National Consumer Disputes Redressal
J.K. Agri-Genetics And Ors. vs Siddula Ramesh on 10 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ286(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. The petitioners were the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum, where the respondents/complainants in all these revision petitions, had filed individual complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the producer of Cotton Seed variety RCH-2. The complainants had sown this variety of cotton seed in their fields, after having purchased this variety from their dealer, but when the 'boll' were not getting 'formed' and yield was not to the expected level, the matter was reported to the petitioners as also the Agricultural Authorities. But when the matter was not being sorted out between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. It is pertinent to mention here that almost 300 complaints were filed before the District Forum and the District Forum has passed separate orders dealing with the complaints, in several bunches. In the present instance the District Forum dismissed the complaints filed by the respondents before us, primarily, in most of the cases, on the ground that they have not proved that seed were purchased by them as they have not been able to produce the original receipt of purchase of seed in the absence they were not held to be 'consumer'. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, 72 separate appeals were filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and relying upon especially on the report of the Agricultural Authorities dated 24.3.2004 and other material allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to be payable by the two petitioners before us, keeping in view the area taken for cotton production by different complainants along with cost of seeds as also the cost. Aggrieved by this order, these 72 separate revision petitions have been filed before us.
3. At the time of hearing, the petitioner admitted its error in filing 13 revision petitions and sought permission to withdraw and they were dismissed as withdrawn. With regard to the remaining 59 revision petitions, 52 respondents were represented by learned Counsel Mr. K. Maruthi Rao (RP No. 3568 -3602, 3604 - 3609, 3615, 3617, 3624 - 3626, 3631, 3634 - 3638 of 2006), and one respondent is represented by Ms. Prabha Swami (RP No. 3630 of 2006). The other six respondents / complainants have been served and paid Rs. 2,500 by the petitioner on our direction to enable them to come and defend the case yet they did not appear, hence they are proceeded ex parte.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length and perused the material on record. As per material on record, we see that there are two expert reports--one report is prepared by the Sr. Scientist (Cotton Breeder) Agricultural Research Station, Adilabad, after inspection of fields of 9 complainants, on 21.1.2001. The other report is also prepared by Sr. Scientists, namely, Dr. M. Gopinath and Dr. Subramani Reddy, after getting instructions from Director of Research (A&G) RGAV, Hyderabad on 3.4.2001, in which the fields of 7 farmers were visited by this team.
5. As per material on record when the complaints were pending before the District Forum, it requested the Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh to give a report in respect of 290 farmers who had taken up Cotton Production using this seed variety RCH-2 and Upaja 184. In response to this direction, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Adilabad, vide a letter dated 24.3.2004 informed to the President of District Forum, Adilabad, in following terms:
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum, Adilabad through the reference cited has directed this office to submit the field inspection reports in respect of 290 farmers. In this regard it is to submit that at this juncture it may not be possible to submit field inspection reports of all 290 farmers as it was not recorded by the then team consisting of Scientist and Departmental Officer during Kharif 2000 season.
As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005, the need for having an 'expert' report is paramount in order to decide the case as per law as well as procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It cannot be disputed that onus to prove 'deficiency' was on the complainants.
6. When we see these two reports after a visit to the field on 21.1.2001 and 3.4.2001, we find that in all the fields of 16 farmers (9 farmers in the inspection report of 21.1.2001 and 7 farmers in the inspection report of 3.4.2001) were carried out. Learned Counsel for the complainants stated before us that none of the 16 farmers, whose fields were inspected by two team experts on 2 different dates, are the respondents/complainants in revision petition before us. In view of this, inference is quite clear that there is no material with regard to the type of seed sown, the output from the seed sown, the field conditions, agricultural practices adopted by farmers, effect of drought, if any, use of fertiliser, pesticides, etc. by way of any expert opinion. In fact the 'crop production rigime' is conspicuous by its absence in respect of the respondents/complainants before us. The reliance placed by the State Commission on a letter dated 24.3.2004 which the State Commission reads as, "Agriculture Officer report and goes on to state that this report was prepared after visit to the fields", is not sustainable. Even at the cost of repetition, it needs to be stated that, indisputably, the letter is dated 24.3.2004 and is not a report after visiting the fields of the respondents/ complainants before us. The finding and reliance by the State Commission on letter dated 24.3.2004, being an expert report after visiting the fields, shall not stand the scrutiny for the simple reason that the crop year was of 2000 -2001 and the letter dated 24.3.2004 cannot be said to be an 'expert report after visiting the fields', by any standard. In any case, this letter again loses significance, as admittedly the fields visited by the two teams did not belong to any of the respondents/ complainants before us.
7. Since the report (letter dated 24.3.2004) relied upon by the State Commission in allowing the complaint is neither a valid report of an Expert nor it relates to the respondents/ complainants, and in the absence of any evidence to prove their case, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, which is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to allow the parties to lead the evidence in respect of their respective contentions, including the expert evidence, so as to enable the District Forum to pass the order as per law.
8. Since this is an old matter, the District Forum Is requested to dispose of the case within 6 months from the passing of this order. A copy of this order also be sent to the District Forum, Adilabad (A.P.).