State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.Eswara Reddy, vs Aadhar Seeds Private Limited, on 4 June, 2012
A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD. FA 885 of 2011 against C.C. 83/2008, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur Between A.Eswara Reddy, S/o.Narappa, Rangampeta Village, Atmakuru Mandal, Anantapur District. *** Appellant/ Complainant. And 1. Sri Lakshmi Sreenivasa Fertilizers, D.No.15/523/26, Suryanagar, Anantapur. 2. Aadhar Seeds Private Limited, D.No.1-5-12-2-2, New Maruthinagar, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Executive Director *** Respondent/ O.Ps 1 and 2. Counsel for Appellant: M/s. K. Maheshwara Rao Counsel for Respondent: M/s. Triveni Reddy R1 M/s. D. Krishna Murthy R2 FA 512 of 2010 against C.C. 83/2008, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur Between: Aadhar Seeds Private Limited, D.No.1-5-12-2-2, New Maruthinagar, Kothapeta, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Executive Director *** Appellant/ O.P. No. 2 And 1) A. Eswara Reddy, S/o.Narappa, Rangampeta Village, Atmakuru Mandal, Anantapur District. *** Appellant/ Complainant. 2) Sri Lakshmi Sreenivasa Fertilizers, D.No.15/523/26, Suryanagar, Anantapur. *** Respondent/ O.P. No. 1 Counsel for Appellant: M/s. D. Krishna Murthy Counsel for Respondent: M/s. K. Maheshwara Rao R1 M/s. Triveni Reddy R2 CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) These cross-appeals viz., F.A. 885/2011 is preferred by the complainant against inadequacy of the amount granted, while the opposite party No. 2 filed F.A. 512/2010 against the very order awarding compensation.
2) Since both these appeals arise out of the same order the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression and to avoid confusion.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist owning Ac. 5.00 cents of land in S.No. 383 in Rangampet village. He purchased six packets of sunflower seeds weighing 2 Kgs each manufactured by the appellant distributed through Op1, its dealer Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Fertilizers on 30.4.2008 @ Rs. 550/- per packet covered under the bill Ex. A1 lured by Ex. A2 pamphlet issued in this regard that it would give good yield. He had taken all precautions and followed the directions, and sowed the seeds taking the assistance of agricultural officers, however, it did not germinate. On that he complained to the agricultural officers who visited the fields opined that the seeds supplied were of inferior in quality. He also applied good quality manure, and pesticides however he sustained loss which he assessed at Rs. 6 lakhs and claimed the said amount together with costs.
4) Op1 distributor resisted the case. However, it admitted that it is the distributor of the appellant seeds company, and that the complainant had purchased six packets of sunflower seeds under Ex. A1. He would have purchased seeds from other dealers also. He was no way responsible for inferior quality of seed. Since he was not responsible for the loss if any sustained by the complainant, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The appellant manufacturer of the seed equally resisted the case. It has been in the business of manufacture of seeds for the last 10 years. Only after conducting tests in R&D farm lab it has distributed the seeds to its dealers. It is of very good quality and they distributed 25 quintals in Ananthapur district alone and around 10 shops had sold the seeds and none of them had complained about the defect. Raising of crop would depend on several factors viz., nature of soil, irrigation facilities, use of pesticides and various other factors. Adangal was not filed. The report of the agricultural officer discloses that flowering stage was normal. The claim was very exorbitant. Expecting Rs. 6 lakhs from five acres of land is a tall claim. There was no defect in the seed nor deficiency in service on its part. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked. While Op1 filed his affidavit evidence. No affidavit evidence was filed by the appellant/manufacturer.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that having purchased the seeds admittedly manufactured by the appellant and the complainant having proved from a competent Agricultural Officer under Ex. A3 that seeds were defective, and inferior in quality assessed the loss of yield at eight quintals per acre awarded Rs. 60,000/- and directed to pay the same with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of order till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision, the manufacturer (Op2) preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that nobody had complained about the defect in the seed though it had supplied 456 packets in Ananthapur district alone. When the report of the Agricultural Officer shows that up to vegetative and flowering stage the crop was normal, and later the crop was affected by mealy bug and helicoverpa the Dist. Forum ought not to have opined that the seed was defective. The average yield during 2007-2008 was 658 Kgs per hectare and therefore assessing the loss at 8 quintals per acre has no basis, and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
9) Equally aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred the appeal F.A. 885/2011 contending that the assessment arrived at by the Dist. Forum is too low. It ought to have allowed the complaint in toto by awarding the compensation as claimed by him.
