State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Gen. Manager Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Katta Bal Reddy, S/O.Veera Reddy, ... on 25 April, 2013
BEFORE THE AP. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.513/2012 against C.C.No.86/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.Katta Bal Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Uppunuthala Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 F.A.No.514/2012 against C.C.No.87/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.Katta Veera Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Uppunuthala Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 F.A.No.515/2012 against C.C.No.91/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.A.Chendraiah, S/o.A.Chinnaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.no.4-100, Cherlapally Village Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 F.A.No.516/2012 against C.C.No.94/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.Katta Sampurnamma, W/o.Bal Reddy Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Uppunuthala Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 F.A.No.517/2012 against C.C.No.115/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.Rangaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-39, Gudipally Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 F.A.No.518/2012 against C.C.No.116/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar. Between: The Gen. Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Opp.party no.1 And 1.C.Shivaleela, W/o.Balaiah @ Laxmaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-50, Gudipally Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Manager, M/s. Ganesh Seed Supplier, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally Village, Gorantla Mandal, Ananthapur District. Respondent / Opp.party no.3 3. The Agricultural Officer, Uppunuthala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District . Respondent/ Opp.party no.2 Counsel for the Appellant : Mrs.S.Lakshmi Prameela (in all appeals) Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. K.Sudershan-R1 (in all appeals) M/s. P.S.P.Suresh Kumar-R2 G.P. for State-R3 CORAM : SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order : ( per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** These appeals are directed against the orders dt. 19.1.2012 of the Dist. Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar made in C.C.Nos.86/2011, 87/2011, 91/2011, 94/2011, 115/2011,116/2011. Opp.party no.1 in all the complaints preferred these appeals.
The respondent no.1 is the complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the opp.parties 3 and 2 respectively, in all the complaints. For the sake of convenience the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint.
Since the questions of fact and law arise in all these appeals are common, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Since the facts and contentions of both the parties are similar in all the matters, F.A.No.513/2012 is taken as lead case for narrating the facts.
F.A.No.513/2012:
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is an agriculturist and has land in Survey nos. 893/A, 956/A, 957/A , 953/A, 955/A, 956/A situated at Uppunuthala village and mandal. The opposite parties sell Castrol seeds throughout A.P. through Agricultural Office counter. The complainant purchased two bags of Castrol seeds PCS 4 variety of 4 kgs. each @ Rs.82/- for each bag total comes to Rs.164/- on 24.6.2010 from opp.party no.2. Thereafter, the complainant sowed the seeds in his four acres of land by taking all precautions and care for germination and growth of plants. After sowing the seeds, subsequently, he has taken every care duly taking suggestions of local agricultural officer and adopted all managemental practices and accordingly he has applied DAP urea like fertilisers .The complainant has attended weeding of crop duly engaging labour. The crop grown, but there was no proper yield and there was no fertile flowers and buds . The complainant is a small farmer and due to the sub standard seeds of opposite parties, he has incurred financial loss.
The complainant approached the opposite parties and explained about the growth of the crop. The opposite parties visited the field and promised to send scientists for necessary crop testing, but did not do so. The complainant has sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre because of the defective seeds. He spent an amount of Rs.10,000/-
per each acre towards the expenses, i.e. fertilisers, labour, pesticides. The complainant approached the opp.parties to make good the loss, but received no response. Hence this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay crop loss of Rs.2 lakhs for four acres together with compensation and costs.
Opposite party no.1 A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. filed their written version contending that the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh , Hyderabad vide letter dt.29.4.2010 instructed APSSDC to procure extra seeds by calling short tenders.
Thereupon, the opposite party no.1 floated tenders in the month of May,2010, for supply of Castrol PCS-4 T/L as per Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards prescribed by the Central Seed Certification Board. M/s. Ganesh Seeds Suppliers, opp.party no.3 herein have quoted lowest rate and entered into two separate agreements dt.12.5.2010 & 11.6.2010 for supplying the required quantities. The Castrol seeds were actually produced and supplied by opposite party no.3. The role of this opposite party no.1 is nothing but a distributor of the seeds supplied by the said party, as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the above said agreement. Opposite party no.1 relies on the clauses 8 to 10 of the Agreement which state that opposite party no.3 shall only be responsible for the quality of the seeds and any complaint with regard to the quality of seeds, such as germination, purity, moisture and genetic purity and if there is any crop failure, the supplier shall pay the compensation, as decided by the MOU Committee constituted for this purpose by the Department of Agriculture.
This opposite party served legal notice dt.
15.12.2010 on opposite party no.3, on knowing the crop failure, to make good the loss sustained by the farmers, as per the agreement. The complainant never approached this opposite party. This opposite party is only a distributor of the seed, as such, not liable for the loss incurred by the complainant.
