National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs Dyavanagouda & 3 Ors. on 9 February, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 445/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE:BEEJ BHAVAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI 2. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE: UAS COMPOUND, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAPUTRAPPA VITHALTADAS & 3 ORS. R/O NAVALUR TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR/SECRETARY DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1834 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/06/2014 in Appeal No. 446/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH
IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. FAKKIRAPPA & 3 ORS. S/O MUDDAPPA TIPPANNAVAR, R/O NAVALUR TALUK TQ.&KARNATAKA DISTRICT: DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR/ SECRETARY ,DISTRICT AGICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 447/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DYAVANAGOUDA & 3 ORS. S/O CHANNABASANGOUDA PATIL, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT : DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR/SECRETARY DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE CELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER, /JOINT DIRECTOR, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 448/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE :BEEJ BHAWAN,PUSA ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIDDAPPA & 3 ORS. S/O MALLESHAPPA BALLUR R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ&DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR/DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR. BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT ,ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 449/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE :BEEJ BHAWAN,PUSA ROAD COMPLES NEW DELHI, ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. YASHWANT & 3 ORS. S/O PARASHURAM INGOLI, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ,& DISTRICT : DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR,SECRETARY,DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION, PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1838 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 450/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRAKASH & 3 ORS. S/O DEVENDRAPPA SARAPURI, R/O NAVALUR TALUK TQ.&DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR/ SECRETARY STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 451/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJBHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI 2. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE: UAS COMPOUND, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANIL & 3 ORS. S/O VITHALTADAS R/O NAVALURTALUK TQ.&DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,ZILLA PANCHAYAT, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR/ SECRETARY DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY STATION ROAD DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER/JOINT DIRECTOR BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1840 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 452/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SATAPPA & 3 ORS. S/O RAMAPPA SARAPURI, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT: DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR/SECRETARY DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE CELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. AGRICULTURE OFFICER, /JOINT REGISTRAR, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1841 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 453/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE :BEEJ BHAWAN,PUSA ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SONABAI & 5 ORS. W/O TUKARAM SHINDE, R/O NAVALUR, TALUK, DISTRICT : DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 2. HANUMANTAPPA, S/O SHIDLINGAPPA, R/O NAVALUR,TALUK, DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 3. BHIMAAPPA, S/O LAKSMAPPA KAMATAR, R/O NAVALUR,TALUK, DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 4. SOMAPPA, S/O FAKKIRAPPA JUTTI, R/O NAVALUR,TALUK, DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 6. SECRATRY, DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION, PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 454/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE :BEEJ BHAWAN,PUSA ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SAVANTREVVA & 3 ORS. W/O BASAPPA ADRUSHANAVAR, R/O NAVALUR,TQ DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE,ZILLA PANCHAYAT R/O NAVALUR,TQ DHARWAD, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA 3. SECRETARY,DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1843 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 505/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAWAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAPPA & 5 ORS. S/O BHIMAPPA BYALYAL, R/O DESAI ONI,NAVLUR, TQ,DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. NAGAPPA, S/O TIPPANNA GOBBERAGUMPI, R/O MYAGERI ONI, NAVLUR, TQ DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. MOHAN @ MANOHAR, S/O ARJUN NALAVADI R/O VINAYAK NAGAR, NAVLUR, TQ DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. NINGAVVA, W/O NAGAPPA JAPANNAVAR, R/O VINAYAK NAGAR, NAVLUR, TQ DHARWAD KARNATAKA 5. DEPUTY OF DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT,STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 6. SECRETARY, DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE CELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2196 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2014 in Appeal No. 454/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/4688/2015,IA/4689/2015 1. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. HEAD OFFICE: BEEJ BHAVAN, PUSA ROAD COMPLEX NEW DELHI 2. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE: UAS COMPOUND, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAGAPPA & 11 ORS. S/O RAYAPPA TADAKOD, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 2. GADIGAYYA S/O BASAYYA HANCHIN R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 3. TUKARAM S/O HANUMANTAPPA TADAS, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 4. YALLAPPA S/O GANGAPPA SHIVAMMANAVAR, R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 5. RAVI S/O MALLAPPA ARALAPPANAVAR,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 6. GULAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA JUTTIYEVAR,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 7. IRAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA GADADAVAR,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 8. KALLAPPA D/O MALLAPPA RAYAGONDANAVAR @ VADAKAPPANAVAR,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 9. NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA HONDAPPANAVAR,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 10. PRABHU S/O SHANKAR TOTEGER,R/O NAVALUR TALUK, TQ & DISTRICT DHARWAD KARNATAKA 11. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, ZILL PANCHAYAT, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA 12. SECRETARY, DISTRICT AGRICULTURE CORPORATION PRODUCE SELL AND PROCESSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Arunav Pattnaik and Ms.Kanika Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 09 Feb 2016 ORDER Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the common order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in a batch of Appeals preferred by both the farmers/complainants and the opposite parties/respondents (for short "the OP").
This order shall dispose of the aforementioned 12 Revision Petitions, as the facts and the law point involved is the same. For convenience, facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.1833/2015, treating it to be the lead case.
The complainant is an agriculturist owning 3 acres and 01 guntas of land in Survey No.417 in Navalura village, District Dharwad. It is averred in the Complaint that it was only on the assurance of OP-2, i.e., the District Horticulture Producers, Marketing and Processing Association Ltd., that he had purchased 20 quintals of potato seeds on 16.6.2010 @ Rs.1010/- per quintal and Receipt No.1883 was issued to him. The complainant pleaded that he had sown the subject seeds in 2 acres and 20 guntas of land and even after 15-30 days the seeds did not sprout and the complainant started digging the land and found that 60-70% of the seeds had rotted. The complainant averred that he had administered proper fertilizers and pesticides, did proper weeding and took care and caution to see that the plants were not affected by any disease. The complainant reported the loss to OP-2 and on 6.7.2010, Smt.Namitha Rahutha, Agricultrue Expert and Sh. M.J. Thotegera, Expert from the Agriculture University, Dharwad, inspected the plants and promised that suitable action would be taken but there was no response.
The complainant pleaded that he had made several representations on 23.7.2010, 30.8.2010, 1.9.2010 and 8.10.2010 but received no reply. Thereafter, scientist Sh. K.Ramachandra Naik, A.I. C.R.P. on Potato Zonal Horticulture Research and Extension Centre, Kumbhapur, Dharwad Karnataka University of Horticulture Sciences, Bangalkote expressed his opinion after inspecting the crop three times. There was a difference in yield of up to 70%. Subsequently, after several representations were made, OP-1 had sent notice to OP-5 on 6.1.2011 and 14.1.2011 but again no action was taken. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.2,11,636/- towards crop loss, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
In their written version, OPs 1 and 2 contended that the potato seeds distributed to Navlur farmers of Dharwad District were supplied by OP-6, i.e. National Seeds Corporation, the petitioner herein, and were stored at Shreejee Cold Storage, Hubli, wherein the seeds were tested for fungal infection and the seeds were said to be free from any infestation. The reports of Dr.B.C. Patil and Dr. K.Ramachandra Naik do not specifically state that the reason for low germination was not because of defective seeds but in fact it was due to deep planting, heavy rains and not treating the seed tubers with suitable fungicide. Before distribution of seeds a meeting was held on 30.10.2009 under the Chairmanship of Secretary Horticulture and it was decided that National Seeds Corporation would supply 7000 quintals of certified potato tubers to the State of Karnataka out of which 778.5 quintals were distributed to the farmers of Dharwad District and the balance to the farmers of other Districts. It is contended that there is not a single complaint from farmers of Belgaum District and OPs 2 and 3 submit that there is no deficiency of service on their part.
In its written version, OP-3 contended that their responsibility is to supply certified seeds to the farmers and that they would never act against the interest of the farmers. It is pleaded that the same seeds had been supplied to Belgaum District but there were no complaints. The yield depends upon various factors like use of inputs, namely, the fertilizers and pesticides, rainfall in the sown area, climatic conditions, soil humidity, irrigation water facility, etc. The claim of the complainants is also exaggerated and as per APMC price chart the rate of the potato is Rs.400 to 450 per quintal. OP-3 contended that the said report was a biased one and that the visitors had not visited the farm during the season of harvest and that the complainant farmers were negligent in not following proper agricultural operations.
OP-6 filed its reply before the District Forum stating that one acre of land requires 6 quintal potato seeds; that there were no complaints from Belgaum District farmers; that the small size of potato occurs due to various factors like Use of inputs like fertilizers in required quantity of proper time of cultivation Use of sufficient pesticides to control various diseases to plant at right to time Rainfall in the sown area Climate conditions Soil humidity Irrigation water facility It is further pleaded that the price of potatoes/quintal is Rs.400 to 450 as per APMC price chart and the claim of the complainant is excessive. The complainant had failed to administer proper fertilizers, rain water and did not carry out the required treatment for the potato seeds. This was stated by the scientists in their reports and therefore no deficiency of service can be attributed to OP-6. It is further stated in their reply that as per the Seeds Act 1966, the quality of the seeds is to be tested in the laboratory, which has not been done in the instant case.
