State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bayer Bioscience vs Sanjay on 18 July, 2017
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2013 (Arising out of order dated 14.06.2012 passed in C.C.No. 32/20111, by District Forum, Badwani) BAYER BIOSCIENCE PVT.LTD. THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, REGIONAL MANAGER, BHOPAL REGION BAYER HOUSE, CENTRAL AVENUE, HEERANANDANI GARDEN, PAWAI, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)-400 076 ... APPELANT. Versus 1.
SANJAY S/O MALURAM R/O VILLAGE-HARIBAD, TEHSIL-THEEKRI DISTRICT BADWANI.
2. M/S RAJSHREE KRISHI SEWA KENDRA, NEAR SBI VILLAGE-BORLAY, DISTRICT-BADWANI.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KISAAN KALYAN & AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT-BADWANI. ... RESPONDENTS
-
AND OTHER FOLLOWING 97 APPEALS FA/13/1111 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / PRAKASH FA/13/1112 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / JADGISH FA/13/1113 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / VIKAS FA/13/1114 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / PREMLAL FA/13/1115 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KAILASH FA/13/1116 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / GOPAL FA/13/1117 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / PRAKASH FA/13/1118 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MANGILAL FA/14/1157 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DARYAV FA/14/1158 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KASHIRAM FA/14/1161 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NARAYAN FA/14/1162 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BALSAN FA/14/1163 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NARENDRA FA/14/1164 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SANJAY FA/14/1167 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAVI FA/14/1169 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MAHADEV FA/14/1170 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / PREM SINGH FA/14/1171 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAMESH FA/14/1172 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAMESH FA/14/1173 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NARAYAN FA/14/1175 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DILIP FA/14/1176 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SMT. GAYATRI FA/14/1177 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KHUSHILAL FA/14/1178 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DULICHAND FA/14/1179 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHIKA FA/14/1180 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MOHAN FA/14/1181 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAJESH FA/14/1182 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MUKESH FA/14/1183 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SHIVRAM FA/14/1184 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHOLU FA/14/1185 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAKESH FA/14/1186 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHUVANI FA/14/1187 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KARASAN FA/14/1188 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / GULAB FA/14/1189 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SARDAR FA/14/1190 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MAHESH FA/14/1191 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DINESH FA/14/1192 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DURGA FA/14/1193 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / ASHISH FA/14/1194 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KADWA FA/14/1195 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SHYAM FA/14/1198 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHAGWAN FA/14/1200 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SEWAKRAM FA/14/1201 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / TILAKCHAND FA/14/1262 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DEVENDRA FA/15/271 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / HANSRAJ FA/15/272 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RADHESHYAM FA/15/273 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RADHESHYAM FA/15/274 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MUKESH FA/15/275 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAJESH FA/15/276 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SENU FA/15/277 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SHANKAR FA/15/278 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / LAKHAN FA/15/279 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / LAKHAN FA/15/280 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / ANIL FA/15/281 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / GAJANAND FA/15/282 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DINESH FA/15/283 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / OM PRAKASH FA/15/284 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SURESH FA/15/285 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / DIGVIJAY SINGH FA/15/328 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MAHENDRA FA/15/329 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BAHADUR FA/15/330 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / UMEN SINGH FA/15/332 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / TULSIRAM FA/15/333 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MUKESH FA/15/334 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KESHAV FA/15/335 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / JAY SINGH FA/15/336 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / JAGDISH FA/15/337 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MISHRILAL FA/15/338 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / ANIL FA/15/339 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / TRILOK FA/15/340 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BALARAM FA/15/341 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SATYANARAYAN FA/15/342 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MANSHARAM FA/15/343 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NARAYAN FA/15/344 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MISHRILAL FA/15/345 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SUKHDEV FA/15/347 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / PARMANAND FA/15/349 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAMDEV FA/15/350 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAJESH FA/15/351 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHUWANI FA/15/352 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / CHETRAM FA/15/353 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NAVEEN FA/15/354 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAMESHWAR FA/15/355 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SANTOSH FA/15/356 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / MAHADEV FA/15/357 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / OM PRAKASH FA/15/358 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RAJENDRA FA/15/359 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / KANHAIYA FA/15/360 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RADHESHYAM FA/15/361 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SHIVRAM FA/15/362 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / RADHESHYAM FA/15/363 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / HABIB FA/15/364 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SADASHIV FA/15/365 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / SAGAR FA/15/369 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / BHAGWAN FA/15/370 BAYER BIO -SCIENCE / NARENDRA -4- COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri V. K. Saxena, Shri Jitendra Patidar, Shri Mohan Chouksey, and Shri Parag Kale, learned counsels for the respondent no.1 complainants.
