BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 498 of 2012 against CC 4/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. Ramachandra Reddy
S/o. Kishta Reddy
Agriculturist
H.No. 1-79, Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 499 of 2012 against CC 5/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. P. Ramulamma,
W/o. Sri Ramulu
H.No. 7-92, Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 500 of 2012 against CC 6/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1) Dudekula Niranjan
S/o. Pakeer Ahmed
Agriculturist
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 501 of 2012 against CC 7/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. M. Laxmamma
D/o. Ramachandra Reddy
Agriculturist
H.No. 1-79,
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 502 of 2012 against CC 8/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. Anthati Mallaiah
S/o. Narayana Goud
Agriculturist, H.No. 4-100
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 503 of 2012 against CC 9/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1) Mohd. Jahangir
S/o. Khadar,
Agriculturist, H.No. 4-9,
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 504 of 2012 against CC 10/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. K. Raghava Reddy
S/o. Bakka Reddy
Agriculturist
H.No. 1-4,
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 505 of 2012 against CC 11/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. Chakali Chinna Nagaiah
S/o. Sailu
Agriculturist
H.No. 3-71,
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
FA 506 of 2012 against CC 18/2011, Dist. Forum, Mehaboobnagar
Between:
The Manager
A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. T. Laxmamma
W/o. Pedda Jangaiah
Agriculturist, H.No. 3-53,
Uppumunthala (V&M)
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Agricultural Officer
Uppunuthala Mandal
Mahaboobnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
3. The Manager
M/s. Ganesh Seed Suppliers
D.No. 1/116, Vadegapally (M)
Goruntla Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 3
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. S. Lakshmi Prameela
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. Sudershan (Complainant)
Govt. Pleader (Op2)
M/s. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar (Op3)
CORAM:
SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member)
***
1) Aggrieved by the order in CC 4/2011 on the file of Dist. Forum, Mahaboob Nagar, Op1 preferred this appeal.
2) Since common questions of fact and law arise in all these appeals, they are disposed of by this common order. Since facts are similar F.A. 498/2012 is taken as lead case for narrating the facts.
3) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression.
4) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and has land in S.No. 25/A, 26/A, 29/A, 156/A, 157/A and 45/A situated at Uppunuthala village and mandal. The opposite parties sell Castor Seeds throughout A.P. through agricultural office counters. On 18.6.2010 the complainant has purchased Castor seeds of two packets each packet containing 4 Kgs at Rs. 82/- each totalling to Rs. 164/- from Op2. The complainant submits that he had sown the seeds in 2.20 acres of his land by taking all precautions for germination and growth of the plants. He also took the suggestions of local Agricultural Office and adopted all management practises and attended to the weeding of the crop, but still there was no proper yield and there were no fertile flowers and buds. The complainant submits that the Ops visited the fields and promised to send Scientists for necessary crop testing but did not do so. The complainant furthers submits that it is only because of the defective seeds that the complainant had sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/- per acre having spent expenses of Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards fertilizers, labour, and pesticides etc. The complainant approached the Ops to make good the loss but received no response. Hence this complaint seeking directions to Ops to pay crop loss of Rs. 1,25,000/- together with compensation and costs.
5) The Op1 A.P. Seeds Development Corporation filed their written version stating that the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P vide letter 29.4.2010 instructed Op1 to procure Castor seed by calling short tenders. Likewise Op1 floated tenders in the month of May, 2010 for supply of Castor PCS-4 T/L seed as per the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards prescribed by Central Certification Board. Op3 i.e., Ganesh Seeds suppliers quoted the lowest rate and an agreement was entered into between Op1 and Op3 on 12.5.2010 and on 11.6.2010 for supplying the required quantities. Op1 submits that the seed was actually procured and supplied by Op3 and that the role of Op1 is only that of a distributor. Op1 relies on clauses 2 & 3 of the agreement which stipulate that the Op3 has to supply the seed having genetic purity and also relied on clauses 8 to 10 which state that Op3 shall only be responsible for the quality of seeds and any complaint with regard to quality of seed such as germination, purity, moisture and genetic purity and if there is any crop failure the supplier shall pay the compensation as decided by the MOU Committee constituted for this purpose by the Dept. of Agriculture. Op1 got issued a legal notice to Op3 on 15.12.2010 learning about the crop failure. This Op denies that the complainant ever approached the corporation and submit that Op3 alone is responsible and no liability can be fastened on them, and seek for dismissal of the complaint.
