State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co Ltd vs Shri Vinaykumar Trimbakrao Lande & Ors. on 5 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR
5th Floor, Administrative Building, Civil
Lines, Nagpur-01
RBT/14/24 (Appeal
No. A/01/446)
(Arising out of Order dtd.
05.02.2001 in Complaint No.CC/2000/299 of District Forum, Akola.)
Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co Ltd
B-4 Old Industrial Estate
Jalna- 431 203
.Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Vinaykumar Trimbakrao Lande
2. Shri Kishore Sahadeorao Lande
3. Shri Shashikant Sanjay Lande
4. Shri Shriram Sakharam Lande
R/o Dhanegaon, Tal. Balapur
Dist. Akola
5. M/s Vikas Krishi Seva Kendra
Wadegaon, Tal. Balapur
Dist. Akola
.Respondent(s)
BEFORE: Honble Mr B A Shaikh, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mr S B
Sawarkar Yengal, Member
PRESENT: Mr P S Khubalkar ..for the Appellant
Adv. Mr A M Tirukh .....for
the Respondents No.1 to 4
None .....for
the Respondent No. 5
ORDER
(Passed on 05.03.2014) Per Mr B A Shaikh, Honble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 05.02.2001 passed by District Forum, Akola in consumer complaint bearing No.CC/2000/299 by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the original complainants as set out in their complaint in brief is that they are the farmers and they owned the respective lands described in complaints. The opposite party (for short the O.P.) No.1 is a producer / manufacturer of the seeds and the O.P.No.2 is its dealer. The representative of O.P.No.1 distributed pamphlets on 26.04.1999 to the farmers in respect of the cotton seeds produced by O.P.No.1 and he advised the complainants to purchase the cotton seeds of varieties called as MECH-1, MECH-12 and MECH-13 and he assured them about their good quality and good yield capacity. He also represented them that the said seeds are protected from the pest attacks and that the said seeds would give 10% to 15% yield more than other seeds and that each plant of the said seeds would bear about 180 to 200 cotton bolls. The said representative had also informed the complainants about the prize is offered under scheme by the O.P.No.1 to the purchasers of the said seeds. Therefore, the complainants purchased one bag each of MECH-13 variety of cotton seeds for Rs.405/- each from the O.P.No.2, produced by O.P.No.1. They were also provided one coupon each under the aforesaid prize scheme. They had sown the said seeds in their respective land of one acre each, in between 18th Jun 1999 and 22nd June, 1999.
They also did proper cultivation of the land and also sprayed pesticides on the said crop. However, there was also proper rainfall. There was proper growth of the crop. The leaves of the crop started falling down after 30 days. There was less cotton bolls. Therefore, the complainants approached to O.P.No.2 and called its representative for inspection and asked it to give that information to O.P.No.1. But it avoided to do so. The complainants therefore, made complaint in writing to Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Balapur and called him for spot inspection. They also made complaint to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola. The inspection of the crop was made on 02.02.2000 by Shri B D Jadhav, Agriculture Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Balapur. He submitted spot inspection report to Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola on 11.05.2000. It was found in that inspection report that the O.P.No.1 gave false assurances to the farmers and the farmers got very less yield from the crop. The complainants therefore claimed compensation of Rs.23,000/- each on account of their getting less yield of 10 quintals cotton each. They also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment, Rs.400/- towards fees of legal notice and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the complaint from O.P. Nos.1 & 2.
3. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed their Written Versions and thereby resisted the complaint. The O.P.No.1 submitted that the complaint is not tenable under Consumer Protection Act. It admitted that the complainants purchased seeds of MECH-13 variety from O.P.No.2. The pamphlets issued by it mentioned that the crop would be protected from a pest for 45 days only from the date of sowing due to Goucho processing of the seeds and that there would be no such effect of that Goucho processing after 45 days, i.e. for 150 170 days. The crop of the complainants was infested with the pest after 45 days of sowing and the complainants failed to protect the said crop from pest infestation after 45 days. The complainant did not call the O.P.No.1 and Govt. officer, immediately after 45 days, but the complaint was made to Government Officer in the month of Dec. 1999 i.e. after a period of 180 days from the date of sowing. No intimation was given to the O.P.No.1 by the complainants. The complainants purchased pesticides in the months of Aug. & Sep.1999 and then sprayed the same when the crop was in its middle stage of growth which means that the crop was infested with the pest and disease during its middle stage of growth and not initially. More over there was heavy raining and the bad climate, which caused heavy infestation of pest and it could not be controlled by the complainants. There was no falling down of leaves after 30 days of sowing. The crop was not inspected on 02.02.2000 by Agriculture Officer. The period of the crop was of 150 to 160 days only. But the Agriculture Officer inspected the same after a period of 220 to 225 of sowing of seeds. i.e. after passing of full season of crop and that the crop was already harvested before inspection by the Agriculture Officer and hence, the Panchanama prepared by him cannot be considered. There is no evidence to show that the complainants supplied water properly to the crop. The claim of Rs.92,000/- by the complainants towards loss is not supported by any document. The yield of the crop depends on various factors namely, management of crop, condition of climate, period of irrigation, spreading of pesticides and fertilizers and quality of land and the yield of the crop does not depends the quality of seeds only. It is therefore, submitted by the O.P.No.1 that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The O.P.No.2 also resisted the complaint by filing its Written Version. It admitted that it sold the cotton seed bags for Rs.405/- each to the complainants and also gave one coupon under prize scheme to them. It also submitted that it sold the seeds under sealed condition to the complainants, which were produced by O.P.No.1 and therefore it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.
5. The Forum below after hearing advocates of both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that as per the Government Circular, the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee shall consists of seven officers, but according to further observation of the Forum if all those seven officers are not present for inspection of the field, the enquiry cannot be said to be illegal. It is also observed by the Forum that it was not the obligation of the complainants / agriculturists to see as to whether all the seven officers as per the circular are called or not for inspection. Therefore, the Forum below relied upon the inspection report of the Agriculture Officer who allegedly inspected the crop on 02.02.2000. It is also observed in the impugned order that the O.P.No.1 has not produced certificate from the certification committee showing that the seeds are of proper quality. It also observed that though the O.P.No.1 produced a chart of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University showing heavy rainfall, but it does not show that due to heavy rainfall, the yield of the crop was lowered down. Thus, relying on the inspection report of Agriculture Officer, the Forum below came to the conclusion that complainants have proved that the seeds are defective. It therefore, assessed the loss of 10 quintals. of cotton by each of the complainant due to defective seeds, of which price was assessed at Rs.23,000/-. Thus, the Forum below granted compensation of Rs.23,000/- to each of the four complainants. It also granted to each of the complainants, compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.250/- towards cost of complaint. It granted interest @ 18% p.a. over Rs.23,000/- after expiry period of one month from the date of receipt of that order till its realization.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the original O.P.No.1 / producer has preferred this appeal. The learned advocates of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 4 / original complainants filed their respective Written Notes of Arguments. None appeared for respondent No.5 / dealer at the time of final hearing. We have heard learned advocates of appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the Written Notes of Arguments and other documents filed by them.
7. The learned advocate of the appellant took us through the documents produced on record and assailed the impugned order on the following grounds.
i. The Forum below in identical complaints bearing Nos. CC/00/194 & CC/99/244 on considering evidence brought on record dismissed the said complaints, taking contrary view to the view taken in the present complaint under the same set of facts & circumstances. The copies of said decisions are filed on record of this appeal.
ii.
The Forum below has wrongly shifted burden on the appellant about sending the sample of seeds to the laboratory for testing, even though it is observed by it in the impugned order that it is not necessary to test the seeds in laboratory.
iii. The decisions referred to in the impugned order are not applicable to the present case as the facts & circumstances of the present cases are different from those of said cases.
iv. As per the circular (Paripatrak) of Govt. of Maharashtra it was the duty of the concerned seeds committee to collect the sample of seeds immediately from the dealer after receiving the complaint and to send the same for testing to the laboratory, but it is not done so.
v. It is common phenomena that wherever there is excess rainfall, it adversely affects the growth and condition of crop and hence, the chart of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Viddyalay showing excess rainfall was sufficient to prove that due to heavy rainfall, there was adverse effect on the cotton crop, causing loss of yield. The complainants made complaint to Agriculture Officer on 21.12.1999 but it is alleged that he inspected the field after one & half month i.e. on 02.02.2000. However, the news published in local newspaper on 06.03.2000, produced on record shows that the crop was not inspected till first week of March 2000.
vi. The inspection of the field was carried out in the absence of the appellant and the appellant was not called at that time, though it was necessary to call it and therefore, the Panchanama prepared at that time cannot be believed.
