AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member
These Revision Petitions have been filed against the impugned Orders dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in Appeal Nos. 1132-1133 of 2015, vide which the Appeals filed by the Complainants were allowed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum dismissing the complaints was set-aside.
Cross Revision Petitions bearing No. 42 and 43 of 2022 have also been filed by the Complainant(s) (Respondents in RP No. 2539 of 2017 and RP No. 2540 of 2017, respectively) against the same impugned Orders, seeking enhancement of the compensations awarded by the State Commission. The Complainants, who are siblings, have submitted separate Petitions, accompanied by Applications No. IA/572/2022 and IA/573/2022, respectively, requesting condonation of delay exceeding 1600 days in filing the Revision Petitions. The reason for delay according to them, is that their former Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sharma, had demanded exorbitant fees beyond their means for the filing of the Petitions seeking enhanced compensation; That they were unable to travel to Delhi due to the Covid-19 pandemic; and that being senior citizens, they are reliant on medication due to their poor health.
The facts and question of law involved in these Petitions are similar except for minor variations in the dates and consideration amounts; Therefore, these Petitions are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2539 of 2017 and RP No. 42 of 2022 are treated as the lead cases and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from the original Complaint under them.
The brief factual background is that the Complainant, engaged in land cultivation through Theka arrangements in Village Sukhchain, District Sirsa, acquired 13 acres of land for cultivation. In June 2012, ahead of sowing Guar seeds, the Complainant procured four bags of HG-563 Guar Seeds from the Opposite Party No. 1, acting on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, with assurances of seed quality and productivity. Despite adhering to proper sowing practices and irrigation methods, the Complainant noticed a significant reduction in Guar plant yield, with a subsequent observation of 90% lower crop output in the Guar plants on-site. Seeking redress, the Complainant approached the Agricultural Officer in Sirsa, who conducted an inspection of the field in the presence of the Complainant, officials from the Opposite Party No. 1, and other village residents. Following the inspection, the Agricultural Officer determined that the diminished crop output was attributable to the supply of spurious or inferior-quality seeds by Opposite Party No. 1. Despite assurances from Opposite Party No. 1 officials regarding compensation for the crop loss, no such compensation was forthcoming. Discontented by the crop loss incurred due to defective seeds, the Complainant filed his complaint in the Ld. District Forum, Sirsa.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 27.11.2015 dismissed the Complaint. The Respondent filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which, vide the impugned Order dated 30.03.2017, allowed the same and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,56,000/- towards loss, Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below –
“7. If he purchased 40 kgs of seeds it does not mean that the improper growth was due to this reason. One may sow less seed or more seed, but, growth of plants should be same if the seeds are pure and not mixed. This argument can be addressed qua yield only and not the growth of the plants. If complainant has alleged that he watered the crop properly it does not mean that he did not follow proper procedure for cultivation of this crop. It has no-where come in evidence that he gave excess water. Such like averments are raised in routine.
Now the question comes about reliance upon report Ex.C-8. It is specifically mentioned therein that only 28 to 30 % plants were standing and others had fallen. It is also reported that plants were affected with disease of Blite. It is specifically mentioned therein that this loss was due to mixed seeds. This report cannot be thrown away if instructions issued by Director Agriculture, as mentioned in Ex.R22, were not followed because, office of O.Ps. wrote letter Ex.C-6 dated 25.09.2012 to it's centers that farmers were complaining about purity of seeds and be got checked. It means that prima facie department was also admitting problem in the seeds. However, before sale O.Ps. got the seeds tested but after this letter they did not bother to get them tested. When this fact came to notice of O.Ps. they should have got tested the remaining lot. If complainant did not follow the procedure as contained in section 13 (1) (c) of the Act there was no hitch for OPs. to make such request because ordinarily farmer use the entire stock. It has been recently opined by Hon'ble National Commission in Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh 2016 (1) CPR 698 (case law cited by respondent's counsel) that if any department has not followed proper procedure it does not mean that complaint of the consumer should be dismissed when his case is otherwise proved. It is specifically mentioned therein that there is no way a farmer can compel the authorities to follow the prescribed procedure. An aggrieved person can only approach the concerned authorities and then it is their duty to follow the procedure and get the seeds checked. Similar view is also expressed by Hon'bil National Commission in Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatics Plants (CIMAP) and Anr. Vs. Jagdish Singh 2016 (2) CLT 377. It is opined therein that onus is also on O.P. to get the seeds tested from competent authority and produce the report. Hon'ble National Commission opined in National Seed Corporation ltd. Vs. Meera and 3 ors. 2016 (4) CPR 226 (case law cited by complainant's counsel) that if after inspection of fields it is reported that the seeds were of different varieties or there was mixture the same cannot be thrown away particularly when the said report is not challenged by the O.Ps. or rebutted or controverted by any other evidence. The present case is squarely covered by the opinion of Hon'ble National Commission expressed in aforesaid case laws. Complainant discharged his duty by approaching concerned authorities and producing relevant evidence, but, O.Ps. failed to rebut the same. O.Ps. cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws pertaining to the year 2014 because in those cases there was no evidence to the year 2014 because in those cases there was no evidence to presume that the seeds were mixed. In those cases the concerned department has not asked it's own department to get the seeds tested, whereas it is so in the present case as mentioned above.
