State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Sandoz India Ltd. (Now Known As ... vs Mr.Vishwanath Pandurang Bansode ... on 19 June, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 737 OF 1999 Date of filing : 20/04/1999 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 133 OF 1998 Date of order : 19/06/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SATARA M/s.Sandoz India Ltd. (now known as Syngenta India Ltd.) Seeds Division, Sandoz House, Dr.Annie Besant, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. Appellant/org. O.P.No.2 V/s. 1. Mr.Vishwanath Pandurang Bansode (Mali) At & Post Kuroli Siddheshwar, Tal. Khatav, Dist. Satara. Respondent/org. complainant 2. M/s.Mhaswadkar Sheti Udyog Sadashiv Peth, Satara-2. Respondent/org. O.P.No.1. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF 1999 Date of filing : 20/04/1999 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 133 OF 1998 Date of order : 19/06/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SATARA Mr.Vishwanath Pandurang Bansode (Mali) At & Post Kuroli Siddheshwar, Tal. Khatav, Dist. Satara. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. 1. M/s.Sandoz India Ltd. (now known as Syngenta India Ltd.) Seeds Division, Sandoz House, Dr.Annie Besant, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. Respondent/org. O.P.No.2 2. M/s.Mhaswadkar Sheti Udyog Sadashiv Peth, Satara-2. Respondent/org. O.P.No.1. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : Mr.V.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant in A-737/1999.
Mr.M.H. Oak, Advocate for the appellant in A-742/1999.
-: ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Satara in consumer complaint No.133/1998 decided on 16/03/1999, org. O.P. No.2 has filed Appeal No.737/1999 and org. complainant has filed Appeal No.742/1999. By the impugned order, Forum below directed O.P. to pay amount of Rs.78.980/- towards expenses and loss suffered by the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and also directed to pay them Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
So both, the complainant as well as O.P.No.2 have filed these two appeals. O.P. No.2 has filed appeal for getting cancelled the order passed by the Forum below and complainant has filed appeal for getting enhanced compensation than awarded by the Forum below.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainant is a resident of Village Kuroli Siddheshwar, Tal. Khatav, District Satara and his family holds 15 acres irrigated agricultural land. The complainant has fitted electric motor on the well in the field. O.P.No.1 is in the business of selling seeds, seeds fertilizer and pesticides, whereas, O.P.No.2 is manufacturer of seeds. In the month of January 1998, complainant decided to cultivate Cauliflower crop in 1.5 acre area of his land. Said cauliflower gets ready within three months and it is a cash crop. He approached O.P.No.1 at Satara. O.P.No.1 suggested him to purchase seeds manufactured by O.P.No.2. Accordingly, complainant purchased cauliflower seeds from O.P.No.1 on 01/09/1998 and 13/01/1998 worth Rs.2,625/-. He then cultivated the same in his field and took every care in cultivation of said land. He purchased chemical fertilizer and sprayed the same on the cauliflower crops from time to time and he also used pesticides and incurred amount of Rs.16,500/- on that count. Complainant pleaded that he had purchased compost manure worth Rs.7,000/- and supplied the same to the cauliflower crops and incurred Rs.5,000/- for payment of labour charges to take this crop. However, he found that even after expiry of 125 days, there was no cauliflower on the plants and therefore, he was required to sustain heavy economical loss. He pleaded that though he incurred huge expenses for cultivation of cauliflower crop, fruits did not bear because of defective seeds sold by O.P.No.1 and manufactured by O.P.No.2. He pleaded that he sustained total loss of Rs.1,35,000/- at the rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre. He pleaded that he contacted O.P.No.1 at his shop at Satara and told this fact. Therefore, he was advised to uproot all the cauliflower as they would not bear cauliflower thereafter. O.P.No.1 discarded its liability for the loss sustained by the complainant. Therefore, complainant had filed consumer complaint against O.Ps. and sought compensation of Rs.1 Lakh from both of them and also sought Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and cost of proceeding. He filed certain documents and affidavits in support of his case.