vii. There was good and uniform growth of the crop at an early stage. The complainants informed the Agriculture Officer in the month Dec. 1999, though the cotton seeds were sown in the month June 1999. As per photo copies of the bills purchased by the complainants, pesticides and insecticides were purchased by them in the months of Aug. & Sept. 1999 and not at initial stage i.e. within 45 days of sowing and therefore, it is clear that the crop was not affected by pest and diseases at an early stage. The crop was attacked by pest and diseases at the middle stage of the crop i.e. not within the first 45 days of sowing, during which Goucho treatment protected the crop. The appellant had clearly stated in the pamphlet that the crop will not be infested with pest and diseases within 45 days from the date of sowing as the said seeds have been treated with Goucho. There was no assurance for protection of the crop from pests and diseases beyond the said 45 days i.e. for whole period of 150 to170 days of the said crop. The complainants have failed to control the crop from the attack of pest and diseases by applying pesticides / insecticides and hence, the appellant cannot be made responsible for less yield.
viii. The complainants did not call Agriculture Officer till 21.12.1999. They would have called Government officials immediately for inspection if there was genuine problem. The seeds were sown in the month of June 1999 and the duration of the crop was 150 to 160 days only, but the crop was inspected by Agriculture Officer after 220 to 225 days of sowing i.e. after completing harvesting of the crop. Hence, the Panchanama prepared by the Agriculture Officer cannot be considered. The said officer has also not mentioned in the Panchanama that the yield has been affected due to any negligence or deficiency in service of the appellant. There is no evidence showing that the rate of cotton was Rs.2300/- per quintal and there is no evidence to know what actual yield the complainants would have received from the entire crop and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Forum below is arbitrarily assessed.
ix. The yield not only depends upon quality of seeds, but also upon various factors namely, preparation of land at proper time, climatic conditions, rainfall, moisture, quality of soil, cultivation practice, attack of pest & diseases etc., which are beyond the control of the seeds producer (Appellant).
x. The Forum below has ignored all these material facts & circumstances and erred in partly allowing the complaint.
8. Thus, the learned advocate of the appellant submitted that as the impugned order is illegal, the appeal may be allowed and complaint may be dismissed.
9. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supported the impugned order and submitted as follows.
i.
The complainants purchased the seeds produced by the appellant, in the month of May 1999. The representative of the appellant had assured the respondents that the seeds are protected from insects, flies & pest as they are treated with Goucho and that each of the cotton plant would produce 180 to 200 cotton bolls, that would increase yield by 10% to 15% and that they would also get prize on purchasing seeds.
In view of the said promise the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 purchased cotton seed bags from respondent No.5 and sowed the same in their land in the month of June 1999. But the leaves of the crop started dropping down after 30 days after sowing and though the growth of plant was satisfactory, the yield was very less.
ii.
The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / original complainants approached to respondent No.5 / dealer immediately and requested him to call the representative of the appellant but he did not pay attention and hence, they made complaint to Agriculture Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Balapur and requested him for inspection.
He inspected the land on 05.02.2000 alongwith his associates and forwarded his report to Agriculture Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola on 11.02.2000, in which, it is observed that the seeds were defective and the cotton bolls were less than what was assured and that the cotton plant was not protected by the diseases as claimed by the appellant.
iii.
The Agriculture Officer, Balapur is a Government servant and he is an expert in the agriculture problems of the farmers and quality of seeds and hence, spot inspection carried out by him has much value in the eye of law. The appellant avoided to conduct spot inspection and hence, it cannot raise plea that its representative was not present at the time of spot inspection. The guidelines as circular of the year 1998 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra are not covered under statutory provisions and hence, not mandatory to comply with the same in strict sense. Absence of the members of the District Seeds Committee mentioned in that circular at the time of spot inspection does not make inspection made by an Agriculture Officer as illegal.
iv.
The appellant failed to prove the quality of its seeds. The defect in the seeds was found only after a period of 30 days of sowing and when the plants were grown up and hence, it was not possible to refer the cotton plants to the laboratory. There is no need to comply with the provisions of Sec.13(1) (c) of Consumer Protect Act, 1986.
v.
It is not stated in the chart of rainfall issued by Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University that if the rainfall exceeds a particular limit the cotton crop was adversely affected and hence, the said chart produced by the appellant is of no use.
vi.
The report of Agriculture Officer is self sufficient and it does not require any further proof to prove that the seeds were defective.
10. The learned advocate of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also relied upon observations made in the following cases:-
i.
India Seed House Vs. Ramjilal Sharma & Anr., III(2008) CPJ- 96 (NC) It is observed that it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that the seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.
ii.