None for respondent no.2 and 3.
O R D E R (Passed On 18.07.2017) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Presiding Member:-
All the aforesaid appeals assail the order dated 14.06.2012, 18.07.2012, 16.08.2012, 17.08.2012, 17.10.2012, 23.03.2013, 08.04.2013, 209.04.2013, 23.05.2013, 10.06.2013, 22.06.2013, 08.07.2013, 19.11.2013 and 07.01.2014 passed in C.C. Nos. 32/11, 38/11, 25/11, 07/11, 26/11, 30/11, 28/11, 31/11, 27/11, 72/12, 167/12, 47/12, 277/12, 75/12, 41/12, 159/12, 54/12, 287/11, 289/11, 272/11, 51/12, 49/12, 42/12, 31/12, 296/11, 310/11, 119/12, 92/12, 297/11, 404/11, 34/12, 294/11, 298/11, 295/11, 303/11, 124/12, 356/11, 395/11, 392/11, 91/12, 405/11, 13/12293/11, 387/11, 171/12, 88/12, 40/12, 43/12, 45/12, 46/12, 48/12, 186/10, 185/10, 403/11, 138/12, 141/12, 152/12, 39/12, 139/12, 140/12, 146/12, 50/12, 132/11, 128/11, 168/12, 83/12, 326/2011, 268/11, 59/12, 339/11, 269/11, 140/12, 64/12, 65/12, 129/11, 52/12, 62/12, 134/12, 127/11, 63/12, 44/12, 130/11, 299/11,135/12, 61/12, 60/12, 58/12, 57/12, 38/12, 55/12, 126/12, 85/12, 84/12, 271/11, 329/11, 265/11, 56/12 and 29/11 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Badwani now West Nimar, Mandleshwar.
2. Since all the aforesaid appeals are similar, and issue involved is common, this one common order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from First Appeal No.1110/2013 unless otherwise stated. First Appeal No.1110/2013 is bunch master of this bunch of 98 matters.
3. The matter relates to the failure of crop of cotton allegedly on account of defective seeds sold by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1/complainants. The appellant Bayer Bio-Science Pvt. Ltd. was the -5- manufacturer of said seeds. In the complaint before the District Forum, the complainants (respondent no.1 herein) contended that they purchased certain packets of (SP-1037 BG-II) cotton seeds produced by the opposite party no.1 Bayer Bio-science Pvt. Ltd. (appellant herein) through its agent, retailer the opposite party no.3 @ Rs.750/- per packet which they sowed in their agricultural lands. Despite following the correct agricultural practices, the yield from the cotton seeds was very poor, whereas the farmers who purchased seeds of different company got 12 to 14 quintal of cotton. The complainants suffered huge financial loss of which complaints were made to opposite parties as also to the government. On the basis of complaints made, Senior Agriculture Development Officer inspected the fields and found that the crops were very badly affected.
4. The opposite party defended the allegations made in the complaint, stating that the opposite party no.1 is a well reputed company and they used to sell standard quality of laboratory tested seeds. The complainants did not make available any sample of alleged defective seeds, otherwise those would have been tested in the laboratory. The complainants also did not get the scientific examination of field soil done. The Senior Agriculture Development Officer in his inspection report has stated that the cotton plants were suffered from Alterneria disease. This disease is caused because of weather and natural reasons for which opposite party cannot be held liable. Even then the opposite party after inspecting the fields, made available the necessary insecticides/medicines to farmers to protect their crop. The opposite party has not committed any fraud with the farmers. The farmers have filed complaints only to earn illegitimate gains from the opposite party.
5. The District Forum after hearing parties and going through the record available found that the crop suffered from Alterneria disease and the farmers failed to prove that this disease is because of sub-standard quality of seeds. The District Forum found that the crop was affected by the weather as also from the seeds. The District Forum found opposite party/appellant herein -6- guilty of deficiency in service in not providing the standard quality of seeds having resistance to fight with the diseases. The District Forum therefore allowed the complaint and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per packet. The District Forum has further directed for payment of compensation Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to each of the complainant. Being aggrieved, with the said order the opposite party Bayer Bioscience has preferred the present aforesaid appeals.
6. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the seeds supplied were of standard quality, as the seeds were prepared and packed after going through different test measures. Seeds were certified ones and thus the seeds were of standard quality. Lab testing report filed on record shows that the seeds were not defective. Crops were damaged due to disease known as Alterneria which occurred due to excessive rains and natural causes and not on account of quality of seeds. The company is not liable for the damages to crops due to any disease. When it had come to the knowledge of the company that the crops were suffered due to disease, insecticides were supplied to farmers free of cost. Had the seeds been defective, there would have been no germination, but here in the instant cases, seeds germinated, flowering and fruiting also took place. Thus it cannot be said that seeds were defective. Shri Deepesh Shukla placing reliance on the decision of National Commission in Mahyco Seeds Limited Vs Sharad Motirao Kankale & Anr reported in II (2012) CPJ 373 (NC) and in Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. Vs Doddabasappa & Ors reported in II (2012) CPJ 436 (NC) argued that no report of any agricultural expert has been produced by the complainants to prove that quality of seeds was poor. Crop can fail because of several reasons including not following correct agricultural practices and not taking proper pest control measures etc. Variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributable to quality of seeds, but could be due to other factors unless, there is specific mention in concerned report about inferior quality of seeds. No credible evidence including expert evidence has been filed by -7- respondent to prove that crop failed because of defective seeds. Crops were heavily infected by Alterneria disease which appears to have been the cause for failure of crops. Onus to prove that seeds were defective was on the complainant /respondent which they failed to do so. The Forum has erred in awarding compensation and there was no any deficiency in service on the part of the company. Therefore, their appeals be allowed and the order of the District Forum be set-aside.
7. Learned counsels for respondent/complainants argued that on account of defective seeds supplied, crops destroyed, refruiting also did not take place and the complainants/respondents suffered huge losses. They, placing reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506 argued that the respondent/complainants are consumers and it cannot be expected of them that they would keep the seeds with them for laboratory test. They further submit that it was the duty of the appellant to send the sample of seeds for laboratory test or the appellant ought to have filed the report regarding quality or standard of seeds but the appellant failed to do so as no report has been filed on record.
8. Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for some of the complainants placing reliance on a decision of National Commission in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs Arjun Singh & Anr, Amar Chand & Anr II (2016) CPJ 224 (NC) argued that certificate of Seeds Certification Agency is of no help to appellant in view of the report of Senior Agricultural Development Officer. His report cannot be brushed aside lightly since it is given by a Government Official who has got no interest in case and is an independent person. He further placing reliance on a decision of National Commission in Mahodaya Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kishore Ranjan Murumkar & Ors. I (2015) CPJ 658 (NC) argued that the report also cannot be discarded on the ground that Committee did not mention the cause for non-setting of seeds in the flower. The proof about adverse agronomitic conditions is -8- also not produced by the appellant. He further placing reliance on a decision of the National Commission in Leadbetter Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tanneru Rangaiah & Ors. 2015 (4) CLT 361 argued that the appellant who is the manufacturer of seeds have not been able to place on record any reliable technical evidence to prove that the seeds under dispute did not suffer from any genetic defects.
9. Counsels for complainants further submits that Alterneria is a fungal infection and the manufacturer supplied medicines free of cost because they were guilty conscious and they knew that the seeds supplied by them were defective. They further argued that the seeds supplied were Hi-breed seeds as they are prepared genetically, the seeds ought to have resistance to fight with the diseases. They further submitted that other nearby farmers who purchased seeds of other company got good crops. They therefore prayed that all the appeals be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, we find that it has come in evidence that the crop was affected with Alterneria disease of which nexus with the seeds sold has not been established. It was also the duty of the complainants to prove that they took all safety measures to protect their crop. No credible evidence including expert evidence has been filed by respondent/complainants to prove that crop failed because of defective seeds. Similarly, it was the duty of the manufacturer to prove by cogent scientific evidence that there were no defect in the seeds. In our opinion, the onus of proving that there was defect in the seeds lies on the manufacturer of seeds. From the evidence produced on record it has been established that Crops were heavily infected by Alterneria disease which appears to have been the cause for failure of crops. The Agricultural Development Officer also in his report has mentioned that the crops were affected due to Alterneria disease. Thus we find that both the complainants and the manufacturer are equally liable for the loss suffered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, just to compensate the complainants, the District Forum has rightly -9- awarded amount @ Rs.10,000/- per packet of the seed and Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation Rs.1000/-. The matter resolved by the District Forum does not suffer from any defect, as it is based on facts and evidence adduced in the case.
11. Here we would like to mention that all the aforesaid appeals are squarely covered by the view taken by us in Appeal No. 852/2012 and other similar 463 appeals decided on 30.09.2016 wherein we have affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeals filed by the Bayer Bioscience. The decision rendered in said appeals shall also govern disposal of this bunch of 98 appeals.
12. In the result, all these appeals are therefore dismissed and the orders of the District Forum are affirmed. This original order be placed in record of Appeal No. 1110/2013 and a copy of this order be placed in each case of the other appeals.