Suresh vs M/S. Shyam Beej Bhandar & Anr.

Vide this order I propose to dispose of the above-mentioned Revision Petitions since the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these Revision Petitions. These Revisions Petitions are arising out of the common order of the State Commission dated 04.04.2019. Vide the impugned order the State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum dated 28.08.2018 and dismissed all the Complaints. Aggrieved by the order present Revision Petitions have been filed.

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners (hereinafter called the 'farmers') are farmers by profession and had been toiling the agricultural land since long. They had purchased groundnut seeds of the quality Tag 37A from the Respondent. Their contention was that the Respondents had at the time of purchase of the seeds, assured them that the seeds were of superior quality and the crops will completely ripe within 100-110 days. They had also alleged that after sowing the seeds they had applied the pesticides and took proper care but when they noticed that the seeds have not developed even after 100 days. They all then filed a joint complaint before Collector, Alwar. A Committee of the officers of the Agriculture Department was formed and the inspection of the crops was done. The Committee, in its report, had concluded that out of the seeds sowed 8 to 10% of the produce were found to be of some other species and the plants which had grown out of the seeds of TAG 37A all the pods had not developed fully which concluded deficiency on the part of the Respondents. The farmers filed the Complaint on the basis of the report.

The Opposite Party filed its written version wherein they had denied that the seeds supplied was of lower quality. It was contended that the Complainants had not disclosed the dates when they sowed the seeds. It was further contended that on the day of inspection barely 100 days were over and that as per the quality of the seeds the crop could have been obtained only after 100 to 110 days of sowing. They had also taken the plea that the excessive rain poured during that period is also the reason for the less produce. They had denied that there was any deficiency on their part.

Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum on the basis of the evidences on record and after hearing the arguments of the parties concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

The District Forum has based its findings on the report of the expert committee. It has reached to the conclusion that since the expert committee had clearly held in their report that the plants grown from different type of seeds of plants were found in the field where TAG37A was sowed clearly shows that all the seeds supplied were not of the quality of TAG 37A but it had mixture of other seeds as well and that amounted to deficiency. The District Forum has also relied on the report of the expert committee wherein the Committee has observed that in a single plant grown from seeds of TAG 37 A only 5% of the pods were found completely developed and the remaining pods were semi-developed. The element of damages to the extent of 20 to 25% in the crops due to heavy rains as observed by expert committee was considered and the losses suffered by the farmers was calculated and relief was granted.

These findings when challenged by the Respondent before the State Commission, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

It is argued on behalf of the farmers that the findings of the State Commission is based on the conjectures and surmises and that it had failed to consider the report of the expert committee in proper perspective. It is submitted that the order of the State Commission is not based on the evidences on record. It is argued that the State Commission had rejected the report that the seeds supplied by the Respondent were of mixed quality on the ground that the Complainants must have sowed the seeds of other quality with the Tag 37A and that this part of order is not based on any evidence on record but is merely a surmise and conjecture on the part of State Commission. It is also contended that the findings that the crop failed due to excessive rains and spread of Tika disease is also contrary to the expert opinion since the expert committee had observed the loss of crop due to these reasons was to the extent of 20-25% in relation to the other corps whereas in relation to the crops of Tag 37A the expert opinion has stated that the loss was of 40 to 45%. It is submitted that the loss of the crop due to outside interference is a relevant factor only in calculating the compensation and it cannot be said that rain and Tikka disease was the sole reasons of failure of crops.

It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the findings of the State Commission are very well based on the evidences and not on conjectures and surmises. It is argued that the Complainant farmers had failed to prove that the seeds were of inferior quality or that they had taken due care and that there is no evidence on record that 100 to 110 days have passed from the date of the sowing till the date of inspection. It is also argued that the losses they claim is highly excessive.

I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant documents.

