State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gujarat Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd And Another vs Hamirbhai Arjanbhai Solanki And Other on 25 August, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 25 08 2021
Date of filing 17 10 2014
Duration 08 10 06
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 04
Appeal No. 1478 of 2014
1. The Managing Director
Gujarat Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd.
Beej Bhavan, Sector - 10/A
Gandhinagar.
2. The Branch Manager,
Gujarat Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd,
Neelambaugh,Opp. Sardar Baug,
Junagarh. ... Appellants.
V/s.
1. Hamirbhai Arjanbhai Solanki,
Residing At Aadri, Ta. Veraval,
Dist. Gir Somnath.
2. Mudubhai Punabhai Jotwa,
Residing at Shantipura,
Ta. Madiya Hatina.
3. Mendarda Taluka Grahak Hit Suraksha
Mandal through President K.C. Dave,
Social Service,
Residing at Mendarda. ...Respondents.
BEFORE: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Anil Surti, L.A. for the appellants.
Mr. R.D. Mehta, L.A. for the respondents.
Page 1 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478
Order by Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Junagarh on 10.09.2014 in Complaint No. 42 of 2009, the original opponents have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.
2. The facts given rise to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: It is the case of the complainant that original complainant no. 01 and 02 had purchased Bajra Seeds from opponent no. 02 - Gujarat Rajya Beej Nigam Ltd. on dated 10.11.2006 and 16.11.2006 respectively. It is further the case of the complainant no. 01 that though the Bajra Crop germinated properly but did not get the expected yield of crop because of expired dated seeds sold by the opponent no. 02. Thereafter the complainant has informed the concerned department and on that basis the Gram Sevak has visited the field/farm of the complainant and the Panchnama/Rojkam has been made on dated 01.03.2007. In the said Panchnama it has been presumed that in the field of complainant only 05 to 08 mounds of Bajra Crop would be yielded while the other farmers has got yield of 30 to 35 mounds of Bajra Page 2 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 crop by using the seeds of private company. It is further the case of complainant no. 02 - Mudubhai Punabhai Jotva that he has also purchased Bajra seeds from the opponent no. 02 and only 4 to 5 mounds of crop yielded from seeds of the opponent no. 02 and therefore he has informed the Assistant Agriculture Director, Junagarh regarding the same and thereafter the Gram Sevak has visited the field/farm of the complainant no. 02 and the Panchnama/Rojkam has been made. In the said Panchnama it has been presumed that in the field of complainant only 05 to 07 mounds of Bajra Crop would be yielded while the other farmers has got yield of 30 to 35 mounds of Bajra crop by using the seeds of private company. It is further the case of the complainant that on the packing Bag of the seeds, the year of production is shown as 2003-04 and the packing month shown as January, 2006 vide Lot no. May-04-06-001-13-3725 and the expiry date of the seeds was February, 2005 and therefore it proves that the opponent no. 02 has sold expired dated seeds and due to the expired dated seeds complainant no. 01 had to face the loss amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and complainant no. 02 had to face the loss amounting to Rs. 60,000/- and therefore, both the complainants have filed Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission, Junagarh.
Page 3 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478
3. Being dissatisfied with the deficiency in service by the opponents, complainant no. 01 and 02 have filed Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission Junagarh and prayed for several monetary compensation from the opponents where Complainant no. 01 has prayed for total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- including Rs. 30,000/- for the loss, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental torture and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure of the compliant while Complainant no. 02 has prayed for total compensation of Rs. 92,000/- including Rs. 60,000/- for the loss, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental torture and Rs. 7,000/- towards expenditure of the compliant with 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.
4. After hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after considering the documents and evidences, the learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned District Commission, Junagarh the original opponent has filed the present appeal against the original complainant before this Commission on the ground stated in the appeal memo.
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mihir Surti for the appellant and ld. Advocate Mr. D.B. Mehta for the respondent at length. Perused the record of the case, order of the learned District Commission and judgments submitted by the both the parties.