Opposite party no.2 did not file any written version and no documents marked on his behalf.
The opposite party no.3 filed its written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that they are having a processing unit at M/s.Jayaram Enterprises, Palasamudram, Goruntla Mandal, Anantapur Dist., this opp.party processed the seed at the said processing plant and supplied to the opposite party no.1 i.e. destinations indicated by them. But the opposite party no.3 is not aware about the supply of the seeds by opposite party no.1 to various farmers situated at Mahabubnagar Dist. There is every chance that opposite party no.1 might have mixed the said seeds with a different local variety seeds from that of PCS 4 variety., hence the opposite party no.3 cannot be found fault for the said extra plants as sub standard quality.
This opposite party further contended that by the time of processing at opposite party no.3s processing unit, the seed officers of the opposite party no.1 i.e. A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. were very much present and under their supervision, guidance and presence only, the entire processing was completed and the seeds were despatched to the respective destination/godowns on the instructions of opposite party no.1. After processing the seed, samples were drawn by the said officers of the opposite party no.1 from each lot, during the month of May 2010 and June,2010 and they were sent to opposite party no.1 laboratories situated at Kurnool, as well as, at Jeedimetla. The said two laboratories of opposite party no.1 gave the seed testing analysis reports dt.6.8.2010 and 19.8.2010 of Jeedimetla Laboratory and 17.9.2010 of Kurnool Laboratory by clearly stating that the seeds supplied by opposite party no.3 are having purity of 98% to 99% and having standard in so far as germination is concerned. As per the lab reports given by opposite party no.1 Seed Testing Laboratories, the said seeds supplied by opposite party no.3 are having standard quality and also having good germination. There is no defect in the seeds supplied by opposite party no.3 and the defect is somewhere else, for which, the opposite party no.3 cannot be faulted. There is no proof that the opposite party has sold the same seeds which this opposite party has processed in its plant, to the complainants. Hence opposite party no.3 is not at all liable to pay compensation.
Before the District Forum, in order to prove his case the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 & A2. Opposite party no.1, in support of its contention, got filed affidavit evidence through its General Manager and got no documents marked . Opp.party no.3, in support of his contention, got filed its affidavit evidence through its proprietor and got marked Exs.B1 to B14.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards the crop loss, besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint. The complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.1 , A.P.State Seeds Dev. Corp. Ltd. preferred the above appeal.
We heard the counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact that opposite party no.1 is the distributor of Castrol seeds, in question, on price, to the needy agriculturists in the village through opposite party no.2 Agricultural Officer of the village.
It is also an admitted fact that opposite party no.3 is the producer and supplier of Caster seeds to various customers. The fact that the complainant being an agriculturist, having agricultural land, purchased the caster seeds covered under the bill original of Ex.A1 from opp.party no.2 and that after purchasing the seeds from opposite party no.2 , the complainant sowed the same in his agricultural land. The fact that the complainant sustained crop loss in question is also an admitted fact.
It is the case of the complainant that because of the defective seeds supplied by opposite party no.1, manufactured by opposite party no.3, he suffered crop loss of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and he incurred Rs.10,000/- per acre towards fertilisers besides labour etc. It is the case of the opposite party no.1 that the complainant sustained loss of crop only due to the defective seeds . If such is the defense setup by the opposite party no.1, the burden lies on opposite party no.3 to establish that the seeds supplied by him to opposite party no.1 are not defective seeds.
It is not in dispute that the opposite party no.3 has become successful tenderer for supply of Caster PCS 4 T/L seeds to the opposite party no.1 and that opposite party no.3 has processed the seeds in his processing unit M/s. Jayarama Enterprises, Palasamudram, Goruntla Mandal, Anantapur Dist. and after processing the seeds, the opp. party no.3 has supplied the same to opposite party no.1, for distribution.
Admittedly opp.party no.1 and opposite party no.3 entered into two separate agreements dt.12.5.2010 and 11.6.2010 for supplying the required quantities of Caster seeds. In the counter/written version, the opposite party no.1 has taken a plea that as per clauses 3 and 2 of the said agreements , M/s. Ganesh Seeds Suppliers i.e. opposite party no.3 have to supply the seeds having genetic purity as prescribed by Central Seed Certification Board. As per Clause 9 of the said agreement, the suppliers shall be solely responsible for the quality of seed supplied and any complaint, with regard to the quality aspects, such as, germination, purity (physical) , moisture and genetic purity.
