National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gujarat State Coop.Mktg.Federation ... vs Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel on 26 May, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.705 OF 2008 (From the order dated 26.12.07 in Appeal No.1378/06 of the State Commission, Gujarat) Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil Surti, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Shiv P.Pandey, Advocate Pronoucned on 26th May, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed by Gujarat State Coop. Mktg.Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter called the State Commission) in favour of Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent).
The brief facts of the case according to the Respondent are that he is an agriculturist and earns his livelihood by cultivating his own land. On 28.08.2004, he purchased 6 kgs. of castor seeds from the Petitioner for Rs.570/- and was assured that being of high quality, the seeds would give a good yield after sowing. Petitioner thereafter sowed and nurtured the seeds taking the required care and precaution. He, however, noted on 08.09.2004 that the above seeds were not germinating properly and, therefore, he made a complaint about this to the Petitioner/Federation but received no response. He thereafter got a panchnama prepared in the presence of the Gram Sarpanch and some other independent members on 11.09.2004 which noted that only 5% of the seeds had germinated. Respondent thereafter lodged a complaint on 14.09.2004 with the Assistant Agriculture Director (Quality Control) following which the Agriculture Inspector took a sample of the seeds and sent these for analysis to the relevant laboratory at Gandhinagar which confirmed that the germination was only 54% and therefore, the said sample had failed in germination.
Respondent, therefore, sent a notice to the Petitioner through his advocate on grounds of deficiency in service seeking compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest @ 18% for the loss caused to him because of the defective seeds, since he had estimated that if the seeds had been of good quality he would have got the above amount from selling the yield.
Respondent also sought compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
Petitioner/Federation denied the above contentions. According to the Petitioner/Federation the castor seeds which were sold to the Respondent were of high quality and had been certified by the Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency. It also confirmed 80% germination. Further various other farmers in the area who had used the same castor seeds had obtained good crops from them and not a single complaint had been received. There are in fact several factors which affect germination of seeds such as right moisture in the land, its fertility, the system of ploughing and sowing, correct use of insecticides, quality of fertilizer, timely irrigation and other precautions; it is not necessarily linked to its quality. Obviously, the unsatisfactory germination of the seeds was attributable to some of the above factors and not to the quality of seeds per se. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service.
The District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed the complaint on the grounds that no credible evidence was produced by the Respondent to prove that the seeds purchased by him were of inferior quality and that the crop failed because of these seeds. On the other hand, there are affidavits of other farmers in the area who had purchased the same seeds and who had obtained a good crop. Further, the seeds purchased by the Respondent were tested in the laboratory which did not find any defect in its purity.
Respondent was also unable to produce satisfactory evidence regarding the precautions and measures taken by him to ensure that irrigation, ploughing, use of fertilizers was done properly.
The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as follows:
The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove inferior quality of seeds. Scientist of laboratory is not examined and no such evidence is produced that the seeds purchased by the complainant was tested by the laboratory and report is given after analyzing the same. In addition no satisfactory evidence is produced by the complainant as to moisture in his land, system of sowing and ploughing and quality and proportion of fertilizer, timely watering and necessary care to be taken by the complainant.
No satisfactory evidence is produced in this regard. Hence, it cannot be held from the facts of the complaint that the seeds purchased from the opponent were of inferior quality and crop was failed due to sowing of said seeds in the land of complainant and loss of Rs.1,56,000/- is caused due to that as stated by him, for which case is filed against the opponent and no believable evidence is produced in support of his case.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed the appeal on the grounds that there was evidence to show from a government approved laboratory that the germination percentage of the seeds was below the stipulated minimum 70% germination and hence prima facie the seeds did appear to be of inferior quality.
Regarding claim of Rs.1,56,000/- on the sustained loss State Commission concluded that this was not tenable in the absence of any supporting or proper document. The State Commission while setting aside the order of the District Forum regarding the lump sum compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- directed that the Petitioner/Federation should pay the Respondent Rs.20,000/- as reasonable loss, Rs.1,000/- as costs and Rs.570/- being the cost of the seeds.
Petitioner is in revision against this order.
Learned counsel for both parties made oral submissions before us. Learned counsel for Petitioner concluded that the State Commission erred in concluding that because the germination of the seeds was only 50%, the seeds were defective. In fact as pointed out by the District Forum, germination of seeds depends on many agronomical factors and may not be linked necessarily to the quality of the seeds. In the instant case, the seeds had been duly certified by the Government approved Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency which reflects that the germination percentage is 80%. From this, it appears that the respondent had utilized two different qualities of seeds produced by two different companies and there is no proof that the seeds which showed 54% germination, were those purchased from the Petitioner/Federation. Counsel for Petitioner/Federation further pointed out that even the report of the laboratory where the seeds were sent by the Joint Director (Agriculture) does not conclude that there was any defect in the seeds because it has certified that percentage of physical purity of seeds was 99.6%. Apart from this, evidence in the form of affidavits were produced before the District Forum by the Petitioner/Federation from other farmers in the area who confirmed that they had also sowed castor seeds purchased from the Petitioner/Federation which had harvested excellent crops. The panchnama relied upon by the Respondent to prove his case indicates that in some of the crops, there was 100% germination whereas in the others it was only 5%. There was no proof in this document that the seeds with lesser germination were purchased from the Petitioner/Federation. The onus to prove this was on the Respondent who has failed to do so. Thus, in all probability the germination failed either because the Respondent did not adhere to the correct agronomic practices or the failed germination was in respect of seeds bought from some other source. In view of the above, the revision petition deserves to be accepted.
Counsel for Respondent on the other hand reiterated that the State Commission had rightly appreciated that defective seeds were responsible for poor germination and the District Forum erred in not appreciating the fact that this was confirmed by the Government laboratory which confirmed that the seeds failed in germination. Counsel for Respondent further stated that there was no deficiency or shortcomings in any agronomic practices followed by Respondent in cultivating the castor seeds and being an agriculturist he was fully conversant with these practices.
We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record.
We note that the purity of the seeds had been certified by the laboratory to which it was sent by the Agriculture Department following the complaint by the Respondent about poor germination.
Prior to this, Petitioner had also got the seeds tested before selling them to farmers from a government laboratory which confirmed the same. Apart from this, it is in evidence that farmers who had used these seeds have filed affidavits that they had no such complaints and the seeds had yielded good crops. The problem according to the laboratory pertained to poor germination of seeds which could be the result of factors not related to the quality of the seeds. It is well acknowledged that germination depends on factors like the type of irrigation, fertility of the soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers etc. In the instant case, in view of credible evidence that there was no defect in the seeds, the onus to prove otherwise including the fact that proper agronomic practices had bee adopted by the Respondent was on the Respondent as held in several judgments of the apex court as well as this Commission.
The Respondent failed to do so.
Even the panchnama produced by him is not of any help to the Respondent. The District Forum on the basis of credible evidence and facts has given clear and convincing reasons for concluding that there was no credible evidence that the seeds were of inferior quality. The State Commission erred in not appreciating the above facts in partly accepting the appeal of the Respondent. We, therefore, uphold the order of the District Forum and set aside the order of the State Commission.
The revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
....
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/