State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S New Balaji Agenciesrep. By It ... vs K.Sudhakar Naidus/O.K.Peddaiahr/O ... on 22 March, 2010
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATHI FA.No.111 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.16 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTHAPUR Between: 1. M/s New Balaji Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor Nageswara Reddy R/o D.No.7/496-A, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist 2. M/s Western Agri Seeds (P) Ltd., D.No.802/11, Western House, G.I.D.C. (Engg.) Estate, Sector No.28, Gandhi nagar-028, Gujarat Appellants/opposite parties A N D K.Sudhakar Naidu, S/o.K.Peddaiah, aged years, R/o Gollaladoddi Village, Guntakal Mandal Ananthapur District Respondent/complainant FA.No.112 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.18 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTHAPUR Between 1. M/s New Balaji Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor Nageswara Reddy R/o D.No.7/496-A, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist 2. M/s Western Agri Seeds (P) Ltd., D.No.802/11, Western House, G.I.D.C. (Engg.) Estate, Sector No.28, Gandhi nagar-028, Gujarat Appellants/opposite parties A N D G.Linga Reddy S/o.G.Ganga Reddy aged 56 years, R/o.Dancherla Village, Guntakal MandalAnanthapur District Respondent/complainant FA.No.113 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.17 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTHAPUR Between 1. M/s New Balaji Agencies Rep. by its Proprietor Nageswara Reddy R/o D.No.7/496-A, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist 2. M/s Western Agri Seeds (P) Ltd., D.No.802/11, Western House, G.I.D.C. (Engg.) Estate, Sector No.28, Gandhi nagar-028, Gujarat Appellants/opposite parties A N D N.Narayana Swamy, S/o.N.Peddaiah aged 54 years,R/o.Gollaladoddi Village, Guntakal Mandal Ananthapur District Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants Sri D.Krishna Murthy (Common in all appeals) Counsel for the Respondent Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao (Common in all appeals) QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT. SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
& SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order: (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Honble Member) **** These appeals numbering 3 in all, filed by the opposite parties raise common questions of fact and law. They are therefore taken up for disposal by a common order.
As the facts in all these cases make an identical reading, F.A.No.111 of 2008 is taken as the model for depicting the factual matrix common to all the appeals.
The facts of the case as gleaned from the pleadings and evidence are as follows. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the consumer complaint.
According to the complainant, the opposite party no.1 is the seller of Groundnut seeds of Western-44 by variety manufactured by opposite party no.2. The complainant claimed to have purchased the said variety of seeds from opposite party no.1 under Ex.A2 to A4 cash bills. He claimed to have raised groundnut crop using the said seed and tended it properly using inputs as manure and pesticides spending an amount of RS.5,000/- per acre. The complainant proceeded to say that after 2 months, he came to know that seeds supplied by the first opposite party were duplicate and of inferior quality and the yield was likely to be as low as 2 or 3 bags per acre. The complainant claimed to have requested opposite party no.1 to inspect the lands but in vain. He approached the Joint Director of Agriculture who on inspection revealed that the seed of groundnut sowed was not notified in Ananthpur District and promised action against the seller of seeds opposite party no.1.
As the crop failed on account of the seeds, supplied by the opposite party no.1 as distributor of opposite party no.2, which turned out to be substandard and of poor quality landing the farmer in loss, he filed the complaint claiming compensation comprising cost of the seed, loss of investment, loss of one year crop, loss of lease amount, mental agony as also interest and costs of litigation.
The second opposite party filed counter. The first opposite party filed a memo adopting the same.
Thus the opposite parties put up a common defence, of course, conveniently forgetting the natural conflict in their standpoints in some respects.
To start with they denied every averment and allegation made by the complainant without leaving even the factum of purchase of seeds from opposite party no.1 under the bill Ex.A2 to A4 which they called as fabricated; but slowly relaxed the stance of outright denial and budged to acknowledge, in the counter as also in the evidentiary affidavit some of the ground realities.
It is their case that the yield depends upon other factors like manure, pest control etc. They admitted that opposite party no.1 was merely a retailer. However, they questioned everything including the truth of purchase of seeds under Ex.A2 to A4, the holding of the land by the complainant, the actual sowing of the seeds in question in the field, grooming of the crop by the complainant, the team headed by the Joint Director of Agriculture visiting the crop etc and the investment by the farmer for the inputs of cultivation etc. They proceeded to assert that opposite party no.2 possessed licence to sell seeds and carry on business in Andhra Pradesh as per Ex.B1.
