Shriram Bioseed Genetics vs Praveen Sukhdeo Gavhane & Anr

Heard Mr. Vikash Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner, through video conferencing.

These revision petitions have been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, at Mumbai, Circuit Bench Nashik, dated 28.02.2020, passed in First Appeal No. 1006 of 2014, First Appeal No.1007 of 2014, First Appeal No.1008 of 2014 & First Appeal No.1009 of 2014 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik dated 29.09.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos. 53 of 2013, 54 of 2013, 201 of 2012 & 204 of 2012), whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.321000/-, Rs.160500, Rs.321000/- and Rs.140437/- respectively as compensation for loss of income, Rs.7000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as the cost and the appeals filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

Praveen Sukhdeo Gavhane (respondent-1) in Revision Petition No. 577 of 2021 filed Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 2013, for directing Shriram Bio-seed Genetics (the petitioner) and M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (respondent-2) to pay Rs.814400/- as compensation. Anil Narayan Warungase (respondent-1) in Revision Petition No. 578 of 2021 filed Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 2013, for directing Shriram Bio-seed Genetics (the petitioner) and M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (respondent-2) to pay Rs.352360/- as compensation. Ranu Rambhau Shinde (respondent-1) in Revision Petition No. 579 of 2021 filed Consumer Complaint No. 201 of 2012, for directing Shriram Bio-seed Genetics (the petitioner) and M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (respondent-2) to pay Rs.1813840/- as compensation. Tukaram Satava Shinde (respondent-1) in Revision Petition No. 580 of 2021 filed Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 2012 for directing Shriram Bio-seed Genetics (the petitioner) and M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (respondent-2) to pay Rs.417010/- as compensation and any other relief which may be deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

It has been stated in the complaints that Shriram Bio-seed Genetics (opposite party-1), was a company engaged the business of research, development, production and sale of different varieties of hybrid seeds of vegetables and food grains. Mr. Balasaheb Shinde, Sales Representative and Mr. Magar & Mr. Pritam Suryawanshi, the representatives and advertiser of Shriram Bio-seed Genetics represented and assured the complainant about productivity and quality of "Atal" hybrid tomato seeds, developed by Shriram Bio-seed Genetics. M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (opposite party-2) was a dealer, who used to sell standard packed seeds, pesticides and fertilizers of the companies. The complainants purchased sealed packets of "Atal" hybrid tomato seeds on different dates in 2011, at the rate of Rs.680/- per packet, which were developed, packed and sealed by Shriram Bio-seed Genetics, from the shop of M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers, who had given its receipts. The complainant sowed the seeds for nursery in his field and after growing the seedlings, it were planted in their fields at village Kanchangaon, in January and February, 2011. As per requirements, the complainants incurred money in purchasing the seeds, preparing nursery, ploughing, harrowing and tilling the field, making the buds and planting seedlings, weeding, spraying pesticides, using fertilizers, manures, watering, barbed wiring, bamboo, jute, harvesting and transporting the crop. However, the tomato, as produced, was of very thin outer layer having durability of storage for one and half hour to two hours only. Due to which the tomato could not be sold in the market and wasted. The complainants made a complaint to local Agriculture Officer, regarding low quality of "Atal" hybrid tomato seeds, who inspected the field and crop of the tomato with due notice to Shriram Bio-seed Genetics and M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers, on 21.05.2011, however, no representative of Shriram Bio-seed Genetics appeared on the spot on that day. Agriculture Officer, after examination of the crop and product of tomato in presence of proprietor of M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers, prepared a Panchnama, on prescribed proforma, noticing low quality of tomato, having very less durability of storage. The complainants sent a notice, through District Consumer Committee to the opposite parties for payment of the loss suffered by them. In spite service of notice, they neither gave any reply nor paid the loss suffered by them. On these allegations, the complaints were filed.

The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioner stated that Shriram Bio-seed Genetics was a company engaged the business of research, development, production and sale of different varieties of hybrid seeds of vegetables and food grains and produced "Atal" hybrid seed of tomato, after following standard procedure, as prescribed under Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds Rules, 1968. After approval from Government agency, it was marketed, in different parts of Maharashtra and India. He did not receive any complaint, in respect of its low quality, except from the complainants. On the other hand it was recognised and acclaimed and had become a famous variety. The complaint did not preserve the empty packet of "Atal" hybrid seeds of tomato, produced by Shriram Bio-seed Genetics or its sample for examination as such it is not proved that the complainant had used the seeds produced by his company. Panchnama dated 21.05.2011 was recorded without any notice to the company and in the absence of his representative. In any case, it was based on visual examination and cannot be treated as an expert report. It has been denied that any of the representatives of the company represented the complainant and assured him about the productivity of the seed. The claim was made on the basis of 100% loss, which was incorrect. Other material allegations were denied for want of knowledge. M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (opposite party-2) filed its written reply on 06.07.2013, it has been admitted that opposite party-2 was a dealer, and used to sell standard packed seeds, pesticides and fertilizers of the companies but signature on the receipts produced by the complainant has been denied. Panchnama dated 21.05.2011 was recorded without any expert report, on visual examination and was of no value. He denied that the complainant made any report to him about low quality of seed or productivity of the tomato.

The complainants filed documentary evidence i.e. copy of seed purchasing receipt, issued by opposite party-2 and Panchnama dated 21.05.2011, recorded Agriculture Officer. The complainants filed their Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of Evidence of Agriculture Officer. The petitioner filed Circular of Government of India dated 27.03.1992, Report of the genetic Purity (Grow-out) test in respect of genetic purity of truthfully labelled seeds in the year 2010, Product Brochure in respect of "Atal" tomato seeds and newspaper reports. Affidavit of Evidence of Shridhar Vishnu Vaishampayan and affidavits Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Harale, Devram Bhaurao Gunjal, Kasar Ramdas Ramkrushna and Thombare Sandip Vitthal,. Opposite Party-2 filed Affidavit of Evidence of Ghanshyam Tejmal Surana.

District Forum consolidated the complaints and heard together and by judgement dated 29.09.2014, found that from the receipts, it was proved that the complainants had purchased "Atal" tomato packed seeds from the shop of M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (opposite party-2) as such the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties. When all the complainants moved complaint before District Level Disputes Redressal Committee, then the Agriculture Officer with due notice to the opposite parties made spot verification and prepared Panchnama dated 21.05.2011, mentioning therein that product of tomato had very low durability of storage. However, this Panchnama was relevant, in respect of the seeds, which were purchased within 4 months of the Panchnama. The complainants did not preserve seed sample as such expert report under Section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not possible. The opposite parties had knowledge of complaints before District Level Disputes Redressal Committee, even then they had not provided sample seed of "Atal" for laboratory test as such best evidence in their possession was withheld. In such circumstances Panchnama prepared by Agriculture Officer was only evidence on record, which proves that seeds were defective. On these findings, the complaints were allowed, in respect of the cases, where seeds were purchased within 4 months of the Panchnama. The petitioner filed appeals against the order of District Forum. All the appeals were consolidated and heard together. State Commission dismissed the appeals by order dated 28.02.2020. Hence, these revisions have been filed.

We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. From the receipts issued by M/s. Rajashri Fertilizers (opposite party-2), it was proved that the complainants had purchased "Atal" tomato seeds from the shop of opposite party-2 and sown it. District Forum found that the petitioner was a producer of "Atal" tomato seeds as such he could have given its sample for laboratory test but he had withheld the material evidence in its possession. Admittedly, there is no laboratory test report relating to the tomato seed "Atal", which is the product of the petitioner. It is well settled that best evidence rule does not apply in civil proceeding which has to be decided on preponderance and probabilities. For reference judgements of Supreme Court in Sunita Vs. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 486 and IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 309 are cited.

Laboratory test report may be best evidence. But in the absence of Laboratory test report, Foras below have relied upon Affidavit of Evidence of the complainants, Affidavit of Evidence of Agriculture Officer, receipts relating to purchase of "Atal" tomato seeds and Panchnama recorded on 21.05.2011. On the basis of these evidence findings were recorded that tomato seeds "Atal" which was purchased by the complainants were defective and the farmers suffered loss in purchasing the seeds, preparing nursery, ploughing, harrowing and tilling the field, making the buds and planting seedlings, weeding, spraying pesticides, using fertilizers, manures, watering, barbed wiring, bamboo, jute, harvesting and transporting the crop. As such it cannot be said that the findings of Foras below are based on no evidence. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 286 has held that concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Foras below cannot be interfered by National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

In view of aforementioned discussions the revisions are dismissed.