National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. vs Gowri Peddanna And Ors. on 10 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ266(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These 14 revisions arise from a set of orders passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners before us namely, Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd., who was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondents/complainants had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that these 14 complainants allegedly purchased cotton seed NHH44 produced by the petitioner Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd. It was their case that they had sown different areas using these seeds but when the crop was not progressing in a desired manner, the matter was reported to the office of the petitioner Field officer at Kurnool. No one visited the site. It was their case that the crop germination, development, growth was inadequate on account of genetic impurity in the quality of seeds manufactured by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. It is in these circumstances, 14 separate complaints were filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 12,000 per acre as also Rs. 3,000 for mental agony in each of the complaint case. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had filed these appeals before the State Commission, who dismissed the appeals, hence these revision petitions before us.
3. Since there is a common point of law involved in these revision petitions, we dispose of all the 14 revision petitions by a common order.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length. It is by now well settled law that the onus of proving defect in 'seed' lies with the complainant. We have very carefully gone through the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum, which reads as follows:
As directed by the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool, I have inspected the NHH 44 cotton crop of Sri Gowri Peddanna, S/o Pedda Chinnaiah, in S. No. 359 area 3 AC at Yaragandla Village of Banaganepalle on 8.5.1999 along with the complainants of the village. No body attended on behalf of Mahyco Seed (P) Ltd. There is no information also from opposite party.
I have inspected the crop after confirming the location and situation of the Survey Number.
The crop is under irrigated condition under bore well. The soil is suitable for cotton crop. The crop has already attained more than 250 days and it is in last stage of the crop.
It is not worth continuing further as it has over aged crop.
It is not possible at this stage to study the cultivation aspects as it is in the last stages.
The following points are observed carefully:
1. The spacing adopted between row and plant to plant is optimum and ideal.
2. The seed was dibbled tone per hill, hence plant population is at optimum.
3. The crop on the date of inspection is with full of flower, but flower is dropping due to physiological aging.
4. Pest and diseases are not observed.
5. The plants are not uniform in size and branching. About 60% of plants are erected and less branched and height is 120 to 130 cms. 20% of plants are 40 to 50 cms of height with two short branches. About 20% plants are as tall as 140 to 150 cms with flowers and defective cotton.
6. The existing cotton is of poor quality and may give about 40 to 50 kg. of Kapas per Ac.
7. As seen from the empty bracts to access the yield harvested may be about 100 to 125 kgs of cotton per Ac.
8. I have seen in the existing cotton the see in Choffy and hence may not add to the weight.
9. In all the plants I have observed branching in poor and short hence plant is compact in appearance. Since it is under irrigated condition the farmer might have invested at least Rs. 10,000 per Ac as the costly input in this area is water. The farmers knowledge and his sincerity in cultivating the cotton crop cannot be suspected.
The loss per Ac is 8 quintals as per the estimate non-uniform plant growth and poor and short branching of the plants is enough proof to say the seed used or may be not pure.
10. One thing is clear is that since the crop is considered as rejuvenated due to irrigation facility certain amount of variation in the behaviour of the plant may be possible as crop gets all the previleges such as additional use of fertilisers, pest treatment and irrigation etc. and I am of the opinion that his behaviour may not dwindle the yield.
5. We have very carefully gone through this report word by word and are unable to satisfy us that there is even remote mention by the Local Commissioner, in any way, reflecting anything on the quality of 'seed-being 'defective'. It is not in dispute that the complainants purchased the seed from one Mr. B. Nagabhusanam Setty. The material on record at page 133 (Annexure P-10) clearly shows that it had a batch No. of 5958. Batch No. 5958 was got tested from A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, whose report is at page 112 of the paper book as Annexure P-7. This report indicates the purity of seed at 99.6%. We need not labour any further on this point as far as the quality of purity of seed is concerned,
6. State Commission, on the other hand in its order makes following observations:
...Although batch No. 5958 is mentioned in the receipt at the time of purchase of seed but having regard to the observations of the Commissioner, we are of the opinion that the seeds supplied, was not from batch certified under certificate 5958....
7. Two things need to be mentioned in this regard-firstly, there was no evidence before the State Commission to make these observations. The Local Commissioner had not made any observation on the quality of the seed; secondly, only person who was cross-examined before the State Commission was Mr. B. Nagabhusanam Setty. None of the complainants came forward for deposition or examination or filed their own affidavits.
8. It is admitted position of law that in the absence of evidence we cannot reject the record brought in by the parties unless something else is alleged. We have before us a purchase certificate of Mr. B. Nagabhushanam Setty who has been cross-examined and in his cross-examination, he states clearly that MAHYCO seed is a good quality, yet the State Commission goes on to make statements which are neither pleaded nor supported by record. We like to repeat that none of the complainants offered to come forward to be examined and no affidavit by way of evidence was filed by them. No evidence of whatsoever nature has been brought before any Fora of the complainant to prove the case that there was 'genetic impurity' in the seed supplied by the petitioner.
9. The cross-examination of Mr. B. Nagabhushanam Setty also brings out another fact that while he purchased 70 packets, he handled these packets to Sh. Pedda Subba Reddy for distribution among the complainant. There is no affidavit of Shri Subba Reddy that he distributed the same material to the complainants.
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, what we see is that the complainants have not been able to prove their case or supply of defective seeds. To the contrary the testing laboratory report from an independent agency supports the case of petitioner that the seed was of 99.6% purity. Thus, both the lower Forums in our view erred in wrongly relying upon the Local Commissioner's report which does not comment on the quality of seed one way or the other, and more so State Commission went outside the record to observe that the seed supplied under batch No. 5958 as per certificate was not supplied to the complainants. The quasi judicial Forums are expected to pass the judgments on evidence on record; in this case that has not happened. This principle has not been observed by both the lower Forums in view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, which are set aside.
11. Revision petitions are allowed and the complaints stand dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.