There are two issues in this case. First is whether the seeds sold by the Respondent to the farmers were of inferior quality as claimed by farmers and secondly whether the seeds had not grown fully due to excessive rain and the onslaught of Tika disease and not enough time passed as claimed by the respondent. When the farmers noted that their produce is not coming up to the mark they had made a complaint to the District Collector, Alwar on 04.10.2013. Thereafter on the order of the District Collector a committee was formed which included the officials of the concerned Departments whose names and designations are mentioned in the Inspection Report. The Committee conducted an inspection on 08.10.2015 in the presence of the representatives of the manufacturer of seeds, Respondent No. 2 and also in the presence of the dealer respondent and a detailed report was given. The Committee had examined all the aspects and considered the documents of the farmers which included bill where lot number of TAG 37A seeds as SR-51 and also examined the empty boxes of the seeds wherein the particulars of the address of the manufacturer is given. The Committee found that on the bills the quality of the seeds of the TAG-37A is described as TL(Truth Full). They found that as per notification it is of approved quality. It has also held that seed producing company is responsible for the packaging of the seeds as TL(Truth Full). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to provide certificate of TL(Truth Full)/ TAG 37A seeds to the farmers. The following inspection was done by the Committee and on the basis of that Inspection Report the following findings were given:-

"(A) On the basis of documents received annexed with the complaint:-

In the bills annexed by the farmers along with the complaint the Lot No. of species of TAG 37 A wherein it is recorded as SR-51 but the complete details of the seed manufacturer have not been recorded; whereas on the empty bags being provided by the farmers whereupon the address of the manufacturer is found printed as Packed and marketed by Sh. Ram Agro Biotech, Plot No. 7, Anand Sagar Tenament, Government Jeen Road, Himmat Nagar, Gujarat along with the customer care No. 02772-241948.

According to the complaint of the farmers the TAG-37A species mentioned in the bills of the farmers was recorded as TL(Truth Full). The said species is a certified species on the basis of notification. The certified seeds are certified by the Government Seed Certification Institute by issuing a TAG: whereas the seed company itself is accountable for the packing of seeds as TL(Truth Full). Hence the seed manufacturing company is completely responsible for the said allegation.

(B) On the basis of site inspection/physical verification of the fields of the farmers mentioned in the complaint:-

The physical verification/inspection of the fields of all the farmers as mentioned in the bills of farmers recorded in the complaint was conducted wherein the pointwise details of which are sent in the following manner:-

It was found on physical verification/inspection of all the fields that 8-10 per cent of the pods present in the fields are of different species in addition to the pods grown with TAG27A and in the plants of other species that were found wherein the species of semi-developing plants were found founds; whereas TAG 37A is completely a Jhumka species.

On completely pulling out the species of groundnut grown with TAG37A on the basis of a random number and on the basis of counting of the PODS the conclusion was derived that on an average of 50 percent PODS were found completely developed in a single plant and the semi-development of the remaining PODS were seen; whereas the said species ripen in 100 to 110 days timeline.

The other species sown by the farmers on other fields were also got inspected wherein the crops of groundnut were found satisfactory and a complete development of the PODS was found but due to frequent rains there is a possibility of a shortfall of 20-25 percent in the production; whereas in the case of TAG37A the said possibility may be around 40-50 percent shortfall. The arboreal growth of the species mentioned in the complaint was found satisfactory and from which it is very clear that in view of the fertility of land and the condition of the crops is completely favouring the groundnut crops and sufficient sources of irrigation have been found available with the farmers.

It is found on inspection of all the fields of the farmers that weeds were growing in large number over the fields.

The germination of the seeds has remained normal over all the fields as disclosed by the farmers. The number of PODS were found adequate over the fields.

On examination of the PODS over the fields of the farmers it was observed that the PODS were infected with the Tika disease.

This year due to frequent rains in the months of July-August the arboreal growth has been found in large. Such circumstances are found in the crops of Kharif and Jwar etc. also. Due to large arboreal growth in the PODS the breeding condition is largely affected. Therefore for the said reason there are possibilities of a shortfall of 20 to 25 percent in the production of Kharif groundnut and Jwar crops.