10) The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether there was any defect in the seeds manufactured by Op2 and sold by Op1 dealer?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount?
(iii) To what relief?
11) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased six packets of sunflower seeds from the dealer Op1, manufactured by Op2 for an amount of Rs. 3,300/-
on 30.4.2008 evidenced under bill Ex. A1. Even by its own reckoning it would suffice for sowing in five acres of land. The complainant after sowing the seeds and having found that it did not properly germinate gave a report to the Mandal Agricultural Officer a competent authority to inspect the crop. He inspected the crop and observed the following points:
i.
He has sown on 30.4.2008.
ii.
The vegetative and flowering stage was normal iii.
After setting the grain the partial setting is observed iv.
The mealy bug and helicoverpa is also observed v.
Though the farmer has taken steps in cultivating and controlling the pests the setting is only partial due to partial setting, the yield has been reduced.
From this it is beyond doubt that the complainant had taken all precautions.
He administered pesticides. The fact remains that the seed was not resistant to pests. It could have mentioned that seed is not resistant to the pests. The said fact was not even mentioned in its pamphlet Ex. A2. If the seed is not resistant to any of these pests it would undoubtedly indicate that the seed is defective. At least it could have stated that it is not responsible to certain pests/bugs so that the famers would take necessary precautions. The very fact that he had taken all precautions evident from report of the agricultural officer proof positive that the seed is defective. It may be stated herein that the report of the agricultural officer has to be taken ex-facie evidence.
12) The Honble Supreme Court after taking cognizance of these factors in M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.
Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy reported in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) upheld the report of the Agricultural officer when he held that the seeds were defective. They approved the opinion of the Agricultural Officer by stating In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory
13) Subsequently in H.N. Shankara Sastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka reported in II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC) the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Dist. Forum when it directed the manufacturer to refund the price of paddy seeds besides damages and costs.
Quoting with approval the law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) it was held:
The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, `a network of rackets' or a society in which, producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot."
14) Recently the Honble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported in 2012 (2) SCC 506 observed :
It may also be mentioned that 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. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the 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.
37.In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/-
per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.
It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.
(emphasis supplied)
38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed:
There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, 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 reposing 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 bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. 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, complainant 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 CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used 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 expect this arrangement.
In the second case, the National Commission took cognizance of the objection raised by the appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed and observed:
Testimony of the complainant would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner company packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory.
In the third case, the National Commission held:
Holding in favour of the complainant, the National Commission stated that, it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.
39. The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position.
Though the manufacturer has pleaded that the seed had undergone various tests etc. no test report whatsoever was filed at the time when seeds were released for sale in open market. Therefore, we hold that manufacturer is guilty of selling defective seeds. Unfortunately the manufacturer did not mention the yield that it would give per hectare. What all it was stated was that oil percentage would be around 44-45%. The complainant even filed the photographs of the plant along with seed to show the nature of crop that was existed in the land when the agricultural officer inspected his field. Even the Mandal Agricultural Officer issued notice to the manufacturer/appellant before his visit. The appellant manufacturer did not adduce any evidence to show as to the yield that one would derive by sowing these seeds. Equally the complainant did not file any adangal to show the exact yield he derived. Considering the report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, the Dist. Forum opined that the loss would be around Rs. 60,000/- which we do not think very high or excessive. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. There are no merits in these appeals.
15) In the result the appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 04/06/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.