State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Godrej Agrovet Seeds, Godrej Agrovet ... vs Sunil Viswas & Anr. on 22 March, 2014
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/13/545
Instituted on : 19.09.2013
1. Godrej Agrovet Seeds, Godrej Agrovet Ltd.
Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern Express Highway,
Vikhroli East,
Mumbai - 400079
2. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.,
201, Godrej Awanti, Second Floor, Shankar Set Road 7,
Near Loves Chowk, 402, Ghorpade Road,
Pune - 411042
3. L.K. Shukla (Branch Manager),
Godrej Agrovet Ltd., C/o : Mundra Distributors,
Near Jalaram Dharamkanta, Industrial Area, Bhanpuri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Sunil Viswas, S/o Late Sashodhar Viswas,
Caste : Namoshudra, R/o : Pakhanjore, P.V. 93,
District Kanker (C.G.).
2. Krishak Rai Krishi Kendra,
Purana Bazar, Pakhanjore,
Thana/Tahsil : Pakhanjore,
Dist. North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri P.C. Pant, Advocate for appellants.
Shri B.N. Nishad, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Prakash Chandra Sheel, present in person for respondent No.2.
// 2 //
ORDER
DATED : 22/03/2014 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/15/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant, has been partly allowed and the District Forum has directed the O.P. Nos.1, 3 & 4 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.5,350/- to the respondent No.1/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order, along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards advocate fees and cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per pleadings of the complainant are: that the respondent No.1/ complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is earning his livelihood by agricultural operation in his fields. The O.P.No.1, is the manufacturer of standard seeds, O.P.No.2 is an unit of certifying the standard and quality of the seeds, O.P.No.3 is the Branch Manager and distributor of the said company, who appointed the O.P.No.4 as it's local agent. In the month of June, 2010, the respondent No.1/complainant purchased Maize Seeds from the O.P.No.4, which were prepared by the O.P.No.1. At that time the company assured the complainant that the production would be 40 qtls. per acre, on the basis of which the respondent // 3 // No.1/complainant purchased the seeds which were prepared by the O.P.No.1 and sown the same in his field. When he obtained the crop then production of the crop was 1 to 1.5 qtl. per acre whereas prior to that the production would have been obtained 30 to 35 qtls. per acre. The respondent No.1/complainant had suffered a great loss as the quality of the maize seeds was quite different as assured by the company. The respondent No.1/complainant purchased the Maize seeds from the local agent of the O.P.No.1 and as per instruction and advice given by him at the time of purchase of seeds. The complainant purchased fertilizers and pesticides for better production of crop and used the same, even then the production was much below than the prescribed limit. The respondent No.1/complainant purchased the aforesaid Maize seeds, fertilizers and pesticides from the O.P.No.4 in credit and the respondent No.1/complainant would have paid the amount to O.P.No.4, but as the lesser production was obtained from the aforesaid Maize seeds, hence he could not pay the amount. The respondent No.1/complainant intimated the O.P.No.4 regarding the less production, but he had not said anything and forced the respondent No.1/complainant to pay the amount. The respondent No.1/complainant made complaint before S.D.O. Pakhanjore, against the company and agent in writing. In this regard the news was also published in the newspapers. In the meanwhile the company convened a meeting on the complaint of the respondent // 4 // No.1/complainant and other farmers at hotel Lake View, Kanker and assured that the farmers, who suffered loss from the seeds of the company, will not require to pay the price of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, but the company had not given any relief to the respondent No.1/complainant, on the contrary O.P.No.4 sent notice to the respondent No.1/complainant through Advocate for recovery of the amount and being aggrieved by this, the respondent No.1/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. O.P. Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations leveled by the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint. They had taken the defence that the O.P.No.3 was not Assistant Sales Manager and was not the Branch Manager of the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 for the Chhattisgarh State. O.P.No.4 is not authorized dealer of O.P.Nos.1 & 2. The District Forum, is not having jurisdiction to hear the matter as the branch office of the O.P. Nos. 1& 2 is not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The respondent No.1/complainant purchased the goods in credit and had not paid the amount, therefore, he does not a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent No.1/complainant filed the complaint on the basis of the Maize Seeds purchased by him in the month of June, 2010, which is barred by time. The respondent No.1/complainant had // 5 // not mentioned in his complaint regarding manufacturing details of Maize seeds i.e. lot number, expiry date, name of manufacturer, particulars regarding testing of quality, which is mentioned in the packed. The respondent No.1/complainant has also not mentioned that which kind of land was used for cultivation of maize and if the respondent No.1/complainant was feeling that crop was sub-standard or below prescribed quantity, then he was required to make complaint before the Agricultural Officer, Pakhanjore so he can issue appropriate certificate after investigating the complaint. The OPs have received the notice of the complainant, but the reply of the notice sent by the complainant could not be given in absence of particulars regarding the Maize seeds, manure and pesticide.
