State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mp State Beej Pramanikaran vs Surendra Dutt on 3 September, 2015
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 2186 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Surendra Dutt Tripathi & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2187 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Sudhir Pandey & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2188 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Mahendra Pandey & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2189 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Sachin Shrivastava & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
- 2-
FIRST APPEAL No. 2190 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Smt. Laxmirani Pauranik & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2191 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Parmeshwar Dayal & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2192 /2010.
M.P. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran
Sanstha, Sagar, (M.P.).
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Rajesh Dubey & Anr.
....RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
- 3-
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI VIKAS RAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI SUDHIR PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
ORDER
(PASSED ON 3/9/2015) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Neerja Singh, Member :
1. These 7 appeals are by the opposite party no 2, the Seeds Certification Agency, aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Damoh . As the orders are similar, the cases are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts are taken from Appeal no 2186/10, unless otherwise specified.
2. The brief facts of the case, as portrayed by the respondent-
complainant, are that in the year 2009, he sowed the Kharif crop of Soyabean under a scheme for production of Soyabean seeds. He paid Rs 61500/- for the seeds, Rs 9350/- as registration fees and Rs 966/- as service tax to the respondent no 2, M.P State Seeds & Farm Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Seed Corporation). Along with the registration fees he gave the form B-1 giving details about his land. After the harvest, when he went to deposit the Soyabean crop, the Seed Corporation refused to take it on the ground that his registration could not be done with the appellant. No reason was given for not getting the registration done even though he sent a legal notice on 26.10.09. Alleging deficiency in service, he has sought compensation.
- 4-
3. The Seed Corporation has raised the objection that the complaint is not maintainable as it is a commercial dispute. They aver that the respondent-complainant sowed the seeds on 16.7.09. Even 25 days after the sowing he did not provide them the certified copy of form B-1. However, despite incomplete documents they submitted the registration fees to the appellant and vide letter dated 11.08.09 sought a week's time from the appellant for submission of the documents. Vide letter dated 16.8.09 they requested the appellant to register the name of the respondent-complainant, but they refused to do so on the ground that the last date for registration was 31.7.09. They allege that the registration could not be done due to the fault of the respondent-complainant himself.
4. The appellant states that no registration fees was deposited in their office by the respondent-complainant and he is not their consumer. As per the conditions, the certified copy of the land records should have been deposited prior to the last date, to get the crop registered. In 2009, the Government of M.P had fixed the last date of registration of Kharif crop as 31.7.09. The Seed Corporation sent the proposal for registration on 18.8.09, hence it was not accepted.
5. The District forum held that the appellant were too technical in not condoning the delay of a few days in filing the necessary documents. They directed the appellant and respondent no 2, jointly and severally, to pay to the respondent-complainant Rs 4000/- as compensation and to return the registration fees with 7% interest. Rs 300/- was awarded as costs and Rs 750/- as advocate fees.
- 5-
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent-complainant. None was present for respondent no 2.
7. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-complainant purchased Soyabean from the Seed Corporation for production of seeds. To obtain a certificate from the appellant, for the seeds which would be produced, it was necessary for the respondent-complainant to have his name registered with the appellant, whose role was to supervise and approve the production of the seeds so as to maintain specific genetic identity and purity and to ensure that it confirms to the certification standards specified for the crop being certified.
8. The individual desirous of producing seed under certification had to apply within 20 days from the date of sowing and within the cut off date decided by the Certification Agency. In the year 2009, the cut off date was 31/7/09. It was also mandatory to deposit a certified copy of the land record (Form B-1).
9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that they are a statutory body, who are not service providers, and no consideration was paid to them by the respondent-complainant.
10. The respondent-complainant paid Rs 9350/- as registration fees to the Seed Corporation, which was sent to the appellant . This fees would ensure that the seeds are certified by the appellant. The appellant are performing their statutory duties of certifying seeds of farmers registered with them and cannot be said to be a service provider. Further, the registration fees was not accepted by the appellant and was returned to the Seed Corporation. As no consideration was received by them, the dispute regarding registration of a crop would not be a consumer dispute.
- 6-
11. Even otherwise, on merits too, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The rules are clear. The registration fees along with the documents had to be submitted within 20 days of the sowing of the seeds or the last date fixed for that year, whichever was earlier. The last date specified by the Government, in 2009 was 31.7.09. Letters filed on record make it amply clear that though the draft of the registration amount was sent it was not accompanied with the certified copies of land details of the farmers, hence it was returned. Annexure R-3 is a letter sent by the Seed Corporation to the appellant stating that they have received back the draft, which was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the amount in the draft was less than the required amount and the certified copies of the land records have not been filed. The Seed Corporation sought extension of time to rectify the defaults. As no extension was given by the appellant, the farmers could not get their name registered with the appellant. The delay in providing the documents was on the part of the respondent-complainant and the deficiency was on the part of the Seed Corporation was in not informing the respondent-complainant in time regarding the documents required and sending incomplete documents and insufficient registration amount.
12. The District forum has awarded compensation to the respondent-
complaint. The Seed Corporation has not come in appeal, hence the order against them has attained finality. However, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, who went strictly by the rules. The order against them deserves to be set aside.
- 7-
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order against the appellant, M.P Seed Certification Agency, is set aside. The order against the respondent no 2, M P State Seed and Farm Development Corporation, is maintained. No order as to costs. This order be retained in appeal no 2186/10 and copies be placed in the record of appeal nos 2187/10, 2188/10 2189/10, 2190/10, 2191/10/ and 2192/10.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) (Smt. Neerja Singh)
PRESIDENT MEMBER