National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Consumer Protection And Guidance ... vs National Seeds Corporation on 12 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ192(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent National Seeds Corporation.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the 8 farmers in Niranam Panchayat had purchased different quantity of seeds produced by the respondent National Seeds Corporation (NSC) and distributed through concerned Agricultural Officer. It was the case of the complainants that when the seeds were sown, only 25% germinated and that is on account of the poor quality of seeds supplied by the respondent NSC resulting in loss to the farmers. It is in this perspective, 8 farmers approached the Consumer Protection and Guidance Society, the petitioner before us, to help redress the grievance. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed on behalf of 8 farmers by the Secretary, Consumer Protection and Guidance Society, Thiruvalla before the District Forum and contested the case on behalf of the complainants. The District Forum after hearing the parties at length allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay the purchase price of 348 kgs. of Basumathy seed along with transportation charges of Rs. 700, Rs. 10,000 for re-preparation of field, Rs. 2,500 as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,500. This money was to be given to the petitioner who was to distribute this amount to the 8 farmers after retaining some amount for himself. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent NSC filed appeal before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.
3. There is delay of 44 days in filing this revision petition, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. In view of the explanation given the delay of 44 days in filing the revision petition, is condoned.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, who drew my attention to Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the State Commission order, which reads as under:
8. The farmers who alleged to have suffered damage and loss not appeared before the lower Forum and not adduced evidence. The eight farmers authorised one among them Mr. Jacob Kurian to seek redressal of their grievances by initiating action in the Consumer Forum through the Consumer Guidance Society. Thus the complaint is filed by a voluntary consumer organisation represented by its Secretary. The Secretary has further authorised the President to appear on his behalf before the lower Forum, to conduct the case. The President who has not direct knowledge about the purchase of the seeds or the cultivation of the Basumathy seeds gave evidence on behalf of the complainant. His evidence does not stand on a better footing than hearsay evidence and as such not admissible in evidence. No steps taken by the complainant to examine the Agricultural Officer who has direct knowledge about the seeds supplied. Thus there is total lack of evidence to establish the allegations made in the complaint.
9. Next question to be considered is whether the seeds are properly stored or not. The sealed packet of seeds shall be opened only at the time when the seeds are taken for soaking before germinating and it shall not be opened before that. The appellant sent 348 kgs. of seeds (11 packets of 30 kgs. each and one bag of 18 kgs.) The farmers shared the seeds on 10.10.2001. For distribution of seeds among the farmers several packets were opened by them on 19.10.2001 and Ext. P7 proved that fact. The date of sowing the seeds was 10.12.2001. The seeds were not properly stored from 19.10.2001 onwards and that would have reduced the potency of the sees. From the deposition of P.W. 1 it is not clear whether the farmers followed the procedures to be followed before sowing the seeds. So we have no hesitation to conclude that mishandling of seeds and substandard storage were the reasons for the impotency of seeds.
10. It is seen from the records that the Agricultural Officer, to whom the seeds have been supplied by the appellant/opposite party has not lodged any complaint before the lower Forum. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the Farmers who are represented by respondent/complainants and there is no evidence on record to show that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party.
5. On all these points the learned Counsel was unable to satisfy us as to how could President of the Society could file an affidavit about the purchase of seed, the quality of seed, etc. when he was not on the scene at all. What he produced before the District Forum would at best be a hearsay. Why primary evidence was withheld has not been explained. To not to produce such evidence, when it was available, has to be held against the petitioner/ complainant. This point has not been discussed in the order of the District Forum.
6. There cannot be any dispute on the question of fact and law that the onus of proof lies with the farmers in this case to prove their case. This could have been done either by getting the seed tested from a 'Seed Testing Laboratory' or by obtaining an 'Expert Opinion' of an agricultural scientist or a qualified Agricultural Officer. Nothing to this effect has been done by the complainant to prove the case about the substandard supply of material.
7. Equally, importantly, the Agricultural Officers who was supplied the seed and who in turn made available different quantity of seed to the farmer was not a party before the District Forum, State Commission or us.
8. It is not in dispute that the packets of seeds purchased by the Agricultural Officers were opened on 19.10.2001 and sowing was done on 10.12.2001. What happened to the quality of seed in these two months is not at all clear before us? Handling of seed is a very sensitive issue and this should have been dealt in by the District Forum. The quality of seed deteriorates on account of poor handling of seed; there is no evidence as to whether the seed supplied by the respondent was the same seed, which was supplied to the farmers? No comment can be made one way or the other as there is no reply/any version of the Agricultural Officer, as he was not a party at any stage.
9. In the aforementioned circumstances, when there is no expert report of any Agricultural Officer or from any seed testing laboratory, we are unable to see any merit in this revision petition filed before us as in my view, the order passed by the State Commission is as per law laid down by this Commission as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "H.N. Shankara Shastry v. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka" II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 1999.
10. Feeling himself concerned in view of above circumstances, the last plea is made by the learned Counsel that the case be remanded for fresh hearing. We see no merit in this for the simple reason that the seed and its germination which is germane to the issue would have been exhausted by now as the case relates to the seed year of 2001. None of the farmers would have retained the seed and we cannot expect any Agricultural Officer to comment on germination or otherwise of the seed which was sown some time in 2001. In these circumstances, we are unable to accede to this request for remanding the case as it would serve no purpose. The petitioners who are knowledgeable in this regard should not have taken any pains to ensure compliance of provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the aforementioned circumstances we find no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.