State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.G.Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam & ... vs R.K.Marwah on 21 June, 2012
Bbb ccddddddddfCHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/11/2376)
Appeal No.95/2011
Instituted on 18.02.11
1. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Beej Bhawan, G.E.Road, Telibandha, Raipur
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board,
Behind Krishi Mahavidyala, Zora, Raipur,
Through: I.K.Jaiswal, Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellants.
Vs.
R.K. Marwah, S/o Late Shri Gopaldas Marwah,
R/o: 35/898, Punjabi Colony, Katoratalab,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Respondent.
(A/11/2381)
Appeal No.100/2011
Instituted on 22.02.11
R.K. Marwah, S/o Late Shri Gopaldas Marwah,
R/o: 35/898, Punjabi Colony, Katoratalab,
RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam,
Through: General Manager, Beej Bhawan,
Telibandha, G.E.Road, Raipur
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)
2. Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board,
Behind Krishi Mahavidyala, Zora,
RAIPUR (C.G) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN BOTH APPEALS: -
Shri Manish Vyas, for C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for R.K. Marwah.
// 2 //
ORDER
Dated: 21/06/2012 PER: - HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER This order will govern disposal of Appeal Nos. 95/2011 & 100/2011, which have been filed by both the parties of the complaint case No. 243/2010 having been aggrieved by the order dated 13.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur C.G. (hereinafter referred for short as" District Forum"), whereby the complaint was partly allowed. Complainant has filed appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount while OPs have filed appeal to set aside the impugned order. For convenience parties will be referred as complainant and OPs as per their status before the District Forum. Original of this order will be retained in the file of appeal No. 95/2011 and its copy be placed in file of Appeal No.100/2011.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant is a cultivator pursuing cultivation for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Complainant further averred that he had purchased 10.5 kg. of Foundation seeds and 3.09 kg. of Certified sheets both branded of 'Vaibhav' quality during the period 15.10.2008 to 18.11.2008 costing total Rs.43,860/- to be sowed in his 45 Acres land. Aforementioned Foundation seeds are meant for resale to OPs after production whereas 'Certified seeds' are meant for sale after production anywhere in open market. Complainant further averred // 3 // that he had sown the said seeds in his field as per directives of OPs but when he observed lesser production of crop in the fields, he sent an advocate notice dated 23.12.2009 to OPs but it was not responded so he filed consumer complainant. Complainant also averred that a competent officer Shri B.V.R.Murty had inspected the site and prepared his report wherein he observed that seeds were properly sown and there was no fault. Complainant further averred that Shri R.L.Pande professor and Head of Agriculture college also inspected the fields on 1.03.2009 and he in his report mentioned that the seeds were defective as such there was less production. Complainant further averred that the said 'Vaibhav' quality of seeds was defective and that was the reason why OPs stopped process of its production. Complainant averred that expected production was 10 quintal per acre and the market value of which was Rs.2975/-per quintal as such in all 450 quintal production should have been there in 45 acres land whereas actually there was only 29 quintal production, which was provided to OPs towards resale as per the programme. Complainant also averred that aforesaid repurchase of seeds was denied by OPs stating that there was 'ghun' formation in seeds but the same had developed while the seeds were in the custody of OPs only. Complainant further averred that such seeds were sent by OPs to test laboratories vide lot no.260 code no.89910 where it was revealed that quantity of 'ghun' formation was more in the lot as such the same were // 4 // failed for purchase purpose. Complainant averred that he sustained loss on account 450 quintal seeds which as per market rate works out to Rs.13,38,750/-.Complainant alleged that OPs supplied defective seeds to him which amounted to deficiency in service. Complainant prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OPs to pay compensation for loss of Rs.13, 78,750/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and unfair trade practice . Appropriate cost of proceedings was also prayed for.
