produced by crossing Breeder Seed was also observed by a Committee and declared its report and found 84.4% true type plants 14.7% male sterile plants in this test. Similarly field test of sample of same lots which was handed over by Director Seed Certification Agency Commissionerate on 2 April, 1994, was also conducted and found 95.7% true type plants, 2.3% male sterile plants and 2% of other plants in it. From this it can be strongly said that, there was heterogeneity in this lot. This shows that the breeder seed of male parent was defective. It is quite natural that the percentage of off types in the foundation seed produced by seed companies increased as the same defective breeder seed of male parent was utilised for this foundation seed production.
6. There is a disparity in old and new characteristics of male parent which were given to Seed Certification Agency by Cotton Breeder Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola. After critically observing in minute difference in characteristics given according to their letter dated 4.10.1994 the only character of long and bent stigma mainly differ between DHY-286-1 and remaining characters are mostly similar and seed can be decided fit or unfit on the basis of this one character only. But the characteristics previously given to Seed Certification Agency by Cotton Breeder e.g. Hairiness on leaves, hairiness on stem, Petal colour, pollen colour, etc. were mostly similar to that of DHY-286-1. Field tests were conducted according to these characters and the seed was declared fit and utilised for seed production and hence male sterile plants were observed in hybrid variety and, therefore, Cotton Breeder is also responsible for this.
7. DHY-286-1 Is a male parent for crossing of Hybrid Cotton Seed-468 but the Cotton Breeder Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola have yet not given distinguishing character between DHY-286-1 R and DHY-286-1 for CAHH-468. The Cotton Breeder Punjabrao krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola in the meeting under the chairmanship of Commissioner, Agriculture on dated 25.10.1994 have told that there are two lines viz. R35 and R38 in DHY-286-1R. The stigma in the flower of line number 35 is exerted and bent, while that of line number 38 is short and straight. The short stigma is also a character of DHY-286-1. Had this difference been stated at that time and Breeder seed would have been produced from line number 35, the difference between DHY-286- 1R and DHY-286-1 in foundation seed production programm would have been understood, this information is yet not given by the Cotton Breeder in the proposal submitted to the Seed Committee which was essential. It can be seen from the above discussion that the Cotton Breeder Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola have distributed defective breeder seed and hence have not disclosed distinguishing characters of DHY-286-1R and DHY-286-1. It seems that there is confusion on university level regarding external characteristics as there is a difference in characters given in a letter dated 4.10.1994. and therefore Cotton Breeder is equally responsible as that of Seed Certification Agency and Seed Producing Companies for these cases.
8. Though, male parent utilised for seed production was defective, this fact should have been noticed during observing male sterile plants in the hybrid seed while conducting the Grow Out Test by Seed Certification Agency. It seems that the observations were not taken carefully. Some of the lots of CAHH-468 were declared failed in Grow Out Test this shows that they knew about male sterile plants. Still defective lots were certified, from this it seems that all concerned (Agriculture Officer, 1/c District Seed Certification Officer, Divisional Seed Certification Officer) were negligent while conducting field test of certified seed.
9. It can be seen from the observation of field test taken by the committee that it needs a period of 100 to 110 days for observing essential characters during field test. But it is observed that the field test report is made within 80 to 85 days after taking observation. It can be said from the experience that growth of plants depends upon type of soil, cultivation practice, etc. and hence all plants do not commence flowering at once and most of the times results are declared late. In season of 1993-94 samples of 497 lots were sown on the same field on which the field test of samples in this case was conducted. Out of which it was not possible to declare results of 313 samples in time as the soil of said field was ill drained and growth of crop was not proper and it was not possible to take the observations due to lack of sufficient flowering and hence results of these lots could not be declared. From the above observation it becomes clear that the observation taken by the Seed Certification Agency and the result declared thereafter was done in haste and in poor flowering. Farmers suffered great financial losses as the defective lots have passed in Grow Out Test due to lacuna in G.O.T. conducted by Seed Certification Agency. From this it seems that the officers of Seed Certification Agency from all levels are more or less responsible in this case.
10. In fact the seed production programme of said variety by using male sterile female parent was taken for certification for the first time and so it was essential to take the guidance of cotton breeder Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, frequently while conducting field test of produced hybrid seed. The field test was conducted on the fields of University at Pailpada in Akola District and headquarter of concerned cotton breeder was also at Akola. But the mistake of not seeking their guidance in flowering period and before declaring the results was committed by Seed Certification Agency otherwise the said laps would have been restricted at that time only.