6) Op2 Agricultural Officer filed counter admitting that the complainant purchased Castor seeds variety PCS-4 from Op2 and submits that he is only a mediator and sold the seeds to the complainant as per the directions of Op1. The seeds have been sent to scientist for testing but no report has been served, and that he has intimated the crop loss to his higher official and submits that there is no deficiency in service on his behalf.
7) Op3 filed its written version stating that the bill filed by the complainant does not contain the signature of the issuing authority and that the bill is not at all useful to the complainant and that the Lot No. is left blank. The packet of 4 Kgs is sufficient to sow in one acre of land. The complainant did not file the receipts showing the purchase of fertilizers and did not state the crop management practises adopted by him. The scientist states that there was good monsoon prevailing in the said year and as such there was excessive vegetative growth and that the plants were to 10 to 15 feet tall. Op3 contends that the failure of crop was due to various climatic conditions but not due to fault of the seeds.
8) Op3 further submits that the complainant never approached the Ops and that Op3 was not present during the visit of the Scientists and that he promptly replied to the legal notice got issued by Op1. Even as per the letter 29.4.2010 of Op1 it clearly shows that Op1 has to procure the required quantities of seeds and to supply the indented quantities for Kharif 2010. Op1 is denying their liability based on the agreement. The total value of the tender is Rs. 39 Lakhs and that Op3 has processed the seeds M/s. Jayaram Enterprises at Palasamudram in Ananthapur Dist., and that he is not aware about supply of seeds by Op1 to various farmers at Mahaboobnagar Dist. There is no evidence that the seeds purchased by the complainant are those manufactured by Op3. The Seed Officers of Op1 were very much present during the processing of the seeds and the seeds were despatched to respective destinations on the instructions of Op1. The samples were drawn by the Seeds Officer of Op1 corporation from each lot during the month of May, 2010 and they were sent to Op1 laboratory situated at Kurnool as well as at Jeedimetla. Both laboratories of Op1 gave the Seed Testing Analysis reports dt. 6.8.2010, 19.8.2010, and 17.9.2010 stating that the seeds supplied by Op1 are having 98% to 99% purity. As per the agreement entered into with Op1 the seed purity shall be 98%. The laboratory reports were furnished to Op3 and the same was sent to Op1 along with reply notice, and therefore it cannot be stated that Op3 had supplied substandard quality of seeds. Op3 in their reply notice dt. 24.1.2011 stated all these facts along with laboratory reports but did not receive any reply from Op1.
9) Op3 further contends that though the complainant has stated that he has lost crop worth Rs. 50,000/- per acre, the prevailing market rate or average yield analysis were not filed and the figures of 10 to 15 quintals per acre is imaginative. The average yield in Uppunuthala mandal for 2009,2010, and 2011 are 3 -4 quintals, 2 - 3 quintals and 1 - 2 quintals per
acre respectively. The complainant has not established his loss and the loss is also due to influence of the rain fall as observed by the scientists. Op3 submits that no deficiency of service could be attributed to him and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
10) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Ex. A1 & A2 and Exs. B1 to B18 and the pleadings put forward allowed the complaint in part directing Ops 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs and the case against Op3 is dismissed but without costs.
11) Aggrieved by the said order Op1 A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., preferred this appeal.
12) The brief point that falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the appellant and if so, whether the manufacturer is also liable?
13) It is the complainant’s case that he purchased 4 Kgs of Castor Seeds supplied by Op1 through Op2 Agricultural Officer on 18.6.2010. Ex. A1 evidences that the complainant has purchased 4 Kgs in two packets on 18.6.2010 for an amount of Rs. 164/-. It is the complainant’s case that he sowed in Ac. 2.20 and followed all the crop management practises and procedures and despite taking all the precautions there was no proper yield and there were no fertile flowers and buds. Ex. A2 pattadar pass book evidences the extent of land owned by the complainant. It is the complainant’s case that because of defective seed supplied by Op1 manufactured by Op3 he suffered a crop loss of Rs. 50,000/- per acre as the yield would have been 10 to 15 quintals per acre and submits that he has incurred Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards fertilizers, pesticides and labour etc.
14) It is appellant’s/Op1’s case that as per Ex. B1 dt. 29.4.2010the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture had indented to supply Castor Seeds along with other seeds and instructed to make necessary tie up arrangements. Ex. B2 is the agreement for supply of Castor T/L seed entered into between Op1 and Op3 wherein clauses 2, 3, 9, 10, 11 & 12 read as follows :
2. The second party agreed to supply the following quantities as per the time schedule given (1st schedule)
S.No. Crop Rate Quantity Schedule of
Delivery in A.P.