M/s National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M Madhusudan Reddy & Anr. AIR 20012 Supreme Court 1160.
It is observed that when Consumer Forum appointed agricultural experts to ascertain status and cause of failure of crop and awarded compensation on the basis of report of experts, procedure adopted by the Forum cannot be said to be contrary to Sec. 13 (1)(c) of Consumer Protect Act. It is also observed that in the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective, nothing remains him which could be tested in a laboratory.
If the O.Ps. disputed that the seeds were not defective, they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis from appropriate laboratory.
Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis to an appropriate laboratory.
11. Thus, relying on the said decisions the learned advocate of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the appeal may be dismissed being devoid of merit.
12. Admittedly, the Govt. of Maharashtra appointed by its circular, comprises of seven experts specified in the impugned order for inspection of the crop and submission of report whenever, grievance is made against defective seeds. Though the complainant made complaint to Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola, i.e. the President of the said Committee, only the Agriculture Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Balapur, i.e. only one member of that committee took the cognizance of that complaint and made spot inspection and prepared a Panchanama / report. No proper explanation is given as to why the other six members of that committee did not accompany the Agriculture Officer for the purpose of said inspection. Moreover, there is no document showing any attempt was made to given intimation of that inspection to the appellant i.e. the producer of the seeds. Thus, the spot inspection was not carried in presence of the any representative of the appellant. The said Panchanama / report prepared by Agriculture Officer, of Panchayat Samiti, Balapur shows that the fields were inspected on 02.02.2000 and its report was prepared on 05.02.2000 and submitted to Agriculture Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola on 05.02.2000. The conclusion drawn at the end of that report is that as assurance was given to the agriculturist that the crop is protected from the attack of the pest till 45 days from sowing, most of the farmers did not spray any pesticides and some of the agriculturist only sprayed pesticides but they could not control attack of pest and therefore the agriculturist / farmers got very less yield from cotton and that the weight of the cotton bolls was half of the expected weight.
13. However, we find that nowhere in the said report it is stated that there was any defect in the seeds or they were of sub-standard quality. Moreover, it is not stated in that report as to when the pesticides were sprayed on the crop by the farmers. The assurance given by the appellant for protection of the crop from attack of pest was till 45 days only from sowing of the seeds and it was for the agriculturists to control the attack of the pest after the said period of 45 days. It is not specified in the aforesaid report that within 45 days of sowing the crop was infested with pest in spite of the assurance given as above by the appellant. On the contrary, it can be said from that report dtd.05.02.2000 that the seeds were sown in between 18.06.1999 and 21.06.1999 and inspection was made on 02.02.2000 i.e. after seven & half months of the sowing of the said seeds. Hence, the said report is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the crop was infested with pest within a period of 45 days of sowing the seeds. The complainants have also not made it clear in the complaint as to when cotton crop was infested with pests and when they spread pesticide over it.
14. Thus, we find that the aforesaid report of Agriculture Officer carries no weight to prove that the appellant had given false assurance that the crop will not be infested with pest within 45 days of sowing of seeds and therefore, complainants sustained loss due to infestation of the crop within 45 days of sowing of seeds. Moreover, we also find that the inspection of the crop by the Agriculture Officer after harvesting period of the crop, cannot be said to be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the crop gave the less yield. It is not explained by the complainants as to why they made no such complaint in writing either before expiry of period of 45 days of sowing of seeds or immediately after the said period, though they alleged that the leaves of the crop started falling down after 30 days of sowing. Hence, the inspection of the crop after a long delay of sowing of seeds i.e. after 71/2 months will of no help to establish that the seeds were either defective or of sub-standard quality when the assurance about protection of the crop by infestation with pest was given for a initial 45 days only.
15. There is no other evidence to prove that the seeds were defective or of substandard quality. We, under these facts & circumstances, find substance in the submission of learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the Forum below erred in relying on the aforesaid report of the Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Balapur and thereby granting compensation to the complainants. We also find that the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned advocate of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case as they are totally different from those of the said cases as discussed above.
16. Thus, we hold that the Forum below has not considered properly the evidence brought on record and erroneously held that the seeds were defective. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained under law and hence, it deserves to be set aside.
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 05.02.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Akola in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/00/299 is hereby set aside.
iii. The complaint is dismissed.
iv. Both the parties shall bear their own cost in this appeal.
v. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
[ B A SHAIKH ] PRSIDING MEBER [ S B SAWARKAR ] MEMBER sj