Now the question comes about the loss suffered by complainant. Though he alleged that rate of crop was Rs. 15,000/- per quintal, but, he has not produced any evidence to prove this fact. Just on the basis of his pleadings this fact cannot be admitted. At the most it can be presumed that the rate of the crop might can be around Rs.four thousand per quintal, which was normally prevailing. As per report Ex.C-8 28-30% plants were standing and others had fallen. Some yield can be given by the remaining plants. So the loss can be presumed to the extent of 40%. As per booklet shown by O.Ps. ‘guar’ yield per acre of this seed should be 7 to 8 quintals. If we calculate total price of crop then it comes approximately Rs.30,000/- per acre. 40% of this value comes to Rs.12,000/-. If we multiply this figure with the acres that will be actual loss i.e. 12,000x13 acre=1,56,000/-. The complainant is also held entitled for Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.”
Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. State Commission, the Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition raising the following contentions–
a. The State Commission's failure to acknowledge that the complaint lacks legal validity due to the absence of necessary parties constitutes a substantial error. The Petitioner, not being the producer of the seeds in question, underscores the necessity for the inclusion of the cooperative entity responsible for seed production, namely "IFFDC," as a party to the complaint. Impleading "IFFDC" as a necessary party was imperative for the equitable and thorough adjudication of the matter at hand;
b. The State Commission's oversight lay in its failure to recognize that the complaint had omitted crucial information regarding the alleged inspection report conducted by officers from the Agricultural Department. This report purportedly indicated that the Complainant's crop was afflicted with "Bacterial Blight," a disease that cannot conclusively be attributed to seed quality without undergoing appropriate scientific testing. The absence of this critical detail in the complaint significantly impacts the assessment of the case and undermines its veracity;
c. The State Commission's error lies in its undue reliance on the report dated 17.10.2012 by the Committee of Agricultural Officers, which is inherently flawed. This report lacks essential details such as the Bouding/Khasra No./Killa No. necessary for identifying the specific location where the purported inspection took place. Furthermore, the Petitioner was not duly notified to participate in the inspection process, raising questions about the integrity and impartiality of the investigation conducted by the Committee. Therefore, attaching disproportionate probative value to this deficient report undermines the principles of fairness and impartiality in the adjudication process.
Ld. Counsel for Petitioners in RP No. 2539 of 2017 has argued that the Respondent instituted a false and vexatious complaint against the Petitioner, motivated by an intent to unjustly obtain compensation and harass the Petitioner. Additionally, the State Commission erred in granting relief to the Respondent based on an inspection report that lacks legal validity, as it was conducted without proper notification to the Petitioner and contravenes the directives outlined in the Circular No. 52-70/TA(SS) dated 3rd January 2002 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana. Moreover, the said report lacks essential details such as identifying marks and descriptions of the inspected land, and the inspection team lacked expertise in Guar Crop; That the Respondent does not fall within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as Guar seeds are not intended for human consumption but are instead a commercial crop, thus negating the existence of a consumer dispute between the parties; That the Guar seeds in question had been certified by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, a State Government Undertaking, and were acquired by the Respondent from IFFDC, an independent entity. The Petitioner, in this context, merely facilitated the sale of seeds produced by IFFDC; That the Guar crops do not require irrigation and are typically grown on dry land (birani). Hence any adverse effects on the yield, such as heavy rainfall during the flowering stage, cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds sold by the Petitioner; That the Respondent's purchase was of only 40 kgs of the HG-563 guar variety seed for 13 acres of land, whereas the recommended quantity being 65-78 kgs, demonstrates negligence on the part of the Respondent. Furthermore, the sowing of seeds on 02.06.2012, followed by an alleged inspection of the crop on 17.10.2012, deviates from the recommended planting timeline of the HG-563 variety, indicating non-compliance with agricultural guidelines;
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the present Petition lacks merit as the State Commission correctly determined that the Petitioners sold a mixture of seeds, rather than the promised HG-563 variety, to the Respondent. This conclusion was supported by the absence of Batch Numbers on the purchasing bill, indicating the sale of mixed seeds, as observed by the State Commission; That the State Commission failed to properly assess the market value of Guar seeds in 2012, as evidenced by previous Orders of this Commission in “Om Parkash v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers & Anr., RP No. 1126/2016” and “Vijay Kumar & Anr. v. IFFCO & Anr., 2019 [2] CPR 735” which had valued, Guar seeds at Rs. 17,000/- per quintal. Based on this valuation, the Respondent is entitled to Rs. 15,000/- per quintal, amounting to a total of Rs. 16,20,000/- for the 13 acres of land where 8-10 quintals of Guar crop per acre were expected from HG-563 seeds; That the Petitioners misrepresented the qualities of the HG-563 seeds to the Respondent, claiming resistance to "Bacteria Blite" and predicting plant heights of 3 to 4 feet. However, contrary to these assurances, the plants grew to heights of 6 to 7 feet, exhibited poor fruition, lacked resistance to disease, and failed to mature within the expected timeframe, resulting in a significant loss of crop estimated at 90% of the anticipated yield; The fact that numerous complaints were received by the Haryana Agricultural Department from Guar farmers in 2012 regarding the quality of HG-563 seeds corroborate the Respondent's assertion of having received defective seeds; That despite the significant loss incurred by the Respondent, the Petitioners obtained a stay order from this Commission, allowing them to evade accountability for the past five years, while the Respondent continues to bear the financial burden of seeking compensation and justice.
Ld. Counsel for Petitioner in RP No. 42 of 2022 has argued that the State Commission erroneously evaluated the value of crops at Rs. 4,000/- per quintal, disregarding the prevailing rate of Guar at Rs. 15,000/- per quintal in the year 2012. The Petitioner is entitled to Rs. 15,000/- per quintal, totalling approximately Rs. 17,55,000/- (117x15,000) for his 13 acres of land as the HG-563 seeds typically yield 8 to 10 quintals of Guar crops per acre; That the Petitioner has explained the cause of delay of over 1600 days in filing of the Petition by Application for condonation of delay. The reason for delay was exorbitant fees demanded by his former counsel, Mr. Ajay Sharma, for assailing the impugned Order, as also his inability to travel to Delhi for such purpose; That the Petitioner communicated his request for discharge of his previous counsel vide a letter dated 01.11.2021 to this Commission; That the Petitioner is a senior citizen who is reliant on medication due to poor health; That Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, does not apply in this instance as he was not informed about the impugned Order dated 30.03.2017 by his Counsel and became aware of it only upon the Respondents obtaining a stay order from this Commission, followed by receiving Notices in RP/2539-2540/2017.
Ld. Counsel for Respondents in RP No. 42 of 2022 has argued that the Petition is manifestly time-barred under Section 69 of the Act as the impugned Order was passed on 30.03.2017, and the Revision Petition has been filed in the year 2022, reflecting an inordinate delay of 5 years. The Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this basis alone; That the current Petition has been filed with an ulterior motive under the guise of seeking enhancement of compensation, despite there being no fault on the part of the Respondents.
This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.
The Petitioners in RP Nos.2539 and 2540 of 2017, who are the Opposite Parties in the original complaint, have assailed the impugned orders of the Ld. State Commission on the following grounds -
i) That the complaints as filed were not maintainable since the manufacturers of the seeds in question were not impleaded being necessary parties;
ii) That the constitution of the Inspection Team, which gave its report, was not in accordance with the circular of the Director, Agricultural, Haryana dated 3.1.2002, on account of which, the same could not be relied upon;
iii) That the ownership of the complainants or location of their lands were also not specified in the said report submitted by Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Sirsa on 17.10.2012.
This Commission has considered the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of Petitioners/Opposite Parties, but is of the opinion that the same are not convincing enough to set aside the decision of the Ld. State Commission passed in favour of the Complainants. This is so because admittedly the seeds in question had been purchased by the Complainants directly from the present Opposite Parties/Petitioners, and they had no privity with the manufacturers themselves, who had supplied the said seeds to the Opposite Parties for further sale to the farmers.
Regarding the contention that the Inspection Team was not constituted in terms of the Circular of the Agricultural Director, Haryana dated 3.1.2002, such contention was earlier considered by this Commission in “Indian Farmers Fertilizers Vs. Vijay Kumar & Anr. in RP No.912 of 2018”, in which relying upon the earlier decision in “Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Sadiwala & Anr. and connected cases, RP Nos.1033, 1034, 1037, 1038 & 1039 of 2015”, the following extracts were noted -
“………..5 as noted earlier failure to follow the procedure prescribed under the circular by the Government of Maharashtra will not be fatal to the complainants in a consumer complaint, if he is otherwise able to prove that the seeds purchased by him were defective. Therefore, even the inspection carried out in the absence of the representative of the petitioner-Committee could be taken into consideration by the Fora below though it can hardly be disputed that the inspection report would have been considered to be more authentic, had the representative of the petitioner-Committee been present at the time of inspection…….”
As far as the identity of the field inspection by the team of Agricultural Department is concerned, there could be no reason for the complainants to take the said team to the field of some other person nor any other person allow the complainants to project his field as the field of the complainants.”
The aforesaid Revision Petition at the instance of “Indian Farmers Fertilizers”, who again are the Petitioners in the present Revision Petitions, was consequently dismissed. The facts and circumstances as also the contentions raised on behalf of Petitioners/Opposite Parties are also virtually identical in RP Nos. 2539 and 2540 of 2019 with those in “Indian Farmers Fertilizers” (supra) and therefore, this Commission finds no reasons to take any different view.
Regarding RP Nos. 42 and 43 of 2022, filed at the instance of the Respondents/Complainants, there is no gainsaying that these two Revisions Petitions are manifestly time barred. These Petitioners are aggrieved that the compensation awarded to them by the Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order is very meagre and to substantiate this contention they have now sought to place on record various documents in the form of bills/invoices showing purchase of Gowar seeds from the Opposite Parties in which no batch numbers, tag numbers etc. were mentioned. They have also filed Certificate from the Market Committee, Kalanwali regarding the rate of Gawar crop in Mandi as on 6.12.2012, apart from the copy of the Form-J issued by the Market Committee, Kalanwali Mandi showing that the rate of Gawar as on that day was Rs.15050/- per quintal. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the same documents were not made available by the Complainants before the Ld. Fora below. In any event, these Revision Petitions filed five years after the impugned Order was passed by the Ld. State Commission, are manifestly barred by time and the grounds made out to justify such inordinate delay, such as inability of the Complainants to file their Revisions on account of demand of exorbitant fee by their Counsel or their inability to travel to Delhi for that purpose, and their not being informed about the impugned Order passed way back on 30.3.2017 are ex facie not tenable or believable. These two Revision Petitions therefore, are liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
Resultantly, all the four Revision Petitions filed both at the instance of the original Complainants, as well as the Opposite Parties are found to be bereft of any substantive merit and are therefore, ordered to be dismissed without costs after affirming the impugned Order passed by the Ld. State Commission.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.