1. Castor Rs. 3,900/- 365.00 Will be communi-
PCS-4 T/L cated shortly.
(The above quantities should be supplied as per the instructions of Head Office/Units from time to time during the agreement period).
3. The Second Party agreed to supply seed of genetic purity and as per quality standards prescribed IMSCS, prescribed by Central Seed Certification Board.
9. The supplier shall be solely responsible for the quality of seeds supplied and any complaint with regard to quality aspects such as germination, purity (physical) moisture and genetic purity.
10. In the event of any complaint on quality of seed at field level, i.e., germination, crop failure due to any of the factors, the supplier shall pay the compensation as decided by MOU Committee/Team of Officials constitute for the purpose/Department of Agriculture.
11. The terms and conditions already specified in the tender/quotation form also part and parcel of this agreement.
12. The guard samples of each lot shall bear the signature of the drawing officer and the supplier/representative of the supplier, which shall be preserved in good condition for one year.
Ex. B3 is another agreement entered into between Op1 and Op3 dt. 11.6.2010. Ex. B4 is the legal notice got issued by Op1 to Op3 on 15.12.2010 stating that they received information about crop loss. In the legal notice Op1 stated as follows :
“Consequent on the complaints received from various farmers, a field inspection was undertaken by a Scientist deputed from Plant Breeding Section, Directorate of Oil Seeds Research, Rajendranagar, accompanied by the Director of Agriculture, R.R. Dist., JDA (Seeds) of Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P., Asst. Director of Agriculture, RR Dist. Ibrahimpatnam and other officials nominated by APSSDCL. The joint inspection yielded the following information:
· There is abnormal growth of castor plants. 70-80% maleness
· Low number of capsules were present in all the plants.
· In about 5 to 8% of plants there is no initiation of flowering at all.
· About 50% of the plants are different from the Castor PCS 4 variety.
The Joint Inspection also concluded that due to the defective seed supplied by you around 1321 farmers spread over 65 villages are affected and the loss is estimated at around Rs. 3,00,38,730/-.
In regard to the seeds supplied to the farmers of Mahaboobnagar dist. also similar complaints were received and a joint filed inspection was conducted by the officials of APSSDC Ltd. along with officials of Dept. of Agriculture and others. All the defects found in the growth pattern at R.R. Dist. were also observed at Mahaboobnagar district. The details of quantification of loss suffered by Mahaboobnagar Dist. farmers is awaited.
As a team of officials already visited the fields at RR Dist. and quantified the loss of yield to the farmers at Rs. 3,00,38,730/- therefore in terms of said agreement you are liable to pay the same to the farmers through my client and hence required you to pay the same at the earliest.”
Ex. B5 is another legal notice dt. 15.12.2010 got issued by Op1 to Op3 and Ex. B6 is the reply given by Op3 on 24.1.2011 stating that the laboratory reports given by Op1’s own labs state that the seeds were of good quality and also having good germination with purity of 98% to 99% and that there is no evidence that the seeds purchased by the complainant are from the lot manufactured by Op3. Ex. B7 is dt. 17.9.2010 and it is analysis report of Op1 laboratory at Kurnool with respect to Castor seeds lot No. May-10-01-ATP-Dist.
15) We observe from the record that there is no substantial evidence to establish that the Lot No. mentioned in Ex. B7 is the same as that of the seeds purchased by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that Ex. A1 bill is dt. 18.6.2010 whereas Ex. B7 is with respect to samples received on 17.8.2010 which is two months subsequent to the date of purchase and therefore we are of the considered view that much reliance cannot be placed on Ex. B7. Ex. B8 is also with respect to samples received on 16.7.2010 which is subsequent to Ex. A1 dt. 18.6.2010. Even Ex. B9 report is also subsequent to the date of purchase. As per Op3’ manufacturer’s own contention that all seeds are tested prior to purchase by Op1 and therefore if the lab test reports belonging to same lot and prior to purchase made by the complainant are filed as documentary evidence, some reliance could be placed on them. Keeping in view that Ex. B7 to B9 are dated subsequent to the purchase made by the complainant vide Ex. A1 we are of the considered view that relying on them is unsustainable.
