State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Process Incharge vs Smt. Shanti Bai & Others on 7 December, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/12/682
Instituted on : 23.11.2012
Process Incharge,
C.G. Rajya Beej Vikas Nigam,
Process Centre, Jora, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Shanti Bai, W/o Shri Dashrath Sahu,
2. Smt. Kanti Bai, W/o Shri Devnath Sahu,
Both R/o - Nahardih,
Block - Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Senior Agriculture Development Officer,
Block - Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Manish Vyas, for appellant.
Shri Mordhwaj Sahu, for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Viplav Sharma, for respondent no.3.
ORDER
DATED : 07/12/2013 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforce called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.C.C.11/1063, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2/ complainants, has been partly allowed and appellant/O.P.No.2 & respondent no.3/O.P.No.1 were directed to jointly or severally pay // 2 // within a month of the order a sum of Rs.1,56,420/- to the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per pleadings of the complainants are that the complainants had purchased G.T.10 Til seeds from O.P.No.1/respondent no.3 for being sown in their 12 acres land. The seeds were properly sown by the complainants and they also undertook cultivation by adopting the recognized mode of preparing the field and irrigation and also used the prescribed fertilizer. Yet it was found that the plants grown, were not having flowers. The production to be achieved by the complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 was 24 quintals. On account of selling of defective seeds, the complainants suffered heavy loss. The complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 made complaints in this regard to the OPs, Agriculture Minister, President C.G. Rajya Beej Nigam, Local MLA, Jila Panchayat and Collector, Raipur, but none of them have initiated any proceedings and no compensation was given to the complainants. On 13.07.2011, the complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 have sent legal notice through their advocate to O.P.No.1/respondent no.3 demanding compensation of Rs.1,56,420/-. In reply of the aforesaid legal notice, the O.P.No.1/respondent no.3 informed that the Beej Nigam is responsible for the loss and directed the complainants to contact Beej Nigam.
// 3 // Thereafter the complainants written a letter to O.P.No.2/appellant on for compensation, but the O.P.No.2/appellant refused to pay any compensation. The complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 alleged that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by selling defective seeds to them. The complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,56,420/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for physical, financial and mental agony.
3. In reply of the consumer complaint, OPs filed their reply jointly and specifically averred that the complainants/respondent nos1. & 2 sown the above G.T. 10 Til seed in sub-standard agricultural land and they did not follow the procedure prescribed for sown the seed in the agricultural land. The percentage of the fertilizer was not sufficient and complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 also did not irrigate the land properly and without following the procedure prescribed, the complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 did not obtain crop properly for which complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 are themselves responsible for it. OPs further averred that the land used by the complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 was barren and bhata, therefore, for non-production of crop, the complainants themselves are responsible for it.
// 4 //
4. After having considered the material placed before it by all the parties, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/respondent nos.1 & 2 and OPs were directed to jointly or severally pay within a month of the order a sum of Rs.1,56,420/- to the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant /O.P.No2 argued that District Forum had committed an error of law and jurisdiction. He further argued that the land used by the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants was barren and bhata land, therefore, for non-production of crop, the complainants themselves are responsible. He further argued that the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants have not taken proper care as per instructions given in the guidelines issued by C.G. State Seeds & Agriculture Development Corporation containing title "fry d`f"k dk;Zekyk" and they have also not sown the seed in proper way and the land was not irrigated timely and prescribed fertilizer was not used by the respondent no.1 & 2 / complainants as per prescribed limit, therefore, there was production of crop below the prescribed limit. The respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants themselves are negligent for cultivation of the seed, therefore, the appellant is not liable for // 5 // payment of any compensation to the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble National Commission i.e. Shamsher Singh v. Bagri Beej Bhandar & Anr., IV (2013) CPJ 186 (NC) and judgment of this Commission dated 23.10.2013, passed in Appeal No.FA/12/694, FA/12/695, FA/12/696 & FA/12/697.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants on the other hand supported the impugned order of the District Forum and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission. He prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2/complainants supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for any interference by this Commission. He prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3/O.P.1 supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant /O.P.No.2.
10. 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.
// 6 //
11. The Hon'ble Supre Court in the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, 2013 (3) CPR 589 SC) has observed in paragraph Nos.37 & 38 as under :-
"37. In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below :
"Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have 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 by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any 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 // 7 // that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.
* * * * * It is clear from the letter of Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in-spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds."
"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 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 // 8 // 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."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v Sadhu and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198 has observed in paragraph Nos.12 & 13 as under :-
"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 :
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 // 9 // irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."
13. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), has observed in paragraph no.9 as under :-
"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 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."
14. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. vs Subhash Shrihari // 10 // Devkore & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150 has observed in paragraph nos. 17 & 18 as under :-
"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 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. // 11 // 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."
15. 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 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 filed and they can make complaints before the competent authority for inspecting the field.
16. In the instant case, the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants made complaints before Agriculture Development Officer and have also sent the complaints before the Agriculture Minister, State Government, other several officers and Manager of C.G. State Seeds Development Corporation. From bare perusal of the record, it appears that the field of the complainants was inspected by the Manager of the Seeds Corporation and prepared a report. He sent the said report to // 12 // Collector, Raipur. The inspection was also carried by Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in the presence of the other villagers and Panchnama was also prepared and a Certificate was issued in this regard. Normally, the Panchanama of the Sarpanch cannot be accepted because the Sarpanch, is not a competent authority. But in the instant case, the respondent nos.1 & 2/complainants made complaints before several authorities as well as Agriculture Minister and thereafter the Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat had inspected the field of the respondent nos.1 & 2/complainants and Panchanama was prepared in the present of other villagers, therefore, the said Panchanama can be considered for deciding the facts of the instant case and it is relevant documents and can be considered. We have perused the report of the Manager of Seeds Corporation. In the said report, it is mentioned that the seed of til was sown in halki (bhatha land), therefore, the crop of til was poor. The guidelines issued by C.G. State Seeds & Agriculture Development Corporation contains title "fry d`f"k dk;Zekyk". In the said guidelines it has been mentioned that "Hkwfe% vPNh ty fudkl okyh gYdh ls e/;e Hkwfe ls Qly vPNh gksrh gSA"
17. According to the above guidelines of the C.G. State Seed & Agriculture Development Corporation, Raipur the land prescribed for cultivation of the til, the nature of the land prescribed is halki (Bhatha // 13 // land) and the respondent nos.1 & 2/complainants also sown their crop in such type of land. Testimony of the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants in the form of affidavits would shown that whatever seed was purchased by them from the OPs was sown by them in their land, thus there was no occasion for the respondent nos.1 & 2/complainants to have sent sample of the seed for testing to the competent laboratory and complainants sown the crop according to the guidelines issued by C.G. State Seeds & Agriculture Development Corporation containing title "fry d`f"k dk;Zekyk". Looking to the evidence adduced by the respondent no.1 & 2 / complainants, it appears that the seed provided to the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants by the OPs was not upto standard and was sub-standard and therefore, the complainants did not obtain crop and they suffered loss. The averment made by the appellant can not be accepted and appellant failed to prove that the complainants have not properly irrigated the land and they did not use fertilizer properly.
18. Looking to the documents, it appears that the respondent nos.1 & 2 / complainants sown the crop by adopting the recognized mode mentioned in the guidelines issued by C.G. State Seeds & Agriculture Development Corporation containing title "fry d`f"k dk;Zekyk" and they have also irrigated the land properly. Therefore, the act of the appellant/O.P.No.2 is within purview of deficiency in service". The // 14 // conclusion reached by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity and irregularity.
19. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant / O.P.No.2 being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/12/2013 /12/2013