PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER

        This revision petition is filed against an order dated 17.02.2021 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in FA no. 577 of 2019, directing the Petitioners, who are Respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein to compensate Respondent no.1 to whom they allegedly sold cotton seeds of poor quality. The District Forum, Ferozepur in CC no. 672 of 2017 dated 19.07.2019 filed by Respondent no.1/ Complainant (Baljinder Singh), ordered that Respondent no.2 (Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers) to compensate Respondent no.1 and extended the liability on Complainant. The revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 of the State Commission which extended the liability on Respondent no.2 to the revisionists and Respondent no.3 (M/s Kukkar Trading Company) and to stay Execution proceedings in EA no. 71 of 2021 before the District Forum, Ferozepur.

2.     The Revisionists – M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt., Ltd. - is a producer of high quality, hybrid seeds with expertise in hybrid cotton seeds. Respondent no.1/Complainant is an agriculturist in District Fazilka who purchased seeds produced by the Revisionist through Respondent No.3. It is his claim that the seeds he purchased were fake/ duplicate bearing the name of the Petitioner as a result of which he incurred loss. Respondent no.2 M/s Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers is a trader in items of agricultural inputs in Mahuana Bodla Village, District Fazilka. Respondent no.3, M/s Kukkar Trading Co., is the distributor for Petitioner’s KH 28/7 seeds in Fazilka.

3.     The facts of the case are that Respondent 1 purchased hybrid KH 28/7 cotton seeds from Respondent 3 for use on his agricultural fields. These seeds were manufactured by the Revisionist and distributed by Respondent 3 and were sold to Respondent 1 by Respondent 2 who was a trader in agricultural inputs, including seeds. The Complainant herein filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the seeds were not genuinely hybrid and that the seed sold to him under the brand of the revisionist were in fact fake as they failed to provide the yield expected. The District Forum, Ferozepur vide its order dated 19.07.2019 in CC 672 of 2017 after perusing records and hearing all the parties accepted the complaint and awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for low crop yield done to poor quality of seeds along with interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint till realisation of the compensation Rs.5000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation costs against Respondent no.2 (M/s Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers). FA No. 577 was filed against this order by M/s Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers before the State Commission, Punjab challenging its liability to pay compensation to the Complainant as directed by the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the appeal and held that Respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Rasi Seeds, the Revisionist herein was liable and imposed the liability to pay compensation on all the Opposite Parties. This order is challenged by the manufacturer of the seeds i.e. the Revisionist on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner is based in Coimbatore, material illegality in holding a non-manufacturer liable for defects in the quality of seeds by the State Commission, failure to conduct the mandatory laboratory test and no proof of any loss actually having been suffered by the Respondent No 1/Complainant (Baljinder Singh).

4.     The Revisionist is before this Commission with the following prayer:

1. Call for the records of the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in FA no. 577 of 2019 and set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 in FA no. 577 of 2019, in so far as it hold the Petitioner liable to compensate Respondent no.1.
2. Dismiss the Respondent no.1’s complaint CC No. 672 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 against the Petitioner;
3. Pending the hearing and disposal of the present case, stay the operation of the execution proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur in EA no. 71 of 2021 dated 05.07.2021 fixed for hearing on 16.08.2021; and
4. Pass any other/ further orders as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.      We heard the revisionist at the time of admission of the Revision Petition. On the basis of the evidence, the District Forum the liability of compensation only on M/s Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers and absolved the other respondents, Viz., M/s Rasi Seeds Pvt Ltd and M/s Kukkar Trading Co., Arni Wala. In appeal by M/s Dhamija Pesticides and Fertilizers, the State Commission heard the petitioner and reassessed and re-appreciated the evidences on record. Thereafter, the State Commission ordered as below:

22.    We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties.

23.    It is an admitted fact that the seeds in question were purchased by the complainant from OP No.1, vide Ex.C-2 for an amount of Rs.8000/-, which had been sown by the complainant in his above said land. The loss suffered by the complainant, due to sowing of above said seeds is proved on record, vide field inspection report Ex.C-9. The District Commission observed in its order that OP No.1 sold duplicate seeds to the complainant by saying that it is manufactured by OP No.2, whereas OP No.2 denied that these seeds are not manufactured by them. The District Commission held only OP No.1 liable for the loss suffered by the crop of the complainant. The plea of the appellant/OP No.1 is that many a times retailer goes to the Distributor for lifting stock at a time when a customer is waiting at his shop and picked up stocks so as to supply the same to the customer standing at his shop and invoices are issued later on by the Distributor to the retailer. In the present case, it has also happened. We find force in this contention of the appellant. Perusal of bills Annexure A-8(colly) establish that the Cotton seeds (Rashi) 773 bearing lot No.473893 has been purchased by OP No.1 from OP No.3 @ Rs.768/- per pack. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3/OP No.3 at the time of argument and no written arguments has been submitted by respondent No.3 in its defence. No copies of the bills Annexure A-8 (colly), which was with OP No.3, have been produced on record by respondent No.1/complainant and respondent No.2/OP No.2 to prove that the alleged cutting has been made by the appellant/OP No.1. As such, the plea regarding cutting on the bills is not acceptable. The appellant/OP No.1 has succeeded to prove on record that it purchased the said seeds from OP No.3 and further sold it to the complainant, vide Ex.C-2 on very little margin. It is also pertinent to mention that learned counsel for respondent No.2/OP No.2 has not denied the fact that OP No.3 is not the Distributor of OP No.2. It is proved on record that complainant suffered loss for which he is entitled to recover the same from all the OPs and not from OP No.1, because during investigation, the appellant/OP No.1 has been found to be innocent and this fact is apparent from Annexure A-5 (Ex.OP-1/6). It is for OP No.2 (Manufacturer) to remain vigilant regarding the sale of seeds by their Distributors in its name and to take action against them by cancelling their distributorship.

24. So far as the contention of respondent No.2/OP No.2 with regard to not producing on record all wrappers of the seeds is concerned, it is pertinent to mentioned that it is well settled that a farmer is not required to keep the sample; rather, it is for the manufacturer or the dealer to retain the same.  As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr.” 2012 (1)CPC-190 (SC) a farmer is not supposed to reserve some part of the seeds for the purpose of sending it to the laboratory and mere allegation that the procedure, as laid down in section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, was not adopted is not acceptable. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Para35 as follows:-

“The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop of less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naove to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory”.

25.    Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors.”, (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases-738 (SC).

26.    Further, Hon’ble National Commission in case E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 held as under:

"Testimony of the complainant would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner company packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory."

 In view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, the complainant had no occasion to preserve the all the wrappers of the said seeds, as alleged by the OPs. On the other hand, OPs, who must be having the lot of the seed, in question, could have got tested the quality of the said seed after coming to know about the filing of the complaint, but this had not been done by them for the reasons best known to them and, as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against them. Furthermore, the Agriculture Department is expert in the agriculture field and the reports submitted by their officers/officials in discharge of their official duties are also independent. No doubt, if such report is to be obtained, it is necessary that OPs must be summoned for that purpose. However, in the present case, once the Government agency gave its report, which has no personal interest and no bias has been alleged by the OPs against the said agency, so the said report is to be accepted. Furthermore, the inspection report, Ex.C-9, is also reliable, for the reasons that the farmers are rustic villagers. They make complaints to the concerned Agriculture Officers in case of any such problem with regard to yield or germination of crop and it is for them to follow the procedure in accordance with law but the fact remains that the report is there, which indicated the loss suffered by the crop of the complainant.

27.    In view of our above discussion, the present appeal is disposed of by holding that all the OPs are liable to pay the amount of compensation and other expenses, not OP No.1 only as directed by the District Commission in its impugned order. With this modification, we affirm the impugned order of the District Commission.

28.    The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law. Before sending the above said amount, the Registry will deduct the amount of Rs.5000/-, as ordered in M.A. No.1798 of 2019.

The only issue before us is whether the revisionist is liable jointly or severally to compensate the complainant.

6.          It is a settled proposition of law that this Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction.  It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute with its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent.  It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” that:

“23.     Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”.

7.         Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

8.         In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors., decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

9.     This Commission in RP no. 381 of 2012 in Ankur Seeds Pvt Ltd., and Anr. Vs Motilal and Anr. has also held that an inspection report of an independent, Government agricultural experts, at the initiative of the complainant is acceptable to prove that the seeds were of sub-standard or of bad quality. In the present case also the Respondent No. 1/Complainant had approached the Agriculture Department, Fazilka which had given a report dated 16.10.17 in his favour that the crop sown was damaged.

10.          It is apparent from the records that the findings of the fora below are based on the cogent evidences on record and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. There are concurrent findings of facts to the effect that there was deficiency in service. In a revision petition a concurrent finding on fact can be disturbed only when it is perverse, i.e. based on no evidence or a material evidence on record is ignored. This is not a case where findings are based on no evidence or a material evidence is ignored. There is no perversity in finding of the fact of a deficiency in service. As regards liability to pay compensation is concerned, there is no dispute that petitioner is the manufacturer of seeds used by the Complainant. He cannot escape its liability.

11.        In the light of the above, the Revision Petition filed by the revisionist is dismissed.