National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahyco Seeds Ltd. vs Sharad Motirao Kankale & Anr. on 23 March, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4323 of 2007 (From the order dated 25.09.2007 in Appeal No.812/2007 the State Commission, Maharashtra) Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Petitioners(s) Versus Sharad Motirao Kankale & Anr. Respondent(s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioners(s) : Mr.Manoj Swarup, Advocate Ms.Neha Kedia, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : NEMO. Pronounced on 23rd March, 2012 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Mahyco Seeds Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No.812/2007. Sharad Motirao Kankale, Respondent herein was the original complainant before the District Forum.
In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had contended that he had purchased two bags of NHH-44 cotton seeds produced by Petitioner/Company through its agent (Respondent No.2 herein) for a sum of Rs.560/- which he sowed in the two acres of agricultural land belonging to him.
Despite having followed the correct agricultural practices, the yield from the cotton seeds were very poor, the flowers and bolls were not formed and the cotton cultivation was totally damaged because of which he suffered a huge financial loss. Respondent contacted the Petitioner/Company and its agent but they did not pay any heed to his grievances. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and requested that the Petitioners be directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.48,560/- on account of the losses including for mental agony and litigation cost with interest.
The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that the seeds are marketed by them only after ensuring their physical and genetic purity after testing the same in a laboratory as per the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966.
Further, Respondent had intentionally lodged his complaint with the Agriculture Department for inspection of his crops only after the harvesting period was over and therefore, the competent authority could not inspect the crops of the Respondent from which an adverse inference can be drawn. Also, the growth of the crops depends on various other factors and in the instant case, the loss occurred due to the heavy attack of bollworms because the Respondent had not taken adequate care to protect the crops.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence partly allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners to pay Rs.12,000/- to the Respondent as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as cultivation costs, Rs.5,000/- towards mental and physical agony, Rs.1,000/- as costs and Rs.560/- towards the cost of the seeds purchased by Respondent.
Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission while concluding that there was no evidence on record to prove that the seeds were defective, upheld the order of the District Forum regarding the amount of compensation to be paid to the Respondent and set aside rest of the order of the District Forum except payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner was present. Notices were issued to Respondent but none appeared on his behalf.
Since, 30 days from the date of issue of notice are over, service is deemed to be complete and the case is being decided ex parte.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner pointed out that the District Forum erred in concluding that the failure of the cotton crops was because of defective seeds. In fact, no proof including expert evidence has been produced by Respondent on whom there was onus to do so that the seeds were defective. The only evidence provided was the affidavit of another farmer, namely; Sharad Motiram Kankale who had a field adjacent to the Respondents field and stated that he had purchased PKV-2468 variety of Cotton Seeds of Mahabeej Company and that these seeds had yielded excellent cotton crops unlike the Respondents field.
On the other hand, Petitioner on receipt of a complaint from Respondent had sent a representative to inspect the fields and it was found that there was a heavy attack of bollworms on the crops because Respondent had not sprayed the crops to prevent/contain this menace.
Petitioner is a reputed ISO 9001 certified company dealing in the business of seeds for the last 30 years and is acknowledged and recognized by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific Industrial and Research etc. Respondent had totally failed to prove that there was any genetic defect in the seeds sold by Petitioner and therefore, although the State Commission had awarded ex gratia compensation to be paid by Petitioner, there is no justification for the same.
We have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and have gone through the evidence on record. The facts regarding purchase of cotton seeds manufactured by the Petitioner and its planting by the Respondent in his agricultural field are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the yield from the seeds was poor. Respondent/Complainant on whom there was onus to prove that this was because of defective seeds has not been able to produce any evidence in support of his contention. There is e.g. no report of any agricultural expert to confirm the same and the only evidence relied on is an affidavit of a neighbouring farmer that the seeds purchased by him from another Company had yielded excellent result while the seeds purchased by the Respondent had failed. On the other hand, as is well known, the crop can fail because of several reasons including not following the correct agricultural practices and not taking proper pest control measures etc. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the crops failed because of any genetic defects in the seeds. The State Commission as a court of fact has also reached a conclusion that there is no evidence on record regarding any defects in the seeds. On the other hand, there is evidence produced by the Petitioner following an inspection of the field by its representative that the crops were heavily infested by bollworms which appear to have been the cause for the failure of the crops. This Commission as well as the Apex Court in a catena of judgments including in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn.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) have held that the onus to prove that there is a defect in the seeds is on the Complainant and as stated above, Respondent has not been able to provide any evidence including any expert opinion to support his contentions. In view of these facts, we are unable to uphold the order of the State Commission directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.13,000/- as compensation/costs to the Respondent. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Fora below and allow the revision petition with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/