16) The learned counsel for Ops 1 & 3 relied on Ex. B13 which is the report given by ADR, RARS dt. 12.10.2010 which reads as follows :
“Castor crop is highly influenced by environmental conditions and management practises. As there is good monsoon prevailed during the current year there is excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 8 to 9 feet tall. Flowering was observed but due to excessive vegetative growth flowering is delayed. Low branching was observed in all the fields. The mode number varied from 16-23 and in 80-90% of the plants there is maleness (50-40%) Due to excess maleness low number of capsules were present in all the spikes. In 5% of the plants there is no initiation of the flowering.”
Ex. B14 dt. 28.10.2010 is also another scientist report with respect to Maldakal mandal of Mahaboobnagar Dist., wherein the Scientist has given a similar report. It is the case of Op1 & Op3 that Castor Seed crop is very much dependent on rain fall and that the Scientists reports say that “ as there is good monsoon prevailing during the current year and there is excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 10 to 12 feet tall and therefore the crop loss is not due to defective seeds but due to excessive rain fall. But we observe from the scientist report nowhere it is stated that there was excess rain fall and they only stated that there was good monsoon and that the flowering was delayed due to excessive vegetative growth but low branching was observed, and low number of capsules were present in the spikes and there was no initiation of flowering in 5% to 10% of the plants. The scientists report does not state anywhere that the low flowering was because of excessive rain fall. In fact the Scientists report states that Node number is varied from 18 to 25 and in 80 – 90% of the plants there was excess maleness 60 -70% and due to this aspect low number of capsules were present in all the spikes. Therefore the contention of Ops 1 & 3 that the Scientists report is in their favour on the ground that there was excessive rain fall is unsustainable. The other contention of appellant/Op1 is that Op3 alone is liable on account of clauses 9 & 10 of the agreement which read as follows:
9. The supplier shall be solely responsible for the quality of seeds supplied and any complaint with regard to quality aspects such as germination, purity (physical) moisture and genetic purity.
10. In the event of any complaint on quality of seed at field level, i.e., germination, crop failure due to any of the factors, the supplier shall pay the compensation as decided by MOU Committee/Team of Officials constitute for the purpose/Department of Agriculture.
Whereas it is the case of Op3 that Op1 alone can be made liable as it is their Seed Officers who were present during the entire processing and that the seeds were also tested in their laboratories. But in the instant case Exs. B7 to B11 pertain to the period subsequent to the period purchased by the complainant and therefore they cannot be relied upon. Op3 has not filed any documentary evidence to establish that their seeds were of 98 to 99% purity which the farmers in these complaints have used and sown in their respective fields.
17) We rely on the decision of the Apex Court between National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 2012 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held “even if the procedure u/s 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act has not been adopted by the Dist. Forum annulment of a well-reasoned order cannot be sought for. The Apex Court referred to Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Alavapati Chandra Reddy in para 79 of the judgement and observed as follows:
In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per
acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
“Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory.
Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.
It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed:
“There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (c) of the Act. By the time, complainant could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity.
The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement.”
18) As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alavapati Chandra Reddy case the burden of proof shifts on the opposite party which in the instant case the appellant or Op3 have not chosen to do so. The appellant did not offer to produce the sample of seeds supplied or sold to the complainant before the Dist. Forum to get it tested or analysed in an appropriate lab. It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the part of opposite parties to assist the Dist. Forum by providing samples of varieties of seeds sold to the complainants. As per rule 13(3) of Seeds Rules 1968 it is expected from the appellant/Op3 to keep the samples of varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the complainant. When this testing becomes un-implementable the report of the Scientists can be relied upon. The Dist. Forum has rightly allowed the complaint stating that there is deficiency of service, however, has held Op1 & Op2 are liable. We are of the considered view that Ops 1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable as Op3 is the manufacturer of the seeds and both Ops have not taken any steps to follow
Section 13(1)© of the C.P. Act. Op2 is an Agricultural officer whose responsibility is only to supply seeds to the farmers, and therefore cannot be held liable for any deficiency that is attributed to seeds essentially manufactured by Op3 and marketed by Op1. The case against Op2 is dismissed. The Dist. Forum also awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards crop loss besides Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs which we see no reason to interfere with the quantum of amount awarded by the Dist. Forum.
19) In the result the appeals preferred by Op1 are dismissed and the order of the Dist. Forum is modified directing Ops 1 & 3 jointly and severally to pay the amount awarded by the Dist. Forum in all the matters and the case against Op2 is dismissed but without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
25/04/2013
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