It is maintained by the opposite parties that even according to the commissioner, the crop was infected by stem-root verosis which was a controllable viral decease and it was not due to inferior quality of seed but was due to poor agricultural management.
They criticized the complaint as belated being filed after harvesting. It is ultimately urged that the complaint was liable to be dismissed with costs.
In support of his case the complainant filed his own affidavit and also examined, by adopting from one of the cases in the batch, Dr.M.John Sudheer, Principal Scientist (Groundnuts) Agricultural Research Station, Kadiri and Joint Director of Agriculture both of whom visited the damaged crop in question. By way of documentary evidence the complainant relied upon Exs.A1 to A14 During the course of the enquiry an advocate commissioner was also appointed. He too visited the land along with Mandal Agricultural Officer and observed that the crop was infested by a pest what is called stem necrosis as stated by the Agricultural Officer.
The opposite parties on the, other hand filed the affidavit of one K.Ramachandra, Field Assistant of opposite party no.2.
It is not out of place to mention here that in the affidavit evidence they abandoned the pleas denying Ex.A2 to A4 purchase etc which omission cleared the way for placing the relationship of purchaser of seeds and sellers of seeds between the complainant and the opposite parties beyond the pale of controversy. Instead of Exs.A2 to A4 they disputed the bills for purchase of manure etc. The deponent also by implication admitted Ex.A11 lable on the receptacle of the seeds.
By way of documentary evidence the opposite parties filed Ex.B1 licence under Seeds (Control)Order issued u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Ex.B2 called Breeding Profile of Groundnut-Western 44 authored by some scientist unconnected with the enforcement of Seeds Act, Rules, other notifications there under and the Seeds (Control) order.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side the District Forum concluded that the opposite parties failed to discharge the statutory burden of proving that the seed was not of inferior quality so much so that such selling of seed of inferior quality signified the deficiency in service. In conformity with its finding the District Forum gave reliefs in all these consumer disputes as set out in the table below:
Table S.No. F.A. No. C.D.No. Result Amount claimed Award Comp + Costs 1 111 /2008 16 /2006 2,32,000/-
98,500/-
with interst @ 9%, Rs. 2,000/- mental agony + costs of Rs. 1,000/-2 112
/2008 18 /2006 73,200/-
30,200/-
do 3 113 /2008 17 /2006 71,800/-
28,800/-
do Aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum in these batch complaints the opposite parties filed these appeals on the grounds, inter alia that the District Forum erred in appreciating the facts as also law in the correct perspective. The District Forum failed to see that the complainant failed to establish any defect in the seeds produced by opposite party no.2. The purchase of seeds was not proved. The District Forum failed to consider the Diagnostic Field Visit Report ( is it Ex.B2?) and erroneously allowed the complaint. The compensation awarded was baseless. The Consumer Forum ought to have deducted the expenditure from the gross value of the crop in order to give realistic compensation. Finally it is urged that the orders were liable to be set aside.
Heard both sides.
The contentions strenuously put forth by both sides throw up the following points for consideration.
1) Whether the charge of defect in the seeds is made out?
2) If so, whether the quantum of compensation awarded is correct?
3) To what result.
Point No.1 There can be no gainsaying the fact that the sale of seeds is hedged in by several statutory restrictions calculated to zealously protect the farmer who is generally considered to be highly vulnerable to heavy odds. The conduct of sale of notified kind or variety of seeds is governed by the following pieces of legislation and subordinate legislation and the statutory notifications. (hereinafter called compendium of laws for brevity)
1. The seeds Act 1966 (the Act) especially Secs. 2(5), 2(8), 2(9), 2(16), 5, 6 & 7 of the Act enriched by item
(b) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
2. The Seeds Rules 1968 (the Rules) especially Rules 7 to 13.
3. S.O.No.767 (E) dated 6.11.1991 providing for specifications for the size, contents, colour, mark or label to be affixed on the seeds container (container itself is defined u/s 2 (5) of Seeds Act as including even the sack, bag, wrapper among some more things)
4. S.O.No.882 (E) dated 18.12.1991 providing for minimum limits of genetic purity of seeds of notified varieties.
5. Seeds (Control) Order 1983 especially clauses 3 and 9.
It is discernable from the above summary of law that the law of seeds is tailored mainly to assure the farmers purchasing seeds, the guaranteed germination and genetic purity as also purity of quality.