Page 4 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478
7. First of all learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Mihir Surti has argued out that the Bajra Seeds produced and marketed by the appellants herein have been duly certified and re-validated by Government Notified Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency notified under Section 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the said Agency Certifies only those seeds which are confirming to the parameters of Standards prescribed under law and after the following the entire procedure detailed under Section 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966. It is further submitted by the ld. Advocate Mr. Surti that the learned District Commission has miserably failed in interpreting the procedure of re-validation done by the Government Notified Gujarat State seeds Certification Agency by misconceiving the statutory provisions leading to multiplicity of proceeding. Learned Advocate Mr. Surti further argued out that the learned District Commission has absolutely misinterpreted that the seeds can be re-validated only for once for a period of 6 months which has led to miscarriage of justice and also it is an admitted fact that the seeds germinated properly but the only problem was that the complainant did not get the expected yield and hence it is required to be appreciated that if the seeds were expired dated then there would have been problem with germination which on the contrary and as per say of the respondents was absolutely proper. However as far as yield from any crop is concerned and the same is influenced by many agro- Page 5 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 climatic factors and agronomic practices adopted by the farmers which have no nexus with the quality of seeds and at the same time are not within the control of seeds producing companies and thus the learned District Commission has failed to consider such vital aspect.
8. It is further argued out by the learned Advocate Mr. Surti that the Consumer Case no. 42/2009 was not maintainable in as such as two different farmers, having different area of land who have purchased different quantity of seeds and the agronomic practices adopted by such farmers will also be different. Moreover, no prior permission has been obtained from learned District Commission for filing a joint compliant and therefore the compliant itself was not sustainable in eye of law and by way, of this learned District Commission has committed grave error in allowing such compliant. Learned Advocate Mr. Surti further submitted that no documentary evidence on record to prove that the Bajra Crop failed because of inferior/expired quality of seeds as required under Section 13(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act (Amended) Act, 2002 and hence the compliant ought not to have been allowed by the learned District Commission. Learned Advocate Mr. Surti further submitted that the learned District Commission has also considerably failed to appreciate that yield depends on so many agro-climatic factors and agronomic practices adopted by the farmers like temperature, Page 6 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 irrigation, time of sowing, nature, quality and quantity of insecticides, quality and quantity of fertilizers, weedicides etc. which has no nexus with the quality of seeds. It is further argued out by ld. Advocate Mr. Surti that Rojkam/Panchnama prepared by Gram Sevak and Sarpanch and Talati/Mantri/Agriculture officer has not evidence value as the said Panchnama/Rojkam were prepared in the absence of opponent.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. Surti has concluded that the order passed by the learned District Commission is erroneous, contrary to the facts; bad in law, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and equity and therefore it should be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal. In support of his arguments learned Advocate Mr. Surti has submitted following judgments/literature/booklate:
(I) 2014 Law Suit (CO) 1337 (NC) (II) 2014 Law Suit (CO) 688, State Commission Maharashtra (III) 2005 Law Suit (SC) 306 (IV) 2011 (2) CPR 35 (NC) (V) Appeal No.507/2015 of State Commission Gujarat (VI) Copy of Clause - XXXI - Validity period of the certificate obtained from General Seed Certification Standards (VII) Copy of Appendix-VI - Extension of the Validity period obtained from General Seed Certification Standards (VIII) Copy of relevant abstract taken from the booklet 'Krushigovidhya' published by Anand Agriculture University (IX) Appeal No. 985/2015 of State Commission Gujarat.
In the above judgments Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 7 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 2014 Law Suit (CO) 1337 (NC):- At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.
2005 Law Suit (SC) 306 [Civil Appeal 1308 of 2005]:- Expert Committee was satisfied that variation in the condition of crop was not and could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors.
2011 (2) CPR 35 (NC):- Genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.
In the following judgment State Commission Maharashtra has observed as under:
2014 Law Suit (CO) 688: [FA 354/2011] :- In our view the report of Seed Grievance Committee is not proper and legal. Said report was issued without following the prescribed procedure.
In the following judgments State Commission Gujarat has observed as under:
Appeal no. 507/2015 :- પાક નિષ્ફળ જતાાં તે અંગેિી કોઈ જાણ ખેતીવાડી ખાતાિા અનિકારીિે ક૨વામાાં આવેલ િથી કે તેવો નિષ્ણાતિો કોઈ અભિપ્રાય મેળવવામાાં આવેલ િથી અિે સક્ષમ લેબોરે ટરી મારફતે ભબયારણિો કોઈ ટે સ્ટ કરાવવામાાં આવે લ િથી, અપીલિા કામે જે સોગાંદિામા ૨જુ થયેલ છે તે સોગાંદિામાિા સમથથિમાાં પણ કોઈ પરુ ાવા રજુ થયેલ િથી. જેથી માિવાપાત્ર િથી .