11. While producing foundation seed especially when this seed is to be utilised for further seed production, field inspection of male and female seed production should necessarily be conducted with breeder (joint inspection) because the adulteration which the Seed Certification Agency could not identify would have been pointed by cotton breeder and either foundation seed production would have been genetically pure or rejected and hence it can be seen that proper care was not taken by Seed Certification Agency while certifying foundation seed of this variety.
12. Hybrid Cotton CAHH-468 variety was not notified by Central Seed Committee. It was provisionally notified. This was the only strain being produced by utilizing male sterile female parent and hence it was necessary to take care at all stages of Seed Certification that is field inspection, field testing, by cotton breeder, Seed Certification Agency and seed producing Companies at all levels. But it has not happened so cotton breeder concern, seed companies and Seed Certification Agency could not deny their responsibility in this case.
13. Divisional Seed Certification Officer has to inspect failed plots in the conduction of field test by Seed Certification Agency as the power of final rejection of plots is vested with the officer of the rank of Divisional Seed Certification Officer. It was essential to inspect some of the plots, which have passed in Grow Out Test as this strain was newly introduced, but could not be seen that they have done the same. Had such prior inspection done been, perhaps this fact could have been noticed and further certification would not have been done and great financial loss to the cultivators could have been avoided.
14. It can be seen that Cotton breeder have released for distribution the seed of DHY-286-1R without testing, whether this seed can restore fertility after hybridization. Such conformity was done while producing foundation seed of male parent, by crossing it with some plants of female as per Dr. Tayyab's advice in 1989. Such instructions were not given in later period. Had this instruction been executed by Seed Certification Agency or had the concerned Cotton Breeder been compelled Seed Certification Agency to execute such test, this type of anomaly would not have occurred.
15. It was decided by Andhra Pradesh Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad, that the seed production programme of hybrid cotton CAHH-468 should not be registered in June 1993 as it was noticed that, about 50 to 60% male sterile plants were observed during its field test, and Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency might have known that large percentage of male sterile plants is observed in hybrid and hence it was necessary to take decision after discussion with Cotton Breeder. It was also essential to take proper care during seed production and instructions from higher level should necessarily be given to officers to cautiously inspect all plots under production with great care but this was not done. It can be concluded from all above facts that hybrid seed produced by crossing defective male parents might not have been produced and farmers would not have suffered great financial loss, provided Agriculture University would have instructed about fertility restoring test before distribution of foundation seed of male parent and if it had pointed out differentiating minute characteristics i.e., exerted and bent stigma, to identify separately between DHY-286-1 and DHY 286-1 R. After knowing about the ban on Hybrid seed production of this variety in Andhra Pradesh, Seed Certification Agency of our State should necessarily be vigilant right from field inspection to Grow Out Test and declaration of its result, also if result of Grow Out Test were declared based on observations after all plants in the plot have flowered then such defective seed might not have reached to the farmers after certification, hence officers of Seed certification Agency, from different levels are also found responsible in this case. All concerned ought to have been cautious about morphological characters and other technical factors while certifying newly evolved variety and hence it would have proved proper if seed producing companies would have inspected the plots on the lines as feiled inspections by frequent visits to the seed production plots as done by Seed Certification Agency and have conducted Grow Out Test as well. Therefore, seed producing companies are also equally responsible in this case as that of breeder and Seed Certification Agency.
12. As rightly held by the District Forum and State Commission, it leaves us with very little choice except to agree with the findings of the expert group.
13. For this we rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005. In the cited judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the report of the Expert Committee, who conducted the filled inspection, based on which the detailed report had been prepared. Hence, in our view, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, that in such cases there must be 'expert opinion' on the subject. In the instant case also the report of the Expert Committee, unquestionably, is based on the 'Grow Out Test' carried out at Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri and the seed material was drawn from the unsold stock of seed of this particular variety and procured from the producers as also from the District Seed Certification Officers. The result was that in the 'Grow Out Test', the male sterility was observed in various proportions, in all the samples of hybrid cotton seed CAHH-468 both in respect of different producers, namely, M/s. Nath Seeds and M/s. Ajeet Seeds (we are not dealing with the other two producers as they are not parties before us). In respect of M/s. Nath Seeds, the male sterile plants were in the range of 30.7 to 87.4% in the field test and in respect of M/s. Ajeet Seeds the male sterile plants were in the range of 32.0 to 79.2%. In view of this if District Forum has found the seed producers, namely, M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. and M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. as also the State Seed Certification Agency, deficient in rendering service, it cannot be faulted.
14. The Expert Committee clearly bells the cat when it also not only holds producers but also the Seeds Certification Agency and Cotton Breeder of PKV equally responsible for the negligence/deficiency, resulting in loss of crop to the farmers. The report produced above is sufficient to nail all of them to be equally responsible. This negligence/deficiency is further strengthened by the fact that this was not a released variety as per law, i.e., Section 5 of The Seeds Act, 1966. It has come in light, in the orders passed by the State Commission, as also of the expert report, that the Andhra Pradesh State Certification Agency, Hyderabad, had notified that this variety, i.e., CAHH-468 should not be registered in June 1993 as it was noticed that about 50 to 60 % male sterile plants observed during the full test. It will be naive to assume that the Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency and more so the Seed Producers, namely, M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. and M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. were not aware of this. They are professionals and large producers in this line, who normally would keep their antenna high and ears and eyes open to know what is happening to a specific seed variety, especially in their neighbourhood.
15. We have also observed, one specific instance beside others in the order of the State Commission wherein it held that M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. was negligent in selling 265 bags in excess than the quantity /number of bags releasedby the State Seed Certification Agency.
16. In this regard, the Nath Seeds have produced their annual balance-sheet, audit-report, copy of which was given to all the other parties and they were given equal opportunity to be heard on the subject. They have nothing to comment on this, in view of which we have no option but to accept the material brought on record by M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. to the extent that there was no deficiency on their part on this account as they have given account for the total number of bags produced, number of bags affected by water and the total number of bags in stock and number of bags sold, which remain un-rebutted. Hence we find no deficiency on the part of Male seeds on this account.
17. We also gave an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the PKV, who had earlier pleaded that they did not get an opportunity to present their case before the Expert Committee. We like to make two observations in this regard, that they were very much aware of what is going on mid secondly it is not denied that the seed was bred in their University and was given for production of 'Foundation Seed', to the seed producers. In a manner of speech they were the original sinners.
18. As per material on record, the only letter is dated 17.11.1998 and this letter is addressed to the Commissioner, Agriculture, Maharashtra State, while the report of the Expert Committee is of late 1994. In any case; we hold that this is an internal matter of the State Agriculture University and the State Agriculture Department for the simple reason that the former is a creature of a statute of which the Administrator Department is State Department of Agriculture, thus, it will be an internal matter between the two arms of the State Governments in Agriculture Department and the State Government--the two arms held to be deficient/negligent by the Expert Panel in this case are, State Agriculture University and the State Seed Certification Agency.
19. The Expert Committee's report is quite categorical and nothing to the contrary has been shown to us to take any different view than the one taken by the State Commission as far as quality of seed sold to the farmers is concerned and to this extent we find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the State Commission except that in our view, the State Commission while extensively holding the agencies of the State Government, i.e., PKV and Seed Certification Agency, responsible for this, yet goes on to pass off the whole burden on the Seed Producers and almost exonerate the State Seed Certification Agency by directing them to pay a nominal amount of Rs. 250 to each of the complainants.
20. When we go through the extensive and well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission, we see that it is quite categorical in para 15 of its order as to what has been the deficiency on the part of the State or its agencies and also go on to deal with further liability of others. In view of the findings of the State Commission as also of the Expert Committee, in our view, the State Government on account of negligence of its agencies cannot be let off so easily. In our view, they are equally responsible, as are the seed producers, resulting in loss to the farmers for which, in our view, in the interest of justice and equity the State Government in Agriculture Department (through its PLV and State Seed Certification Agency) should bear 50% of the decreed amount i.e., compensation for loss of crop @ Rs. 6,999 per acre, compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000 per complainant, by the State Commission and the balance 50% would be payable by the seed producers. However, as far as the interest © 18% p.a. granted is concerned, we consider this to be on higher side which is reduced to 12% p.a.
21. We are told that perhaps the State Seed Certification Agency has already paid the decreed amount, i.e., Rs. 250, rest of the amount payable by the State shall be paid after deducting the amount of Rs. 250, if already paid to the farmers. Order of the State Commission stands modified to that extent.
22. All these revision petitions stand disposed of in above terms.
23. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.