The said conclusion is drawn on deliberating all the said facts that:

On the basis of physical verification the said described species sown by the farmers wherein 8-10 percent of plants were found mixed belonging to some other species. Therefore, the circumstances appear that the seeds are defective.

On the site inspection of the fields, on the basis of random number due to semi-development of the pods in the plants in comparison to other species there are possibilities of yielding a deficit of 20-25 percent in the said species.

In relation to the quality of the seeds mentioned in the complaint of farmers, the exact conclusion can be derived in relation to quality on the basis of taking sample of some species seed and on testing through Grow Out Test (G.O.T.) by the Pod Breeding Scientist.

Due to some-development in the pods of the said species the market price of the crops will also be affected and due to which the farmers will not receive fair price."

It is apparent that at the time the inspection was done and the report was given to the representatives of the Respondents, they could have contended before the Committee that 100-110 days had not expired and, therefore, the produce is not fully matured. Therefore, the plea taken in the W.S. to this effect that 100-110 days had not expired from the date of sowing of the seeds is an after-thought. Also no evidence is led by the respondents to prove that seeds were not sown 100 or 110 days prior to the date of inspection. The findings of the State Commission on this count is based on conjecture and surmises. The inspection was done in the presence of the representatives of the Respondent and the Respondents despite having the occasion to raise objections did not raise any objection means that they had accepted the findings of the expert committee. The expert committee on inspection of the seeds clearly found that in the field besides the TL(Truth Full) and TAG 37A there were other types of plants which had grown. The argument of Ld. Counsel that the findings of the State Commission that the plants of other quality had been sown by the farmers has no basis and is totally a figment of imagination. It is against common sense that a farmer who had invested such a large amount in seeds of superior quality would temper their produce by mixing other types of seeds. Also there is no evidence produced by the Respondents that it is the farmers who had sown other types of seeds along-with the seeds which the Respondents had supplied to the farmers. That the other types of plants had also grown in the field conclusively proves that the seeds which the Respondent had sold to the farmers as a superior quality seeds had contained other types of seeds. They had done the adulteration in the seeds by mixing other types of seeds with the seeds they had sold to the farmers. The expert committee has also stated in the report that seed producing company is responsible for packaging, therefore, it is the Respondent No. 1 who is solely responsible for the contents in the packet. This fact clearly indicates deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No.1 and, therefore, the findings to the contrary by the State Commission is nothing but conjecture and surmises and so perverse.

Regarding the quality of the seeds which the Respondent No. 1 have supplied to the farmers the experts have observed on examining the pods of the plants grown from the seeds supplied by the Respondent that in the plant all the pods were not fully developed. They found that few of the pods developed fully on a plant. The fact that few of the pods developed on a plant further falsify the contention of the Respondent that 100-110 days have not elapsed from the date of sowing. Had the 110/110 days not been elapsed from the day of sowing of the seeds till the date of inspection of the expert committee would not have found even a single fully developed pod on a plant. This factum shows that seeds were not of the quality as promised and substandard quality of seeds, mixed with other type of seeds were sold in packet. It also amounts to selling defective goods and unfair trade practices. 13. The effect of the rain, heat and Tika disease had also been considered by the expert committee and in order to consider all the effect of these factors the expert committee had examined other fields which had grown other types of seeds, and has observed that these factors are responsible to a loss of 20 to 25%. The expert committee had examined groundnut fields having quality of seeds other than TAG 37A and found that the loss occurred to those fields are only 20 to 25% and the loss estimated to the produce of TAG 37A was of 40 to 45%. This further shows that the seeds supplied to the farmers by the Respondents were not of high quality and this further amounts to deficiency in service.

There was enough evidences on record to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The findings of the State Commission whereby it had concluded that there is no evidences to prove the deficiency in services on the part of the Respondent is based on conjectures and surmises and is perverse. Order of the State Commission is hereby set aside and the order of the District Forum dated 28.08.2018 in all Complaints is hereby confirmed. These Revision Petitions stand disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be placed in all the Revision Petitions.