Appeal no. 985 of 2015 :- ઉપરોક્ત સાંજોગોમાાં માત્ર તલાટીએ કરે લ રોજકામિે આિારે ભબયારણ ઉતરતી કક્ષાન ાંુ હોઇ તેવ ાંુ કોઈપણ રીતે ફલીત થત ાં ુ િથી અિે આ હકકકત Page 8 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 લક્ષમાાં િકહ લેવામાાં નવ.કોરમશ્રીએ મહત્વ ભ ૂલ કરે લ છે , જેથી અપીલ માંજૂર કરવા પાત્ર થાય છે .
10. On behalf of the respondent ld. Advocate Mr. D.B. Mehta has appeared and vehemently argued out that there is a clear provision that the validity of seeds can be extended for a further period of 06 months from the date of expiry of previous validity period or from the date of test, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the extended period for validation ought to have been considered from the expiry of last validity period i.e. February 2005 which would be extended till August 2005 upon revalidation. Although the certifying authority miserably failed to adhere by the above provision and have wrongly validated the package extended from the date of revalidation test conducted on 20.09.2006 and therefore the subsequent test for revalidation was carried on 20.09.2006 is improper. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta that how can a revalidation test be carried out after an expiry date, when even after taking into consideration the extended period of 06 months, more than 01 year have been passed and hence there has been a lot of manipulation with regards to the actual date of packaging of the subject seeds and the appellant corporation have sold seeds with a malfide intention and due to which the original complainants have faced the said losses. Page 9 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478
11. It is further argued out by the learned Advocate Mr. Mehta that the several Panchnama/Rojkam conducted by Gram Sevak Group and by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat on the land of respondent no. 01 and Panchnama/Rojkam conducted by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat on the land of respondent no. 02 and furthermore the Gram Sevak Group, Veraval conducted physical inspection over the land of respondent no. 01 and Gram Sevak Group, Bhandoori conducted physical inspection over the land of respondent no. 02. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta further argued that the contentions and averments taken by the appellants regarding lack of documentary evidence to show/prove that the seeds were of inferior/expired quality as required under Section 13 (i) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act (amended) Act, 2002 is totally denied and false as in the Panchnama/Rojkam it was observed that the seeds of the land of respondent no. 1 and 2 were of inferior quality and the production capacity fall short to more than 70 percent in comparison with the seeds been sown of a private company in an adjoining land.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta concluded that the order passed by the learned District Commission is just reasonable and proper and therefore it should be confirmed by dismissing the present appeal. in support of his arguments learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted following judgments :
Page 10 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 (I) Civil Appeal no. 7543 of 2004 (SC) (II) I (2002) CPJ 13 (NC) (III) I (2009) CPJ 99 (NC) (IV) R.P. 290 of 2018 (NC) (V) III (2008) CPJ 96 (NC)
In the above judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
Civil Appeal no. 7543 of 2004 (SC):- 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.
I (2002) CPJ 13 (NC) :- In our view it is the petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act.
I (2009) CPJ 99 (NC) :- Seeds Act completely silent on situation where seeds purchased from authorized dealer, fails to give desired yields. Consumer Protection Act 1986 being Special Act, having additional/extended jurisdiction for remedy provided under Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar and the Fora has jurisdiction to adjudicate.
R.P. 290 of 2018 (NC):- In fact as per the Seeds Act the Manufacturer is supposed to keep a small sample of each batch of seeds for a minimum period of time depending upon the nature of the seeds and therefore it is not understood as to why the Horticultural Foundation herein had not adhered to the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act which stipulates that the seeds be sent to a laboratory for testing.
III (2008) CPJ 96 (NC):- It is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for Page 11 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing.
13. In the present case the main issue raised by the complainants that opponent has supplied them an expired dated seeds and therefore though the Bajra Crop germinated properly, the yield was not upto the mark and had a drastic decline as compared from the yield which would generally be produced. Hence in the instant case it is required to be decided that the seeds sold by the opponents was expired dated or not?
14. I have carefully gone through the record of this case and the order of the learned District Commission. The learned District Commission has observed that the expired dated seeds can be re- validated for once time for the period of 06 months. Furthermore it is observed that as the re-validation can be done once only for 06 months then revalidation test conducted on 20.09.2006 cannot be accepted.
15. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Surati has drawn my attention to the Book titled "LAW OF SEEDS" which is also on record wherein at para XXXI it has been mentioned as under:-
XXXI. Validity Period of the Certificate:- The validity period shall be nine months from the date of the test at the time of initial certification. The validity period could be further extended for six months provided on retesting seed conforms to the prescribed standards in respect of physical purity, germination and insect damage for all Page 12 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 seeds except vegetatively propagating material for which lot shall be re examined for seed standards specified for respective crop. A seed lot will be eligible for extension of the validity period as long as it conforms to the prescribed standards.