As per Clauses 10 In the event of any complaint on quality of seed at field level i.e. germination, crop failure, due to any of the factors, the supplier shall pay the compensation as decided by MOU Committee/ team of officials constitute for the purpose/Department of Agriculture.
This plea of the opposite party no.1 in his counter is not disputed by the opposite party no.3, either in their written version or in their evidence affidavit. It is therefore established that the opposite party no.3, who is the producer of the seed is responsible for quality of the seed and on failure, is liable to pay compensation. Ex.B1 is the legal notice dt.15.12.2010 got issued by opposite party no.1, to opposite party no.3 and Ex.B2 is the reply notice got issued by opposite party no.3. It is stated in Ex.B1 that opposite party no.1 purchased the seeds from opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 supplied the same to various farmers situated at R.R. Dist and Mahabubnagar Dist. Further, it is stated as below in Ex.B1:
The farmers of said two districts have raised seedlings with the said seeds procured from you and found that the seeds are of sub standard quality i.e. 50% of off side plants, different from PCS 4 variety which clearly shows that there is heavy admixture of seeds .The plants are not showing growth of normal pattern. As such farmers made complaints on the quality of the seeds purchased by them. Consequent on the complaints received from various farmers , a field inspection was undertaken by a scientist deputed from Plant Breeding Section, Directorate of Oil Seeds Research, Rajendra Nagar, accompanied by a jt. Director of Agriculture, R.R.District., Joint Director of Agriculture (Seeds) of Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P. Asst. Director of Agriculture , R.R.Dt. Ibrahimpatnam and other officials nominated by APSSDCL. The joint inspection yielded the following information.
1).There is abnormal growth of castor plants. 70-80% maleness.
2)Low number of capsules were present in all the plants.
3) In about 5 to 8% of plants there is no initiation of flowering at all.
4). About 50% of the plants are different from the Castor PCS 4 variety .
The joint inspection also concluded that due to the defective seed supplied by you, around 1321 farmers spread over 65 villages are affected and the loss is estimated at around Rs.30038730/- ( Rupees Three Crores , thirty eight thousand , seven hundred and thirty only).
In regard to the seeds supplied to the farmers of Mahabubnagar Dt. also similar complaints were received and a joint field inspection was conducted by the officials of APSSDC Ltd., along with officials of Department of Agriculture and others. All the defects found in the growth pattern at R.R.District were also observed at Mahabubnagar Dt. The details of quantification of loss suffered by Mahabubnagar Dt. Farmers is awaited.
It is further stated, that the above said inspection reports clearly show that the seeds supplied by the opposite party no.3 is defective is not in conformity to the minimum seeds certification standards and not in terms of the agreement entered into by opposite party no.3 with opposite party no.1 Corporation, as far as the quality aspect is concerned. Under this notice, opposite party no.3 is called upon to pay the loss of yield to the farmers, in terms of the agreement.
Opposite party no.3 got issued Ex.B2 reply notice dt.24.1.2011 stating that the laboratory reports given by opposite party no.1s own labs state that the seeds are of good quality and also having good germination with purity of 90% to 99% and that there is no evidence that the seeds purchased by the complainant are from the seeds manufactured by opposite party no.3 and purchased by opposite party no.1.
Ex.B3 analysis report is dt. 17.9.2010 and this report is given by opp.party no.1s laboratory at Kurnool with regard to Caster seeds Lot no.May-10-01-ATP-Grt. Exs.B4 and B5 are laboratory reports dt. 6.8.2010 and 19.8.2010 respectively from opposite party no.1 laboratory at Jeedimetla.
We observe from the record, that there is no substantial evidence to establish that the samples covered by Exs.B3 to B5 were produced and supplied by opposite party no.3 to opposite party no.1 and purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1 laboratory at Jeedimetla.
