AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petitioner has been filed by the original complainant against the order dated 12.08.2009 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ?the State Commission?). By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of respondent (Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd) and set aside the order dated 14.03.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (in short, ?the District Forum?). The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner/complainant.
THE petitioner/complainant had purchased two bags of soybean J.S. 335 seeds manufactured and distributed by the respondents no 1 and 2. According to the petitioner he sowed seeds on his land measuring 2 acres as per instructions and directions given by the respondents regarding the use of the seeds. THE petitioner also irrigated the crop and applied fertiliser. However, the growth of the crop was not at all satisfactory in that while some of the soybean plants grew up too tall some other plants were too short and the pods did not fill up properly with the beans. As a result, the petitioner suspected that the seeds were adulterated and accordingly complained to the dealer of the seeds on 04.09.2004. In response to the representation, the dealer?s representative visited the field of the petitioner and according to the petitioner they admitted that the seeds were adulterated and agreed to pay some compensation. As the respondents did not take any further action, the petitioner complained on 01.11.2004 to the Panchayat Samiti, Shirol and Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. As a result, the District Seeds Complaints Redressal Forum (hereafter, ?the seeds committee?) inspected the field of the petitioner on 16.11.2004 and submitted its report. In that report, the seeds committee made the following observations: (i) Plants from adulterated seeds were generally taller than those from the regular (J.S. 335) seeds. (ii) THEre was either no growth or only partial growth of beans in the bean pods of plants from the adulterated seeds and the pods appeared to be completely dried up and the leaves had wilted. (iii) Both the plants from regular as well as adulterated seeds were to some extent affected by red blot. (iv) THE bean pods in plant from regular seeds appeared to be green and well-filled out with beans. (iv) THE farmer had not harvested the crop though the time for harvesting the crop was well over. Based on these observations, the seeds committee concluded: (a) THE farmer had brought to the notice of the manufacturer and the distributor of the seeds that the seeds were partly adulterated and the local representative of the manufacturer had orally accepted the fact of adulteration after inspection of the fields. This had caused substantial loss to the farmer. (b) It was not possible to assess the proportion of plants from adulterated seeds because the growth stage was over long ago and the plants, leaves and bean pods had matured fully (by the time of the inspection).
After hearing the parties and considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the District Forum partially allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay to the petitioner/complainant Rs.29,000/- as crop compensation, Rs.3000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.500/- towards cost.
The State Commission, however, set aside the order of the District Forum by observing as under: "4. Complainant except relying upon the report of District Seed Complaint Redressal Committee relating to seeds in question did not adduce any other evidence. As far as the report of seed complaint redressal committee is concerned, it endorse that the complainant had sown seeds not only of soybean J S 335 manufactured by the appellant/ Original OP no. 1, but had also sown other seeds which are described as adulterated seeds. It is specific defence of appellant-manufacturer that they are not responsible for any damage since respondent/original complainant had sown other seeds along with their soybean J S 335 seeds and which are described as adulterated seed and these seeds only could not bear the fruit. The complainant failed to show that bags of soybean J. S. 335 which they purchased contained the adulteration seeds. Thus, the alleged loss or damage sustained by the complainant could not be attributed to quality of seed manufactured by appellant/original OP No. 1. This loss is attributed to other factors e.g., use of different quality of seeds described as adulterated seeds and in respect of which appellant/ original opposite party no.1 cannot be held responsible. Under the circumstances, no liability for compensation for alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant can be fastened upon it. Such view finds support from a decision of apex court in the matter of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. vs Sadhu and Anr. [II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)]".
I have heard Ms Astha Tyagi, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms Vinita Sasidharan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 4 remained unrepresented. (i) Ms Tyagi submitted that the State Commission?s reliance on the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. vs Sadhu and Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) was completely misplaced as was its appreciation of the report of the seeds committee, which had inspected the field of the petitioner with the standing the soybean crop. (ii) In the case before the Supreme Court, the expert committee had undertaken the inspection of the seeds sold to the farmers and observed as under: "Hence, the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, Brackish Water, Moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand".
The committee, therefore, concluded that: "It may be concluded that variation in the conditions of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition".
On this basis the Apex Court held in this case that "???????.the National Commission was not right in observing that at the most the report could be said to be ambiguous. In our view, it was neither ambiguous nor vague but was clear, definite and specific. In no uncertain terms, it stated that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors." (ii) On the other hand, in this case, the seeds committee was headed by Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and included an Associate Professor of Botany Department of the Agriculture University, Kolhapur; Agriculture Officer (Campaigns) Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur; Assistant Regional Officer of the respondent seeds corporation and Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirol. The seeds committee clearly found that the seeds were adulterated and the adulterated seeds grew into taller plants but the beans in the pods of these plants either did not grow or grew only partially. (iii) In view of this, the fact of the seeds purchased by the petitioner being at least partly adulterated had been clearly established as also that of crop loss suffered by him on that account. This was clear from the unanimous conclusion of the seeds committee that also included the local representative of respondent no. 2.
ON the other hand, Ms Sasidharan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently argued that the seeds purchased by the petitioner had not been subjected to laboratory test as required under the provisions of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the report of the District Seeds Complaint Redressal Forum and its conclusion regarding adulteration in the seeds purchased by the petitioner could not be relied upon. She also added that no other farmer in the area who had purchased the same seeds had any complaint about their quality. (i) As regards the contention that the seeds in question were not subjected to any laboratory test to decide and arrive at their quality scientifically, Ms Tyagi drew the attention to the decision of this Commission in "PrathamBiotech Pvt. Ltd., vs Sayed Javed Sayed Amir and Anr. [IV (2008) CPJ 119 (NC)]. In paragraph 8 of this order, this Commission observed as under: "With regard to the second contention, it is to be stated that farmers are not expected to assume that seeds supplied by the petitioners would be defective or adulterated. Normally, they rely upon the brochure or its advertisement. Hence, before sowing the seeds they would not keep some seeds reserved for their testing. Hence, the contention that the District Forum ought to have sent the seeds for testing to a laboratory is of no substance. In any set of circumstances, the procedure prescribed under the Seeds Act is followed and the District Seeds Committee had held the necessary inquiry and had given its report. That report cannot be brushed aside on the contention that the seeds were not sent for testing to a laboratory."
(ii) In view of this, the District Forum rightly held that respondent 1 and 2 supplied adulterated seeds to the petitioner and awarded compensation on the basis of the report of the District Seeds Complaint Redressal Committee. Considering the fact that the District Seeds Complaint Redressal Forum included several senior technical officers of the Agriculture Department of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti concerned as well as an Associate Professor of the local Agriculture University and, notably, the local representative of the respondent Seeds Corporation, the Forum?s observations as well as conclusions cannot be ignored merely because a sample of the seeds manufactured and distributed by the respondents and used by the petitioner was not subjected to full-scale laboratory test to determine the extent of adulteration. This view finds support in the considered observations of this Commission in the case of "PrathamBiotech Pvt. Ltd., vs Sayed Javed Sayed Amir and Anr. The amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is also based on reasonable estimates of crop yield and the prevalent market rates. Unfortunately, the State Commission did not take these aspects into account in its impugned order.
AS a result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is affirmed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to make the payment awarded by the District Forum within four weeks, failing which the entire amount of Rs. 32,500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment.