National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs Arjun Singh & Anr. on 19 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 23/01/2012 in Appeal No. 1389/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) WITH IA/502/2015,IA/2833/2015 1. AJEET SEEDS LTD. Gath No-233 Vill Chitegaon, tehsil paithan Aurangabad - 431105 Maharastra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARJUN SINGH & ANR. S/o Ram Singh Rajput R/o Vill Itarasi tehsil Narullanganj Sehore M.P 2. Laxmi Krishi Seva kendra, New Bharat Ganga Complex, Imali Bazar, Chaurha ,Khategaonm, through its Proprietor Devas M.P ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 23/01/2012 in Appeal No. 1391/2010 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) WITH
IA/502/2015,IA/2833/2015 1. AJEET SEEDS LTD. Gath No-233 Vill Chitegaon, tehsil paithan Aurangabad - 431105 Maharastra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AMAR CHAND & ANR. S/o Ram Singh, R/o Villa Itawa Kalan, Tehsil Nasurllanganj Sehore M.P 2. Laxmi Krishi Seva kendra, New Bharat Ganga Complex Imali Bazar, Chaurha ,Khategaonm, through its Proprietor Devas M.P ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 19 Aug 2015 ORDER Above revision petitions have been filed against common order dated 23.1.2012, passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal Nos.1389 and 1391 of 2010. Complaint Case Nos.81 and 85 of 2008 were filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Devas, M.P. (for short, 'District Forum') by Respondent no.1/Complainants. Since, similar issues were involved in these cases, District Forum decided these complaints by its common order dated 25.3.2010.
2. Brief facts are, that Complainant-Amir Chand in (CC No.81 of 2008) and Complainant-Arjun Singh in (CC No.85 of 2008) purchased soyabean seeds from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 being manufactured by Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, for sowing in their agricultural land and obtained receipt thereof. According to complainants they sowed the said seeds in their land. However due to non-germination of the seeds, they requested Senior Agricultural Development Officer for spot inspection by submitting application. Thereafter, Senior Agricultural Development Officer made spot inspection on 27.07.2007 and submitted his report, wherein he has mentioned about non-germination of the seeds. Each complainant filed separate complaint, alleging supply of defective/low quality seeds against petitioner as well as respondent no.2.
3. Petitioner in its reply has stated, that complainants have not sown the seeds as per the prescribed procedure, otherwise germination capacity of seeds was 75%.
4. On the other hand respondent no.2 in its reply has stated, that seeds are being of high quality and germination capacity of the seeds has been certified to be 75%, by the Certification Agency. It is stated, that complainants have not adopted the right procedure while sowing the seeds and due to which there was no proper germination.
5. The District Forum while allowing both complaints, passed following directions;
"12. Since the agriculturists Amir Chand and Arjun Singh suffered losses because of supply of defective seeds, It would be proper to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the seeds alongwith the payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant Amir Chand and compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant Arjun Singh. At the same time it would also be proper to direct payment of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants as cost of the complaint case.
13. Consequently disposing of the complaint case nos.81/08 and 85/08, the opposite party no.2 is directed to refund to the complainant Amir Chand Rs.28,800/- as cost of the seeds and alongwith it pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint case.
14. The opposite party no.2 is directed to refund to the complainant Arjun Singh Rs.14,200/- as cost of the seeds and alongwith it pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint case."
6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission, which dismissed the same by its impugned order.
7. Hence, present petitions.
8. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel, that both fora below did not consider a very important document, that is, certificate of "Seeds Certification Agency", while holding that seeds supplied by the petitioner being defective and that no such certificate was on record. Whereas, such certificate was already on record as same was filed alongwith the complaint by the complainants themselves.
10. Further complainants have failed to prove, that low or no germination of the seeds was due to any defect in the seeds supplied by the petitioner. The Senior Agriculture Development Officer in his report has only mentioned, that there was very little germination of the seeds. He has not stated in his report about the reasons for low germination. Moreover, he has not mentioned anything about the quality/type of the land, climatic conditions, water and irrigation facility, quality of the fertilizers used etc., which are very important factors affecting the germination of the seeds and growth of plant etc.
11. District Forum in its order held';
"8.......According to the documents produced on record of the complaint case No.81/08 regarding purchase of the seeds, 40 bags of soyabean seeds of batch No.47-48 manufactured by the opposite party no.2 was purchased from the shop of opposite party no.1 by Deepak Kumar of Village Itawakalan on 28.06.2007. According to the complainant, he got the said seeds purchased through his son Deepak. The opposite parties have not disputed this fact that the seeds were purchased by the son of the complainant for sowing them in the field of the complainant Amir Chand. In such a situation the relationship of consumer and service provider is established between the complainant Amir Chand and the opposite parties regarding the soyabean seeds.
9. From perusal of the Bill produced on the record of the complaint case No.85/08, it is evident that the complainant Arjun Singh purchased the soyabean seeds manufactured by opposite party no.2 from the opposite party no.1.
10. In both the complaints, the allegation is regarding the seeds being defective and not germinating. The complainants have stated that after sowing of the seeds in the field, the seeds did not germinate and then they made complaints to the Senior Agriculture Development Officer who inspected the spot and prepared the report. The contention of the opposite parties is that the seeds sold by them are certified by the Certification Agency, and the complainants did not sow the seeds in proper manner because of which the seeds did not germinate. The opposite party in support of their reply have neither filed Affidavit of any one nor have filed any document in this regard that the seeds of the batch number purchased by the complainants were certified by the Seeds Certification Agency. The opposite parties particularly the opposite party No.2 have not produced any brochure or document before this Forum wherein the manner of sowing the seeds has been stated by the seeds manufacturing company. Therefore, in such a situation, on what ground the opposite parties are contending that the complainants did not sow the seeds in proper manner.
11. Apart from the aforesaid, from perusal of the documents produced by the complainants, it is evident that on the seeds not germinating after having been sown, each of the complainants requested the Agriculture Development Officer for spot inspection and after examination/inspection of the spot, he submitted the report wherein it is clearly mentioned that the soyabean seeds in the fields of the complainants Arjun Singh and Amir Chand did not germinate whereas in the nearby fields of other farmers there was complete germination. The opposite parties have not disputed the report of the agricultural officer. In this view, it is evident that the opposite parties have supplied defective seeds to the complainants Arjun Singh and Amir Chand, which did not germinate on being sown in the fields and each of the complainants suffered losses."
12. The State Commission, while dismissing petitioner appeal observed;
"4. We have examined the receipts given by Laxmi Krishi Sewa Kendra in which it is clearly mentioned that the seeds were of particular batch number and were merchandise of M/s. Ajeet Seeds Limited, the appellant. Learned counsel submits that it does not implant a link between the appellant and Laxmi Krishi Sewa Kendra and therefore evidence as against the appellant should have been discarded.
5. The next objection of the learned counsel is based on the decision of this Commission in First Appeal No.2582/2006 (National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. Mohanlal & Ors) decided by order dated 18.08.2009 in which it has been held that it is for the person alleging defect in seeds, to prove that the seeds were defective by leading satisfactory evidence and by getting it examined from any recognized Laboratory. Since there is no scientific evidence in the case, contends the learned counsel, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum deserves to be set aside.
6. The matter was reported to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Scheme who deputed Senior Agriculture Development Officer to examine the crop and by his memo dated 09.09.2007 he made an inspection and noted down that the 23-24 acres of land holding there were places where there was no germination and the places where germination was hardly 10%. All this shows that it was on account of the inferior quality of seeds that there was no germination. The appellant also did not applly for any scientific test of the crop. In view of the report of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer who is an expert in the field were have no manner of doubt that in the case in hand, seeds were defective resulting in no germination.
7. The District Forum has, in the facts aforesaid, directed payment of the amount of seeds and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively to the farmers. We find that extensive loss was caused on account of poor quality of seeds and therefore the District Forum was justified in awarding the said amount.
8. In the result, we find no merit in the two appeals. The two appeals are dismissed but with no order as to costs."
13. Learned counsel has laid much stress on the Certificate of the Seeds Certification Agency. But this certificate has not been proved at all. Further, such certificate is of no help to the petitioner, in view of the report of Senior Agricultural Development Officer. Both fora below relying upon that report, have categorically observed that there has been no proper germination of the seeds. The said report cannot be brushed aside lightly, since it is given by a Govt. official who has got no interest in the present case and is an independent person.
14. Law on the subject in question has been dealt at length by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another I (2012)CPJ 1 (SC) where appellant M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSCL) is a Government of India company. Its main functions are to arrange for production of quality seeds of different varieties in the farms of registered growers and supply the same to the farmers. The respondents own lands in different districts of Andhra Pradesh and are engaged in agriculture/seed production. They filed complaints with the allegation that they had suffered loss due to failure of the crops/less yield because the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Kurnool, Mehboob Nagar, Guntur, Khamman and Kakinada allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to the respondents. The appeals and the revisions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission respectively.
Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing the Special Leave Petition held;
"34. We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory".
15. It is well settled, that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
17. In view of the concurrent finding of facts given by both the fora below, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Therefore, present revision petitions are not maintainable and stand dismissed.
18. No order as to costs.
19. Original record of fora below be sent back forthwith.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER