SHAYAM BEEJ BHANDAR vs DARIA SINGH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased carrot seed for producing red carrots in his fields but germination in the field showed 90% of black carrot and 10% of red carrot. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner Shayam Beej Bhandar, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties and on the report of Local Commissioner held the petitioner deficient and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- as damages for loss of crop and Rs. 500/- as compensation. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, State Commission after hearing the parties modified the order of District Forum and reduced the compensation to Rs. 20,000/- and waived of the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- granted for mental agony. It is against this order that petition has been filed by the petitioner. The only point agitated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is the failure of the District Forum to follow procedure as laid down in Section 13 of the Act which has led to wrong conclusion. Had the seed been got tested as per provisions of law, result could have been different. Not following the laid down procedure is a serious lapse.

We have heard the Counsel and perused the material on record. In similar situations we have held that when there is no residual seed with the cultivator, the requirement of Section 13 relating to obtaining a test report from a notified Analysis Laboratory cannot be fulfilled. Firstly, there is no requirement of sale by the petitioner in this case that certain percentage of seed sold should be retained to meet such a contingency. Seed as a high value item and farmer should not be expected to retain any part. He sows to the last grain. Secondly, we fail to appreciate as to what prevented the petitioner from getting the stock of the same batch getting tested from a notified laboratory. Since the requirement is unimplementable it cannot be enforced and in such circumstances cannot be held against the complainant. We see no merit in this contention. There being no other point of law raised by the petitioner, we find the petition devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.