Before we apply the aforementioned compendium of law the frist and foremost thing we have to make sure of is whether the seeds in question are of notified kind or variety?
In this connection Sec.5 of the seeds Act provides for as follows:
5. Power to notify kinds or varieties of seeds:
-
If the Central Government, after consultation with the committee, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for purposes of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such kind or variety to be a notified kind or variety for the purposes of the Act and different kinds or varieties may be notified for different States or for different areas thereof.
It is therefore evident from Sec.5 that it is only a notification in that behalf that can make the seeds in question as being notified kind of variety. Unfortunately we could not lay our hands on any such comprehensive notification. None-the-less we could find a long list of seeds captioned Varieties of Seeds each variety having been shown as belonging to a Group and Crop and having been notified as a variety by virtue of a respective S.O. or G.O. In the said list the varieties of Groundnut as a crop pertaining to the Group: oil seeds is also found notified: But in the said list Western 44 did not find a place though Groundnut as a kind of crop is very much found. In this connection it is useful to advert to the definition of kind found in Sec. 2(8) of the Seeds Act and the said section reads as under:
2 (8) Kind means one or more related species or sub-species of crop plants each individually or collectively known by one common name such as cabbage, maize, paddy and wheat;
Therefore, there is no difficulty in identifying groundnut as a notified kind as per Seeds Act. After all it is first Groundnut before it is Western 44.
Even on facts it is the common case of both sides that seeds in question are notified kind or variety within the meaning of Seeds Act: The counter of opposite parties says, no doubt couched in negative language as under:
The allegations mentioned in para 5 of the petition that, the team containing agriculture officers visited the field and certified that the seed supplied by these respondents are not notified in the area is also wrong, baseless and this petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
Further more the witness on behalf of opposite parties asserted in his affidavit (2nd page) as follows:
I submit that, agriculture officer should not come to such conclusion that, the particular verity is not notified in this area, and this verity is not suitable for this climate. Because, the Agriculture Authorities never tested this particular verity even at their test fields or no such authority was given to the Agriculture Officer to state or direct a company not to market a product after getting licence from Additional Director for Agriculture, Hyderabad. I further submit that, it has been printed on the product bag confirming its minimum standards specified under The Seeds Act, 1966, Lot Number, Date of Test, Date of expiry.
The above excerpt makes it amply clear that the opposite parties are alive to the fact that the seeds in question are notified by the Seeds Act. When such is the case it is for them to show how they lived up to the standards and requirements governing the sale of seeds. Before expanding on this theme, it is necessary to sort out the other contentious facts as the fact of the very purchase of seeds by the complainants from opposite party no.1. In his affidavit the witness of opposite party no.2 clearly stated I submit that, the 1st respondent is only retailer, and if at all, he will act as agent of our company So it is established that opposite party no.1 was a retailer or agent of opposite party no.2 a big business house selling seeds. It is immaterial whether opposite part no.1 is a retailer or agent. The above admission sets at rest that in these cases opposite parties no.1 and 2 are sellers of Groundnut-Western 44 variety acting together. While so, the complainants claimed to have purchased the subject seeds from opposite party no.1 under a bill contemplated by Rule 9 of the Seeds (Control) Order 1983. If really that bill was fake bill nothing prevented opposite party no.1 to come into box or swear to an affidavit denying the genuineness of Ex.A2 to A4. He cannot entrust that job to the witness of opposite party no.2 a Field Assistant, (hereinafter called RW1) of opposite party no.2. So the argument in repudiation of Ex.A2 to A4 is totally unacceptable. In addition, there is yet another circumstance that belies the contention of opposite parties in assailment of the very sale. RW1 stated in his affidavit it has been printed on the product bag confirming its minimum standards specified under the Seeds Act, 1966, Lot No. Date of test, Date of Expiry. But he never bothered to produce even its replica. On the other hand complainant marked it as Ex.A11. This production of Ex.A11 by the complainant also corroborates the plea of the complainant that he had purchased the subject seeds from opposite party no.1.
The next disputed fact is that the complainant never sowed these seeds in his land. This appears to be a blatant lie as the witnesses PWs1 and 2 as also the Commissioner visited those fields and recorded their impressions. It is rather absurd that it is opposite party no.2 that too their Field Assistant, that is made to deny every fact asserted by the complainant. Unnaturally RW1 denied facts asserted by complainant against opposite party no.1 even on behalf of opposite party no.1. This itself shows that their denials are merely for denials sake.
RW1 even while asserting in his affidavit that he never went to the village of the complainant chose to say that the complainant never sowed the seed in his land. This is height of travesty of truth:
In order to adjudge whether opposite parties adhered to law meant, in this case, to sub-serve the interest of the farmer which he finds only in securing seeds that meet the standards of germination and purity and other quality facts, it is incumbent upon the adjudicatory body to examine how far the seller adhered to and taken steps to meet the requirements of law in this regard.
Now that we are convinced that the seeds in question are notified in terms of Sec.5 of the Seeds Act, the next step would be to ascertain whether the seller had tendered evidence of complying with the conditions laid down in Sec.7 & Sec.6 of the Seeds Act which read as follows:
Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties
7. No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-
(a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;
(c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof, specified under clause (b) of section 6; and
(d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.
Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc.
6. The Central Government may, after consultation of the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
(a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety:
(b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause
(a) and the particulars which marks or label may contain.
The opposite parties assailed Ex.A11 but they did not produce any label for which an extensive procedure is contemplated by Rules 7 to 13 of the Seed Rules r/w notification set out as (3) and (4) of the compendium of laws supra.
In order to have a better insight into law in this regard the relevant seeds Rules and the SOs itemized as (2) to (4) of the compendium are extracted hereunder in extenso:
7. Responsibility for Marking or Labelling. When seed of a notified kind or variety is offered for sale under section 7, each container shall be marked or labeled in the manner hereinafter specified. The person whose name appears on the mark or label shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information required to appear on the mark or label so long as seed is contained in the unopened original container:
Provided, however, that such person shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the statement appearing on the mark or label if the seed is removed from the original unopened container, or he shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the germination statement beyond the date of validity indicated on the mark or label.
8. Contents of the mark or label. There shall be specified on every mark or label-
(i) particulars, as specified by the Central Government under clause
(b) of section 6 of the Act;
(ii) a correct statement of the net content in terms of weight and expressed in metric system;
(iii) date of testing;
(iv) if the seed in container has been treated- (a) a
statement indicating that the seed has been treated;
(b) the commonly accepted chemical or abbreviated chemical (generic) name of the applied substance; and
(c) if the substance of the chemical used for treatment, and present with the seed is harmful to human beings or other vertebrate animals, a caution statement such as Do not use for food, feed or oil purposes. The caution for mercurials and similarly toxic substance shall be the word Poison which shall be in type size, prominently displayed on the label in red:
(v) the name and address of the person who offers for sale, sells or otherwise supplies the seed and who is responsible for its quality;
(vi) the name of the seed as notified under section 5 of the Act.
9. Manner of marking or labeling the container under clause (C) of section 7 and clause (B) of section 17. (1) The mark or label containing the particulars of the seed as specified under clause (b) of section 6 shall appear on each container of seed or on a tag or mark or label attached to the container in a conspicuous place on the innermost container in which the seed is packed and on every other covering in which that container is packed and shall be legible.
(2) Any transparent cover or any wrapper, case or other covering used solely for the purpose of packing of transport or delivery need not be marked or labelled.
(3) Where by a provision of these rules, any particulars are required to be displayed on a label on the container, such particulars may, instead of being displayed on a label be etched, painted or otherwise indelibly marked on the container.
10. Mark or Label not to contain false or misleading statement. The mark or label shall not contain any statement, claim, design, device, fancy name or abbreviation which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the seed contained in the container.
11. Mark or label not to contain reference to the Act or Rules contradictory to required particulars. The mark or label shall not contain any reference to the Act, or any of these, rules or any comment on, or reference to, or explanation of any particulars or declaration required by the Act or any of these rules which directly or by implication contradicts, qualifies or modifies such particulars or declaration.
12. Denial of Responsibility for mark or label content prohibited. Nothing shall appear on the mark or label or in any advertisement pertaining to any seed of any notified kind or variety which shall deny responsibility for the statement required by or under the Act to appear on such mark, label or advertisement.
13. Requirements to be complied with by a person carrying on the Business referred to in Section 7. (1) No person shall sell, keep for sale, offer to sell, barter or otherwise supply any seed of any notified kind or variety, after the date recorded on the container, mark or label as the date upto which the seed may be expected to retain the germination not less than that prescribed under clause (a) of section 6 of the Act.
(2) No person shall alter, obliterate or deface any mark or label attached to the container of any seed.
(3) Every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety under section 7, shall keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seed 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 shall be as large as the size notified in the official Gazette. This sample, if required to be tested, shall be tested only for determining the purity.
S.O.No.767 (E), dated 6.11.1991.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Seed Committee, hereby specifies the size, contents, colour, mark or label to be affixed on the container of the seeds of notified kind or variety, namely : -
(1)The length and breadth of the mark or label shall be 15X10 cm.(2)
The contents of the mark or label shall contain the following information, namely :-
(i) Label No
(ii) Kind..
(iii) Variety..
(iv) Lot No
(v) Date, month and year of test..
(vi) Valid upto..
(vii) Germination (Minimum)..%
(viii) Physical Purity (Minimum).%
(ix) Genetic Purity (in case of variety) (Minimum).%
(x) Weight
(xi) *Name of the chemical used for seed treatment, if seed is treated.
(xii) Name and address of the person who offers for sale, sells or otherwise supplies the seed.
Note:- (a) * if seed has been treated, the following statement shall also be printed on the label.
If the substance of the chemical used for treatment, and present with the seed is harmful to human beings or other vertebrate animals, a caution statement such as Do not use for food, feed or oil purposes. The caution for mercurials and similarly toxic substance shall be the word POISON which shall be in type size, prominently displayed on the label in red.
(b) If label is to be affixed on a smaller container than the size of the label, it may be reduced proportionately. However, the length and breadth ratio and contents shall remain the same.
[(3) The colour should be a close match to opaline green colour, ISC No.275 of IS-5 (colours for ready mixed paints and enamels).]
2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
S.O.No.882 (E), dt.18.12.1991 In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b0 of Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Seed Committee hereby specifies the minimum limits of genetic purity of the seeds of notified varieties as follows unless specified otherwise.
Genetic purity of the seeds of notified varieties:
Minimum Genetic Purity Standards ( % )
(a) Varieties 98
(b) Composites, synthetics, multilines 95 and hybrids
2.
This notification shall come into force on the date of the publication in the Official Gazettee.
Now if we compare the format and contents of Ex.A3 with which alone the purchaser was obliged to make do, with Rule 8 of Seeds Rules and S.O.No.767 (E) specifications it is crystal clear that the opposite parties gave a go by even to the barest minimum of compliance with law. This disobedience to law on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 becomes all the more clear if we compare Ex.A3 with the contents S.O.No.767 (E) & S,.O.No.882 (E) Specifications extracted above more so when Rule 13(3) of Seeds Rules set out above casts an obligation on the part of the seller of seeds to preserve the samples of seeds in terms thereof for the purpose of getting them tested if required. The dispensation in Rule 13(3), thus, amply indicates that when the quality of seeds sold is called in question the seller has to raise to the occasions to dispel it.
In these cases it is urged in the grounds of appeal as if the opposite parties had caused sample seeds to be produced before the District Forum. But that contention is untenable. There is no evidence in the record showing such production. Even if it is assumed that they so produced, the duty of the seller did not end there. It is for the seller to get them tested for their efficacy in germination and genetic purity and other purity in quality especially when such data is not proved by producing the statutory labels. In the absence of any labels produced by the opposite parties at least to demonstrate the adherence to law, Ex.A3 produced by complainant has to be accepted as the one kept in the containers of seeds and that it falls short of essential mandatory information. It is also mentioned in the foregoing discussion that Ex.A3 exemplifies a blatant violation of the requirements of a valid label. It is therefore clear from the material available that the opposite parties totally failed in showing the seeds in question we enquired the two features that make the seed free from defect namely the standard germination and genetic purity. This deficiency marks both the defect in seeds as also deficiency in service of supply of seeds.
Apart from the serious lapses of opposite parties under the law of seeds, the opposite party no.1 is found in error in as much as it did not possess licence under the Seeds (Control) order 1983 issued under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act although opposite party no.1 admittedly the retail seller of seeds bulk marketed by opposite party no.2. This tendency of taking it easy with law goes a long way in ruining the rule of law.
Apart form the legal lapses reliable witnesses examined by the complainant and thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of opposite parties clearly spelt out facts which at once prove that the quality of seeds that were sold was not properly ascertained before marketing them to innocent farmers:
PW1 stated in his deposition Western-44 Groundnut variety, which was bred for Gujarat conditions, was introduced into A.P. without being tested for its adaptation under A.P (Andhra Pradesh) conditions.
PW2 stated Groundnut Western-44 is the new variety for Andhra Pradesh. We have not received any intimation from the Agriculture Director of A.P. with regard to adoptability of Western-44, Groundnut variety to Andhra Pradesh condition, including for Anantapur District. We have also seized the records from the concerned Vendors of Western-44 Groundnut seeds at Gooty i.e., new Balaji Agencies, Gooty. As per the records seized from new Balaji Agencies Gooty. As per the records seized from new Balaji Agencies, Gooty the licence issued to Western Agri-seeds was expired by 16-10-2005. We do not know whether the said licence was renewed or not. We also received written complaints from the farmers of Pamidi area that Groundnut variety of Western-44 was not suitable to their lands.
Balaji Agencies at Gooty did not take any steps for germination test by sending Western-44 Groundnut seeds to seed test laboratory, Thadepalli Gudem through the concerned Agriculture Officer of Gooty.
The evidence of Field Assistant examined on behalf of opposite parties through affidavit, who has no personal knowledge of any facts is no match to the reliable evidence spoken to by PWs 1 and 2. It is abundantly clear from the foregoing discussion that the retail outlet where the complainants purchased seed did not even possess the licence under the Seeds (Control) Order which in itself is illegal. Likewise, it is all the more clear that the opposite parties miserably failed to prove that the seeds sold by them met all the standards stipulated by seeds law. So an adverse inference has to be therefore drawn that the opposite parties sold sub-standard seed to the complainants and sowing such seed they ended up in loss.
It is lastly urged on behalf of the appellants that the decision reported in II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) supports their plea to be exonerated from liability. They relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 11, 12 and 13 which are as follows:
11. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission deserve to be set aside. From the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an Expert Committee.
The said Committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. It conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop condition varied from satisfactory to excellent. It further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seed. The Committee stated:
Hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand.
12. In the operative part, the Committee concluded:
It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition.
13. What was contended before the National Commission was that the word not was not found in the report of the Expert Committee but it was inserted unauthorisedly.
The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the word not was very much there in the report and in the certified copy also, it was present. Hence, it could not be said that it was inserted subsequently. But even otherwise, looking to the report as a whole, we are satisfied that there was no unauthorised insertion of the word not in the report. Reading the report in its entirety, it is clear that the 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. Even the earlier part referred to by us makes the position clear. Hence, the contention that the word not was inserted either to favour the Corporation or to cause prejudice to farmers cannot be accepted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the National Commission was not right in observing that at the most, the report could be said to be ambiguous. In our view, it was neither ambiguous nor vague but was clear, definite and specific. In no uncertain terms, it stated that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors.
But in the instant case the opposite parties did not take any steps to get the seeds inspected by any experts in spite of the express provisions contained in Rule 13(3) of Seeds Rules. Furthermore they did not adduce any evidence to show that these were also cases in which there was such variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed.
On the other hand this is a batch involving 29 farmers enbloc who suffered damage to their crops raising groundnut crop with these sub-standard seeds. So the decision relied upon by the opposite parties is of no help to them.
We are thoroughly convinced that the evidence on the whole adduced in this case unmistakably shows that the sellers of seed did not adhere to law tailored to ensure Genetic Purity and standard quality of seeds sold.
With this, we move to the next point. Evidently the District Forum awarded compensation abridging the cost of cultivation to Rs.3,000/- per acre, loss of one year crop to Rs.10,000/- per acre.
There is no indication in the order that loss of one year crop was representative of the gross value of the yield. As such there is no force in the argument of the appellants that the amount awarded is liable to be scaled down by an amount representative of expenses and lease amount.
For the reasons stated above we do not find any merits in the appeals. Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Time for compliance six weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER jm/kmk Dt.22.03.2010