4. The O.P.No.4 filed written statement before the District Forum and averred that prior to June 2010 the respondent No.1/complainant was purchasing the Maize seeds of the other company, but he had not made any complaint. In the month of June, 2010 the O.P.No.1 had obtained licence for sale of Maize seeds from Government of Chhattisgarh and give permission to O.P.No.4 to sale its product i.e. Maize Varity GA-105, 110 and the said O.P. had sold the GA-105 but had not sold GA-95. In the meanwhile, after obtaining complaint from the farmers and through newspaper, the company had taken back the balance quantity of seeds. When the respondent No.1/complainant informed the O.P.No.4 regarding lesser production, then he gave // 6 // intimation regarding it to the company and the officers of the company had convened meeting with the farmers, but the company had not paid any compensation to the farmers. The O.P.No.4 had written letter to the company. The O.P.No.4 was not liable to pay the compensation and if the farmers suffered loss then the company will liable for the same, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.
5. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the respondent No.1/complainant, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this order.
6. Shri P.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned order, has been passed by the District Forum without application of mind and deserves to be set aside. The learned District Forum, has passed the impugned order in a casual manner, arbitrarily, without giving any cogent and sufficient reasons. He further argued that the respondent No.1/complainant has not been able to prove that he is agriculturist and no revenue record has been filed by the respondent No.1/complainant to prove his case. He further argued that the respondent No.1/complainant, has not been able to prove that he had sown the maize seeds according to the prescribed norms or directions. Even the respondent No.1/complainant has not been able to prove that yield of the maize // 7 // crop was below than the prescribed limit and due to defective seeds. Even the respondent No.1/complainant did not submit any application before the Agriculture Department for inspecting his field. He further argued that learned District Forum has committed error of law and jurisdiction. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are Corporation/Company and they supplied the seeds to the Societies which are agriculture centres. The respondent No.1/complainant never made complaint before the appellants and even the respondent No.1/complainant has not made any complaint before the Agriculture Department. He further argued that the respondent No.1/complainant, has not filed revenue record regarding the land on which the said seeds were sown, therefore, it is not established that the respondent No.1/complainant is agriculturist and the respondent No.1/complainant really sown the maize seeds in his field. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is totally based on certain assumptions and the relief awarded by the District Forum to the respondent No.1/complainant is baseless and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. He further argued that the respondent No.1/complainant has not followed the provisions under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He placed reliance on judgment of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in N.S. Gill v. Punjab Traders & Ors., II (2002) CPJ 62.
// 8 //
7. Shri B.N. Nishad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/complainant supported the impugned order.
8. Shri Prakash Chandra Sheel, appearing for the respondent No.2/O.P.No.4 argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is baseless and arbitrary against the principles of law and justice and needs to be set aside.
9. We have heard arguments of learned counsels for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum and the impugned order.
10. In the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another, 2013 (3) CPR 345 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gaurishankar and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :-
"There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the // 9 // seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case ? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. By the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Body' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13(c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement."
11. In the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v. Sadhu and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198, Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed thus :-
"12. 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 seeds. The Committee stated :
// 10 // 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."
13. 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 irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."
12. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"9. The Report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by Counsel for Petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so-called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. Respondent's action in not informing the Petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner // 11 // but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569."
13. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. vs Subhash Shrihari Devkore & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, has observed thus :-
"17. These Panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of Jawar seeds. Both Panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. Moreover these Panchanamas reflect that as per the say of the complainants the Jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth. Panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray Biozyme and D.A.P. pesticides. Further Panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by Revenue Circle Inspector, Petwadaj clearly reflects that Jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. Thus, on any count both the Panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. On the contrary, both these Panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that Jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
18. Lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the District Consumer Forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. According to him as per the Government Circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the Guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground // 12 // complainants should not suffer. But for the forgoing reasons that Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal, submission of Mr. Lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. As far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of National Commission in the case of J.K. Agri-Genetics & Ors. V. Siddula Ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) CPR 42 (NC) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this Commission in M/s Nirmitee Biotech v. Shri Anandrao Namdev Patil. But with due respect both these citations of National Commission as well as these State Commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. In the present cases, as sample of disputed Jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. Considering the facts of the present cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to District Consumer Forum. Therefore, submission of Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered."
14. In the case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds v. Garapati Srinivas Rao & Anr., 2014(1)(CPR 543 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus :
"25. In M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors., Revision Petition No.4280 of 2007 decided on 20.3.2012, a Coordinate Bench of this Commission observed :
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have also gone through the evidence on record The report of the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum to inspect the affected fields/brinjal crops had after visiting the spot given a finding that there were variations in the Brinjal plants which indicated that there was a mixture of the seeds and it is because of this that flowers as well as the plants were of differing varieties. The report nowhere states that the variation was because of defective seeds. Counsel for Petitioner had submitted that under these circumstances, the Fora below erred in // 13 // concluding by citing report of the Court Commission that the findings of the Commissioner amounted to supply of defective seeds by Petitioner/its dealers. Counsel for Petitioner also cited a number of judgments to state that the onus to prove that the seeds supply were defective were in fact on the Respondent. We find force in these contentions of the Counsel for Petitioner which is in consonance with our own rulings on this issue. In R.P. 3525/2007 in which Mayhco Seeds was also the Petitioner, this Commission had concluded as follows :-
"Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants. Except for producing the report of the Asstt. Director Agriculture reproduced above, respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds supplied to them were defective. A perusal of the report would show that it nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective. Variation in condition of the crops is not and cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds but to some other factors. Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops. The report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpon. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.2428/2008) has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is a specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the // 14 // Complainant. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the report of the Court Commissioner does not state that the variation in the seeds was because of any genetic defect and the Respondent on whom the onus to prove otherwise, has produced no evidence that the Petitioner's seeds had any genetic defect, therefore, cannot uphold the orders of the Fora below and the same are set aside. The revision petitions are allowed and the complaints dismissed with no order as to costs."
15. It is well settled that crop can be affected due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds, fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation, and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. In the instant case, the respondent No.1/complainant could not produce any documents which indicates the kind of land which was used for cultivation of Maize, area of the land and whether the lands are irrigated or not and quantity of fertilizers and insecticides/pesticides. Even receipts produced by the respondent No.1/complainant did not disclose that actually the respondent No.1/complainant purchased tested Maize Seeds from the authorized agency.
16. It is not expected that every farmers, who purchased seeds from Seed Corporation set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing, but it is expected // 15 // that if the seeds was not germinating properly or the germination of the seed is below standard and not satisfactory, then the agriculturists can move an application before competent authority for inspecting the field and they can make complaints before the competent authority for inspecting the field. But in the instant case undisputedly the complainant had not got the seed tested from any laboratory as required under the provision of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act 1986. Complainants had also not moved any application before the concerned authorities for getting the seed of same batch number tested from any laboratory. Even the complainant did not move any application before Revenue Authority or Agriculture Development Authority for inspecting the field.
17. Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the respondent No.1/complainant, but the respondent No.1/complainant did not file any document regarding the defective seeds. The respondent No.1/complainant did not make any application before the Agriculture Officer or appellants/company to inspect his field and the respondent No.1/complainant did not lead any evidence to prove that seeds supplied to him, were defective. Mere complaint made to the S.D.M. or the Collector, is not sufficient to establish that the seeds purchased by the respondent No.1/complainant are of inferior quality or of sub-standard quality and there is no evidence to show that there was any impurity in the seeds supplied to him.
// 16 //
18. We are of the opinion that the respondent No.1/complainant has failed to establish that there was any defect in the quality of seeds or the seeds were of sub-standard quality. Even the respondent No.1/complainant did not file any document which indicates that how much area of land was used by the respondent No.1/complainant for showing maize crop. Even the respondent No.1/complainant, has not specifically pleaded regarding nature of land and quantity of maize seeds, which were sown by him.
19. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the District Forum, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the District Forum and allow the appeal filed by the appellants. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/03/2014 /03/2014