The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, partly allowed the complaints and directed OPs 1, 2, 3 and 6 to pay to the complainants "Rs.25,000 in C.No.187/11; Rs.32,250/- in C.No.188/11; Rs.30,000/- in C.No.189/11; Rs.20,000/- in C.No.190/11; Rs.29,750/- in C.No.191/11; Rs.24,500/- in C.No.192/11; Rs.32,250/- in C.No.193/11 and Rs.25,000/- in C.No.194/11" within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization. Complaint against OPs 4 and 5 was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the said order, OPs 1-3 and 6 preferred Appeals and the complainants also preferred cross-appeals for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission, while concurring with the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service, allowed Appeals No.3183-3189/2011 and 413/2012, i.e., the Appeals preferred by Dy.Director of Horticulture, Dharwad District and the Secretary, District Horticulture Producers and Marketing Co-operative Society, Dharwad, and dismissed the Complaints against OPs 1 and 2. Appeals preferred by OP-6, i.e., National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. and OP-3, i.e., the Agricultural Officer/Joint Director, Belgaum Road, Dharwad, have been dismissed by the State Commission concurring with the finding of the lower fora with respect to deficiency of service by them.
Aggrieved by this order, OP-6, i.e., National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. has preferred these Revision Petitions before this Commission.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He drew my attention to Pages 88 and 89 of the Petition, which pertains to the report given by the Scientist, Dr. K.Ramachandra Naik. It is an admitted fact that the scientists had inspected the field three times and observed as follows :
"Third time field observation report Potato crops in different fields on the way have been observed. In potato fields by uprooting the plant here and there we got information about the total number of lumphs, size, rotton lumph present in the plant. While observation following facts were found.
Description about seeds grown in field which were received by the government In each plant1-2 large sized lumph 2-3 medium sized lumph 1-4 grain sized lumph rotton lumphs were found.
Description about seeds grown in field which was brought from the outside market Even though no clear information about the breed of the seeds grown which was brought from outside market still following elements were found.
In each plant 3 to 6 large sized lumph to 6 medium sized lump to 8 small and very small sized lumphs were found
Amount of budding, retardation of growth was found in the Kufri Jyoti breed of the farmers field which was supplied by the government, amount of budding and amount of appearance of lumph was good in the field where different breed seed was brought from outside market and grown were found.
According to the information given by the farmer lumph was inseminated at the 5th day after removing it from the cold storage house. But scientifically after removing lumphs on the cold storage house 10 to 15 days should be kept outside for "Thawing" action (adjusting for external atmosphere). Lumphs removed from the cold storage house being unaware for small time, inseminating of such type in the field will be still not ready for budding.
If inseminated lumphs are still unaware supplying more fertilizer with having more rain water may be the reason for rottening of lumph.
Insemination must be done by removing the rotton lumphs from the potato bag and treating them with the fungicide. Because of this reason there is a possibility of having inseminated lumphs rotton in the field. Because of this may be amount of budding had become less.
Supply of potato seeds by the government was one of the best planning for hopeful programme from next year in this programme instead of "Kufri Jyoti" breed Kufri growing healthy in Dharwad District atmosphere giving more yields and scientifically recommended. It would be more beneficial for the farmers if Pukaraj, Kufri jawahar and kufri Surya breeds were supplied.
It is of the opinion that, under such circumstances it is better to obtain scientific advice before implementing any breed/seed programmes in Dharwad area.
Due to all these reasons, there is an opinion that, the potato yield grown in the fields of farmers belonging to Dharwad District which are grown from the potato seeds supplied by the government are not good and profitable."
Reliance can be placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506 in which it has been held as follows :
"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 toprovidea 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. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed.
35.The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naïve to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.
36.It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellant's 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."
Even in the instant case, when the complainant had established his case and there is a scientist report, the onus shifts on the manufacturer and the other opposite parties to adhere to Section 13(1)(c). It has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the farmer is not expected to store the seeds which he had sown and the onus shifts on the manufacturer to send the seeds of that particular brand for testing. A brief perusal of the record shows that the petitioner, which is also the manufacturer of the said seeds, did not file any application before the lower fora seeking for testing of the seeds. Therefore, to raise this contention that Section 13(1)(c) was not adhered to at this belated stage, cannot be sustained in the light of the afore-mentioned judgement of the Apex Court.
The State Commission has rightly relied on the report of the scientist which indicates that yield by the potato seeds was not good and not as per the expected specifications. Keeping in view the afore-mentioned reasons, I do not find it a fit case to exercise our limited jurisdiction and interfere with the concurrent finding of fact given by both the fora below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the liability has been fastened jointly and severally and that he had shown his bona fide by depositing Rs.7,000/- in each case and therefore the balance amount should be paid by the other respondents on whom the liability has been fastened.
I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower fora in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the petitioner herein and the third opposite party.
In the result, these Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.
...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER