COSMO PLANTGENE LTD. vs ASHA RAM SHARMA

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Sirmour District at Nahan, dated 15.10.1998 whereby the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been jointly and severally liable for making payment of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-) alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant - Ashha Ram Sharma.

THE relevant brief facts set out in the complaint are that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) purchased sub-standard maize seeds from the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite parties). According to the complainant, the sprouting of the maize seeds, in question, sown by the complainant in 10 bighas of land, came out to be of sub-standard and yielded unhealthy, poor and inferior quality of crop plants infested with disease, which resulted in total loss of the entire lot of the maize crop cultivated by the complainant in his fields. The appellant and respondents have denied the allegations of the complainant and according to them, there is no defect in the maize seed supplied to the complainant and there were excessive rains and the water got pooled in the fields without being discharged which might have caused damage to the crop leading to its destruction. Further according to them, growing of crop depends upon many factors like soil, climate, agronomic practices being followed, efforts put in by the growers.

The District Forum after having perused the evidence, has relied upon on the report of the Pathologist (Maize), H.P. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Research Station Dhaulakuan, District Sirmour dated 11.10.1996 (Annexure C-2) given in para-2 thereof, which may be reproduced below : "Turcicum leaf blight Helminthosporicum terrcicum and Head smut caused by sphacelotheca speiliana. From the plants damages the severity was found to be more than 60%."

THE District Forum has come to the conclusion that since the maize plants were found to be attacked by Turcicum leaf blight Helminthosporicum terrcicum and Head smut caused by sphacelotheca speiliana and severity of this disease was found to be more than 60%, such disease must have been caused due to sub-standard seeds. We are afraid such a conclusion is not warranted from such a report. In case, the plants of maize were found to have been suffering from some disease, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the same disease was inherent in the seed itself and such disease was inherited by the plant from such seeds. It goes without saying that infestation of plants with some disease cannot only be attributed to defective seeds, but the disease can occur due to several other factors also like non-observance of proper package of practices, treatment of soil, adverse weather conditions etc. The case of the complainant or has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. Even the report of the Pathologist (Annexure C-2) is not indicative of the fact or conclusively proves that the disease in the maize plants was due to use of defective, sub-standard seeds. Such a finding is based merely on conjectures and surmises which cannot take place of proof. As such we are unable to sustain this finding. We are of the further opinion that the procedure as contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act should have been followed and that the seed should have been sent for proper analysis with a view to determine the defect in the goods. Further we find that there is a special Act enacted by the Central Government known as Seeds Act, 1966 (Act No. 54 of 1966) to cover such situations and remedy is available to the consumer under such statute. At any rate, on the basis of the evidence produced by both the parties, it is not possible for us to decide whether the seed was defective or of sub-standard quality which has resulted in the failure of the crop of the complainant. For resolving such disputed questions, the remedy for the complainant is either the Civil Court or a petition under Seeds Act, 1966.

IN the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The complainant, however, shall be at liberty either to go to the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances or to invoke the jurisdiction under the Seeds Act, 1966. Appeal allowed.