O.P.No.1 pleaded that he sold cauliflower seeds to the complainant as per his demand and no assurance was given by him to purchase particular variety of seeds manufactured by particular Company. He admitted that he had sold cauliflower seeds on 01/01/1998 and 13/01/1998. O.P.No.1 further denied that they had sold defective seeds to the complainant and complainant sustained loss because of defective seeds. O.P.No.1 pleaded that all other farmers purchased seeds from the said lot, got good crop and they have received letters from such farmers to that effect. It is denied that complainant had come to the shop of O.P.No.1 after 125 days and O.P.No.1 told complainant to uproot all the cauliflower plants. O.P.No.1 pleaded that complaint is absolutely false. O.P.No.2 is a renowned seed producing Company and it had not produced defective seeds. O.P.Nos.1&2 had not sold defective seeds to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part. O.Ps. pleaded that the seeds supplied to the complainant was best quality seeds and no loss had been caused to the complainant by the O.Ps. O.Ps. averred that complainant had used fertilizer disproportionately and he cultivated the crop in defective method. Complainant had not adhered to the suggestions given in the brochure supplied to the complainant. He made excessive use of fertilizer and that was probably the reason for only growth of roots and no cauliflowers. So, for such a defective growth, complainant himself is to be blamed and not the O.Ps. O.Ps. also pleaded that looking to the report pointed out by the Forum below that the crop was highly affected with pest due to which crop was highly damaged. Pesticides purchased by the complainants were not sprayed properly on the crop due to which crop was affected by the pest. According to the O.Ps., cauliflower crop is very sensitive and its cultivation depends upon temperature of the respective area. Village where the complainant has cultivated is dry and is having scarcity of water and in that village, temperature is also found to be more and these factors must have affected badly the crop of cauliflower taken by the complainant. O.Ps. pleaded that complainant had not taken crop as per agricultural science and had not followed the instructions mentioned in the brochure supplied by O.P.No.2 and used defective method. Complainant had not supplied water to the crop as specified in the brochure due to which he may not have got the crop as expected. So, complainant himself is liable for loss sustained and he had filing frivolous and false complaint against them. O.Ps. filed two affidavits of O.P.No.1 and two affidavits of O.P.No.2 besides some documents on record.
Upon hearing the rival Counsels for the parties, Forum below held that complainant was a consumer within meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there has been deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. in supplying defective seeds. Forum below held that complainant has proved his case of cultivating cauliflower crop properly and still he could not get expected yield and therefore, Forum below was pleased to allow the complaint and directed the O.Ps. to pay jointly an amount of Rs.78,980/- for the expenses and loss suffered by the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a. and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards costs. As such Appeal No.737/1999 has been filed by org. O.P.No.2 and Appeal No.742/1999 was filed by org. complainant. Latter appeal is for enhancement of compensation.
We heard Mr.V.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant/org. O.P.No.2 in A-737/1999 and Mr.M.H. Oak, Advocate for the appellant/org. complainant in A-742/1999.
We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper and if a consumer purchased branded seeds from the reputed Company like M/s.Santoz India Ltd. (now known as Syngenta India Ltd.) and if he found that despite taking all the precaution and despite giving proper fertilizer, manure and taking good amount of care, he did not get any return from his field in terms of expected crop, it must be held that seeds in question were defective. Same was done by the Forum below in the instant case. Crop was inspected by the Agriculture Officer. It appears that the complainant made complaint to the District Agriculture Officer at Satara, who deputed Village Agriculture Assistant for inspection of the field in question and after inspection he had issued Certificate dated 06/06/1998 and relying on the said certificate and taking into account the Court Commissioners report, Forum below held that not getting any cauliflower crop despite cultivation of crop after 125 days per se amounted to deficiency in service and Forum below held that this was surely because of defective seeds supplied by O.P.Nos.1&2 and was therefore pleased to pass the award in favour of the complainant.
We are finding that the appellant/Company should have procured report from the approved Seed Testing Laboratory and should have produced the same before the Forum below. When seeds are alleged to be defective, heavy burden lies on the seed manufacturing Company to establish before the Forum below that seed in question manufactured by them was upto the standard and was not defective in nature and was genetically also sound. In the absence of any laboratory report, manufacturing Company cannot be heard to say that it had tested the seed in its own laboratory and as per their report, seeds were sound and without any defects. The poor consumer cannot be asked to produce same seed from the same lot which he had sowed in his field after purchase of seeds from the dealer. The poor consumer/farmer is not expected to retain portion of the seeds from the said lot with the expectation that he would have to file consumer complaint in case he does not get proper yield from the said seed. The seed Company has to prove that its seeds were free from defects.
This Commission in the case of District Manager, Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. Shri Ashroba Sakharam Pote & Anr., 2009(4) CPR 282 held that poor germination was due to substandard seeds. Forum below held that no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant that he had not sent seeds for the test when the seeds were actually defective. Honble National Commission in the case of MAHYCO Monsanto Bio Tech(I) Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Bodduluri Jeevan Kumar & Anr., III 2009 CPJ 379 (NC) held that adverse inference will have to be drawn against the O.Ps. because O.Ps. had failed to send seeds from the said lot through District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to the approved laboratory for testing. Failure for not resorting to Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be attributed to the complainant because under Section 13(1)(c) complainant as well as O.P. both are permitted to move the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to send the defective seeds in sealed condition to the approved laboratory for testing. So, if complainant had defaulted, the manufacturer should have filed application before the Forum below to get said seed tested from the approved Seed Testing Laboratory. For not doing so, the Manufacturing Company is to be blamed and not the poor consumer. Small agriculturist like complainant herein cannot be expected to retain portion of the seeds purchased by him for sending it to laboratory in the event the crop fails. In yet other case, in the case of South Eastern Seeds Corporation V/s. R. Shekhar @ Sridhar, I(2008) CPJ 158 (NC), Honble National Commission observed that the contention that procedure under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not adopted by the Forum below was not acceptable on behalf of seeds manufacturing Company because farmer cannot be expected to retain any portion of high value seeds in the case of unforeseen contingencies. Seed manufacturing Company always keep some portion of the seed, which they could have produced before the Forum below and should have got it tested from the approved Laboratory by making request to that effect. Their failure to perform this obligation would be a circumstance adverse against them. Therefore failure to perform in this fashion would be their liability and consumer cannot suffer for the default committed by the seed producing company and therefore, Revision Petition filed by the Company was dismissed by the National Commission confirming the order passed by the State Commission who had reversed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing the complaint.
In the light of these judgements, it is crystal clear that duty is equally cast on the seed producing company to send seeds from their possession to the Seed Testing Laboratory to prove that their seed was best quality and it was not suffering from any genetic defects. In the instant case, even after cultivating crop for 125 days, complainant did not get any yield at all. The flowers were not bearing to any plants and there was simply growth of leaves only and no fruits bore to the plants and that failure of the crop must be attributed to the defective seeds supplied by the O.Ps. In the circumstances, award passed by the Forum below in our view is appearing to be just, proper and we are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by O.P.No.2.
Complainant has also filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. However, we are of the view that appeal for enhanced compensation cannot be allowed for simple reason that no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the complainant in support of his case. Forum below has quite reasonably granted compensation in its judicial discretion and we do not want to substitute our discretion in place of Forums discretion in quantifying the loss sustained by the complainant because of defective seeds supplied by the Manufacturing Company. In the circumstances, appeal filed by the complainant too is required to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-
-: ORDER :-1. Appeal No.737/1999
filed by org. O.P.No.2 and Appeal No.742/1999 filed by org. complainant are dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member