3. OPs in its joint version while refuting the averments of the complainant averred that the complainant has other business also other than cultivation and had he followed its directions properly then there would not have been less production.OPs averred that weather was the reason for less production. OPs averred that Assistant Seed Certification Officer Mr.Murty in his report has not mentioned that the seeds were the cause of less production or were of sub-standard quality. OPs further averred that Dr.R.L.Pandey professor & Head of Agriculture College had inspected the fields on 1.03.2009 who stated in his report that environmental condition and also improper agronomical management in the field was the cause of less production. OPs averred that seeds of proper standard, duly certified by certifying agency were supplied to the complainant and also that seeds of same 'Vibhav' quality were supplied to other farmers who had followed the // 5 // directives of OPs and could get successfully desired production of crop and there was no complaint. OPs further averred that still it had been continuing supply of said 'Vaibhav ' quality to farmers at large and there had been successful production . OPs further averred that the seeds provided by the complainant after production were sent to the test laboratory vide lot no.260 code no.89910 and on testing it was revealed that said seeds contained seeds of other qualities (ODV) more than permissible limit so the seeds lot was failed being not of standard norms and not for the reason of 'ghun' formation as alleged by the complainant. OPs have also averred that they supplies seeds for development of agriculture so it could not purchase seeds containing mixture of other qualities. OPs in its special version averred that the complainant had purchased foundation seeds for 35 acre land and certified seeds far 10 acre land and he had already sold the certified seeds in market produced by him in 10 acre land but he has not stated the said fact in his complaint. OPs averred that it was not responsible for less production of crop as alleged by the complainant since the same 'Vaibhav' quality of seeds, supplied to other farmers, have yielded satisfactory production and there was no complainant from them. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
// 6 //
4. Learned District Forum having perused the documents produced before it and heard arguments of parties, partly allowed the complaint as per impugned order.
5. We have perused the documents on record minutely and heard arguments advanced by parties.
6. The only question to be decided is whether OPs have committed deficiency in service by supplying defective seeds to the complainant as alleged by him and if so the amount of compensation there for ?
7. Undisputedly 'Vaibhav' quality of gram seeds were purchased by the complainant from OPs which are authorized government agencies to provide duly certified seeds to farmers as per standard norms. After purchase of seeds, the complainant had to follow the directions for cultivation of seeds as per printed brochure (document no.5 & 6). There is no evidence on record to show that the complainant had conformed to the prescribed norms of cultivation so as to achieve the expected yield of crop. Complainant had purchased the seeds during period October/Nov.2008 and after sowing the same in his field when he noticed that there was less growth of plants and suspected defects in the quality of seeds which could be the cause for // 7 // the same, then he should have soon taken steps to establish that the seeds supplied to him by OPs were defective or should have insisted OPs to get the samples of said seeds retested but no such evidence was placed on record. As per report of Shri R.L.Pandey, Professor & Head (document no A-1), he had inspected the questioned site on 1.03.2009 and observed as under;
Crop condition: Poor, population and plant growth was not satisfactory. Agronomically very poorly managed. Crop was taken after rice and in part after soyabean, pod bearing was very shy.
Problem observed: Sterility in chickpea in large area of nearly 8-10 acres. Some times it happened in few plants but not in large areas. It is not a varietal character, it may happen with any variety due to influence of environmental factors and due to this definitely there will be loss of total production. In the aforesaid report there is no whisper about the defective quality of seeds and loss due to it. On the contrary Dr. R.L.Pandey observed that agronomically plants were very poorly managed and due to this the production was less. We observe that Dr. R.L.Pandey had visited the field on 1.03.2009 which was at the ending phase of crop so it is hard to rely on its version about poor maintenance of plants agronomically from the stage of germination till final production of seeds. Dr. R.L. Pandey has not clarified elaborately about his observation about poor maintenance of plants during // 8 // cultivation but at the same time did not mention about any defect in seeds.
Further the Agriculture officer Mr. B.V.R.Murty (document no A- 2) in his report has observed in the relevant columns Nos.15, 16 & 17 as under :
Column No. Query Status
15 Condition of Crop 'Good'
16 Whether crop was as per 'Yes'
Standards of seeds
17 Seed Production Level 'Medium'
At the bottom of the report, he has mentioned that in 5 acres of land, there was not pod formation after blooming of flower and production was less. He has not mentioned in his report about cause of less production of crop and has also not mentioned that the questioned seeds were defective or were the cause for the same.
Contention of OPs was that duly certified 'Vaibhav' quality seeds of standard norms were supplied to other farmers also besides the complainant and there was no complaint about defects in the seeds supplied. OPs filed affidavits of two such farmers namely Shri Ashish Dubey dated 11.08.2010 and Dr. S.S.Chandravanshi dated 27.08.2010 who clearly expressed that the seeds supplied to them were not defective and they could get satisfactory yield of crops.
// 9 // An affidavit dated 13.03.2012 of Shri I.K.Jaiswal the officer of C.G. Rajya Beej & Krishi Nigam & others has been filed by OPs in support of its contentions.
Learned counsel for OPs cited case of Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jageshwar Ram Verma & others, Appeal No.404/2009 decided by this Commission vide order dated 14.12.2009, wherein though the facts of case were different but defects in the seeds could not be proved, so the appeal was dismissed. Another case cited by OPs was Suresh Kumar Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-OP. Ltd., & Anr, 2012 CPJ 170 (NC), wherein facts of the case were that paddy seeds were purchased by the complainant and there was less germination of seeds and a team of agriculture officers reported that quality of seeds appeared to be one of the cause for poor germination in the nursery so District Forum allowed the complaint and thereafter in appeal the awarded amount was reduced. Other facts of the case were not identical with the instant case whereby Hon'ble National Commission had upheld the views of State Commission that germination of the seeds was one of the factors responsible for poor germination of seeds but it was not the sole and predominant factor.
Another case cited by OPs was Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana, I (2009) CPJ 180 (NC), decided by Hon'ble National Commission, wherein facts of the case were that the // 10 // complainant had purchased Hybrid Jowar seeds from OP and got low yield of crop (as per manual standard) which was allegedly due to defective seeds supplied by it. The two reports of Experts were silent as to the cause of low yield. District Forum allowed the complainant which was upheld by state commission in appeal. Revision Petition was filed before Hon'ble National Commission whereby it was observed that the reports of two Experts were silent about technical aspect of low yield and still District Forum & State commission on the basis of assumption and presumption held that the complainant had taken all steps and precautions for raising the crop in stead of following the procedure contemplated under section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 so as to ascertain quality of seeds. Revision petition of OP was allowed and orders of lower fora were dismissed.
Another case cited by OPs was Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd Vs. M.B. Malipatil & anr., Revision Petition no.932/2007 decided by Hon;ble National Commission on 11.07.20011 wherein though facts were different but underlying principle was that onus to prove that seeds are defective in such cases lies on the complainant. OPs heavily relied upon the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Vs.Sadhu & Anr., 2205 STPL (LE) 33927 SC wherein Hon'ble Apex court held that the report of the expert committee was neither ambiguous nor vague but // 11 // was clear, definite and specific, and it was stated that condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. In the light of report of experts, the appeals of the appellants were allowed and the complaint was dismissed.
8. Complainant relied upon judgment of National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. PV Krishna Reddy, I (2009) CPJ 99 (NC), wherein the facts were different than the instant case, since seeds were supplied by the petitioner in 1996 which were packed in 1993 and he failed to give self life of seeds and the reason for delayed marketing, which could have contributed in improper / defective yield. Hon'ble National Commission had upheld the orders of Fora below, which had allowed the complaint. The facts of the instant case do not apply to the aforesaid case. Another case cited by the complainant, Bharat Seed Co. Vs. Charanjit Singh & Anr., 2012 (1) CPR 36 (NC). The facts of the case are not applicable to the instant case. In the aforesaid case, it was observed that record clearly showed that seeds supplied were not the seeds purchased, therefore, the Revision Petition was dismissed.
9. Complainant relied upon pronouncement of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy & Anr. I (2012) CPJ (SC). In that case, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that reports of agricultural experts // 12 // unmistakably revealed that crops had failed because of defective seeds, but in the instant case, the expert reports do not establish defects in seeds.
10. Another contention of the complainant was that 30 quintal of grams, was provided to OPs for value Rs.50,200/-, and it was failed due to its it being defective. OPs refuted the said allegation on the ground that aforesaid sample of seeds were sent for testing in recognized laboratory and it was reported that it contained seeds of other qualities, which do not conform to the prescribed standard and for that reason, the repurchase of seeds was failed. OPs relied upon order of this Commission decided in appeal No.127/2010 on 19.04.2010, whereby it was held that in the resale transaction complainant was a seller and the respondents were purchaser, so the complainant was not a consumer. Otherwise also grading done by OPs was on the basis of an authorized Seeds Testing Laboratory of Government and unless some other report of equally competent Laboratory, to the contrary, is submitted by the complainant, the report of the Seeds Testing Laboratory of Government cannot be held defective. The appeal was dismissed in limine at motion hearing stage for the aforesaid reason. Otherwise also since aforesaid seeds could be sold in open market at appropriate rate so there was no question of loss to the complainant // 13 //
11. In the facts of the case and aforesaid discussion, learned District Forum has erred in coming to a wrong conclusion that questioned seeds were defective and thereby holding OPs deficient in service awarded compensation for the same to the complainant, as such the impugned order is not sustainable. The appeal of OPs succeeds and the appeal preferred by the complainant fails. The impugned order of learned District Forum deserves to be and, is therefore set aside. The complaint of the complainant is also dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/06/2012 /06/2012