Looking to the above it is crystal clear that the expired dated seeds can be re-validated after initial certification and a seed lot can be eligible for extension of the validity period as long as it conforms to the prescribed standards.
16. It is another issue raised by the complainants that though the seeds germinated properly, they did not get expected yield as compared to the seeds of other farmers which were purchased from Private Company. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Surati has drawn my attention to the magazine - "કૃનિગોનવદ્યા"
published by the આણાંદ કૃનિ યનુ િવનસિટી પ્રકાશિ which is also on record at page no. 112 wherein it has been observed as under :
"વાવેતર સમય: વાવણી લાયક વરસાદ થયે તરાંુ ત વાવેતર કરવ.ુ વહેલ ુ વાવેતર વધ ુ ઉત્પાદિ આપે છે . તેમજ રોગ જીવાત િો ઉપદ્રવ ઓછો રહે ુ રીિા બીજા અઠવાકડયામાાં વાવણી કરી દે વી, છે . ઉિાળુ બાજરીિી ફેબ્રઆ મોડુ વાવેતર કરવાથી ગરમી લાગતા દાણા ઓછા બેસે છે . પ ૂવથ - નશયાળુ ુ ઓકટોબરિા પ્રથમ અઠવાકડયામાાં વાવેતર કરી દે વ.ાં ુ જો મોડુ ઋતમાાં થાયતો ઠાં ડીિે લીિે દાણા બેસવાન ાંુ પ્રમાણ ઓછાં થાય છે . જેથી ઉત્પાદિ ઘટે છે ."
17. Looking to the above it is crystal clear that as far as yield from any crop is concerned and the same is influenced by many agro- Page 13 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 climatic factors and agronomic practices adopted by the farmers. In the instant case also the seeds were purchased and sown in the month of November, as per above literature/article/magazine it was not suitable time, so it was the main reason for not getting expected yield from the Bajra seeds and therefore in the opinion of this Commission there is no nexus with the quality of seeds for less production of the Bajra Crop.
18. It is the averment of the appellant that on the basis of the Panchnama/Rojkam, learned District Commission has observed that due to sub standard and expired dated seeds complainants could not get expected yield.
19. Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. No. 1295/2014 in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd Vs. Ram Swaroop S/O Mam Ram has observed as under :-
"[6] Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of Agriculture Development Officer, Divisional Agriculture Officer and Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002 fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department. one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence. In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, Page 14 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency."
As per the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court there should be a committee for the inspection and prepared Rojkam/Panchnama but in the instance case no committee was formed and Gram Sevak/Sarpanch has inspected the field. Furthermore on going through the questionnaire and the reply of respondent no. 03, it has been accepted that he was not present at the time of Rojkam carried out and therefore it is an admitted fact that respondent no. 03 was not present at the time when Panchnama/Rojkam of the field of respondent no. 01 and respondent no. 02 was prepared and therefore considering the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Court and above facts of Rojkam in the opinion of this Commission these Panchnama/Rojkam have not any evidence value in this case.
20. Furthermore complainants had purchased the seeds on 10.11.2006 and 16.11.2006 and therefore on the basis of the result dated 25.09.2006 of Lot no. May-04-06-001-13-3725 it is crystal clear that the seeds sold by appellant to the complainants were as per the parameters and standard prescribed under the minimum seed certification and hence in the opinion of this Commission seeds sold to the complainants were not expired dated. Page 15 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478
21. It is also an admitted fact that this complaint was filed by two different farmers having different area of land and purchased different quality of seeds however before filing compliant, no prior permission was obtained from the learned District Commission for joint compliant as per Section 12 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore looking to this provision of C.P. Act this compliant is also not maintainable before the learned District Commission.
22. In view of the above discussion in depth, in the opinion of this Commission the order passed by the learned District Commission is not just and proper and therefore it requires interference of this Commission and hence the following final is passed.
ORDER
1. The present appeal is hereby allowed.
2. The order passed by the learned District Commission, Junagarh in C.C. no. 42/2009 is here by quashed and set aside.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of Appeal No. 1478/14 and C.M.A. no. 1080/14, Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to Page 16 of 17 R.I. DESAI A/14/1478 pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.
5. Registry is hereby instructed to send a copy of this order in PDF format by E-mail to learned District Commission Junagarh for necessary action.
6. Office is directed to forward a free of cost certified copy of this judgment and order to the respective parties. Pronounced in the open Court today on 25th August, 2021.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan] Presiding Member.
Page 17 of 17
R.I. DESAI A/14/1478