Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) & Anr vs Jagdish Singh

Shri Jagdish Singh, the complainant, purchased 18 kgs. of marigold seeds for Rs.49,500/-. He sowed the seeds for the nursery under supervision of the persons of OP/institute i.e. Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) but he could not get sufficient yield. Due to ruin seeds, the complainant suffered great loss for the cost of the seeds and unable to cultivate 8 acres of land. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Badayun, for the compensation towards loss suffered.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.49,500/- towards costs of seeds and interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till payment, plus Rs.500/- towards costs. The appeal filed by OP before the State Commission was dismissed confirming the order of District Forum.

Against the order of State Commission, the OP filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP vehemently argued that the complainant had not sown the seeds in his field, but sold it to other farmers at Rs.4,000/-. The complainant does not own the agricultural land which is suitable to marigold flowers. The other persons also sowed seeds from Badayun, but nobody has made a complaint about the non - germination of the seeds. It is further contended that the seeds were not sown under supervision of opposite parties? persons i.e. Shri J. P. Singh and Kali, but they were sent for inspection. He further argued that, complainant is not a consumer as, the activity is for commercial purpose. He relied upon Laxmi Engeenring authority 1995 (3) SCC 583.

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that he has sown the seeds as per direction of OPs. The purpose of agriculture cultivation is for his livelihood, it was not for a commercial purpose.

We have perused the observations made by State Commission and District Forum, which land, is on the name of complainant and his daughter, on the basis of the photocopies of Kisan bahi and khasra khatauni. Therefore, we hesitate to accept the arguments of counsel for the petitioner that it was for a commercial purpose. The farmers engaging themselves in agricultural activities, are not to be considered as commercial purpose. In this case, it?s a livelihood. The OP did not preserve the sample seeds nor produced any evidence to prove that the seeds are of good quality. It was the onus upon the OP to produce any research laboratory report about such marigold seeds.

It should be borne in mind that for a claim of petty amount, the farmer is dragged up to this Commission. Hon?ble Supreme Court, in many cases, made its yeomen observations regarding the petty claims, where, unnecessarily, the matters are being dragged for decades. Hon?ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Smt. Khazani & ANR. [Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010] by a bench of Hon?ble Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, while expressing disapproval at the tendency to drag every small matter, up to the Supreme Court, the bench observed :- "Unless serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects a large number of persons or the stakes are very high, court''s jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed at the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts, even at the level of the Supreme Court."

We do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.