It is pertinent to note that Ex.A1 cash bill under which the complainant purchased the seed dt.24.6.2010 whereas the sample seed under Ex.B3 was sent for analysis on 17.8.2010 and was received by the laboratory on 6.9.2010. The sample covered by Ex.B4 sent to the laboratory on 16.7.2010 and it was received by laboratory on 20.7.2010, the sample covered under Ex.B5 was sent on 19.6.2010 and received on 11.8.2010. Exs.B4 to B5 do not reveal as to when the sample was analysed. It is not known, when the samples were taken from the seeds supplied by opposite party no.3. But one fact is clear from Exs.B3 to B5 that all the samples were sent to laboratories and were analysed, subsequent to the purchase of the seeds by the complainant. Under these circumstances , we are not inclined to rely on Exs.B3 to B5 reports, regarding the testing of quality of seeds. Opposite party no.3 relied on Ex.B9 which is the report regarding visit to farmers fields by the scientists in the Koduparthy Village to ADR RARS. As per Ex.B9 report, the scientists observed:
Castor crop is highly influenced by environmental conditions and management practices. As there is good monsoon prevailed during the current year there is excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 8 to 9 feet tall. Flowering was observed but due to excessive vegetative growth flowering is delayed. Low branching was observed in all the fields. The node number varied from 16-23 and in 80-90 % of the plants there is excess maleness ( 50-60% ). Due to excess maleness, low number of capsules were present in all the spikes. In5% of the plants there is no initiation of the flowers Ex.B11 is another scientists report dt.14.10.2010 with regard to visit of farmers fields in Maldakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist., wherein the Committee of scientists has given a similar report. It is the case of the opposite parties 1 and 3 that the Castor seed crop is very much depending on rain fall and that the scientists report was As there is good monsoon prevailed during the current year, there is excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 10 to 12 feet tall and therefore the crop loss is not due to defective seeds but due to excessive rain fall. But as we observe from the scientists report, nowhere it was stated that there was excess rain fall. They only stated that there was good monsoon and that the flowering was delayed due to excessive vegetative growth , but low branch was observed and low number of capsules were present in all spikes and there was initiation of flowering in 5 to 10% of plants. Scientists report does not state anywhere that the low flowering was because of excessive rain fall . Infact the scientists report states that node number varied from 18 to 25 in 80-90% of plants, there was excess maleness (60-70%) and due to this low number of capsules present all the spikes. Under these circumstances, the contention of opposite parties 1 and 3, that the scientists report was in their favour on the ground that there was excessive rain fall, is not acceptable.
The contention of opposite party no.1 is that being a manufacturer and producer of the seed, opposite party no.3 alone is liable, on account of the Clauses 9 and 10 of the agreement, which are mentioned above, whereas the contention of opposite party no.3 is that opposite party no.1 alone can be made liable, as it is their Seed Officer who was present during the entire processing and the seeds are also tested in their laboratory . As stated above, the test reports relate to the period, subsequent to the purchase of seeds by the complainant and as such they cannot be relied upon. Absolutely , there is no evidence on record to show that the seeds produced by opposite party no.3 were tested in the laboratories by opposite party no.1 and prior to opp.party no.3 supplying the seeds to various distribution centers, for sale to the farmers. Opposite party no.3 has not filed any documentary evidence to establish that the seeds produced by them were of 98 to 99% purity, which the farmers in these complaints used and sown in their respective fields. We rely on the decision of the Apex Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that even if the producer u/s.13(1) of Consumer Protection Act, has not been adopted by the District Forum amendment of well reasoned order cannot be sought for The Honble Supreme Court while referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.
Ltd. Vs. Alavapati Chandra Reddy in para 79 of the judgement observed as follows:
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 light of the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Alavapati Chandra Reddy, the burden of proof shifts on to the opposite party no.3, to prove that the seeds, produced and supplied to opposite party no.1 and sold to the complainants, are qualitatively good and they conformed to the standards prescribed by Central Certification Board. Opposite party no.3 did not offer to produce the sample of seeds supplied to opposite party no.1 or sold to the complainant before the District Forum to get it tested or analysed in an appropriate lab. The opposite parties failed on their part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of variety of seeds sold to the complainants. As per Rule13(3) of Seeds Rules,1968 it is expected from the opp.party no.3, to keep the samples of variety of seeds sold/supplied to the opposite party no.3 and sold to the complainant. In the absence of testing of such samples, through the District Forum, the report of the scientists cannot be relied upon .
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, the District Forum has rightly came to the conclusion, that there is deficiency in service, however held opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable. We are of the considered view that opp.parties 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable as opposite party no.3 is manufacturer of the seeds and both of them have not taken any steps to comply with Sec. 13(1) of the C.P.Act. Opposite party no.2, who is an Agricultural Officer, whose responsibility is only to supply the seeds to farmers, as per the instructions of opp.party no.1, cannot be held liable to any deficiency that is attributed to seeds, essentially manufactured by opp.party no.3 and marketed by opposite party no.1. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the complaint against opp.party no.2.
Subject to this modification, we are inclined to keep the order of the District Forum intact regarding awarding of compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards crop loss besides Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs, which we see no reason to interfere with the quantum of amount awarded by the District Forum.
In the result, appeal preferred by opposite party no.1 is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum and case against opposite party no.2 is dismissed but without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.Nos.514 to 518/2012:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.513/2012, these appeals preferred by opposite party no.1 are also dismissed and orders of the District Forum are modified directing opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum and case against opposite party no.2 in all these appeals, is dismissed, but without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.
25.4.2013