O R D E R  (ORAL)

       These Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) under Section 21B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).  All the Revision Petitions deal with identical issues of law and facts and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.  For the sake of convenience, RP/2084/2017 is being taken as a lead case.

       By the impugned order, the State Commission has modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool (for short “the District Forum”), reducing the amount of compensation from ₹51,660/- to ₹17,472/- based on the yield per acre and the Minimum Support Price (MSP) while confirming all other directions passed by the District Forum.

       The brief facts as set out in the case are that the Respondent, a farmer, owner of land admeasuring Ac 2.40½ cents, situated in Survey No.908 of Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal, Kurnool, purchased 2 packets of sunflower seeds SB 275 variety, of 2 Kgs. At the rate of ₹610/- and ₹650/- per packet from the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties.  He had sown Sunbred 275 variety of sunflower seeds manufactured by the Petitioner Company and averred that despite all necessary precautions taken for sowing, there was no proper growth.  It was stated that he had spent ₹15,000/- per acre for raising the sunflower crop but there was no grain filling in the flower heads and as such, there was no yield from the crop.  It was pleaded that the complainant and the other agriculturists, who had sown the same variety of seeds gave a complaint to the Department of Agriculture, on receipt of which, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandikotkur and the concerned Agriculture Officers, inspected the field of the Complainant and the other Agriculturists and reported that he had found no proper growth in the flower heads in all the fields including that of the Complainant.  The same was informed to the Joint Director of Agriculture.  On receipt of a request from the Joint Director of Agriculture, a team of Scientists from the Regional Agriculture Research Station, Nandyal, inspected the field of Subbanna Goud as a sample field and opined that there was ill filling of grains in the sunflower heads because of poor fertility status of the hybrid seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties.

       It was averred by the Complainant that the seeds supplied were defective in genetic purity on account of which, he suffered crop loss.  The expected yield of hybrid variety is 10-12 quintals, the rate of sunflower during the relevant period per quintal was ₹3,170/- and therefore, the loss of crop was estimated at ₹38,040/- per acre.  Hence, the Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the loss of yield at ₹38,040/- per acre for Ac 2.40½ cents together with compensation of ₹20,000/- and other costs and interest.

       The Opposite Parties filed the Written Version before the District Forum stating that raising of crop and getting a good yield depends upon so many factors such as following proper agricultural practices and procedure, sowing seeds in proper manner, having good soil in the land, enough water facility, suitable nature, environment and atmosphere, administering good and proper manure and fertilizers, pesticides, etc.  It was also averred that there was no fault in the Pollen production; the hybrid was satisfactory; there was no defect in genetic purity and germination of the seeds was good and genuine.  It was further pleaded that the Complainant did not produce any evidence or place any record to prove his contention that the seeds were defective and that the Complainant did not choose to file any seed testing report from an authorized laboratory.  It was stated that they did not receive any notice regarding the allegations mentioned in the Complaint at any time before lodging the Complaint and submitted that no deficiency in service can be attributed to them.

       The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint (CC No.40/2013) in part, directing the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay the amount towards crop loss together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization together with compensation of ₹5,000/- towards deficiency in service and ₹2,000/- towards costs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the manufacturer, i.e. the Petitioner herein, preferred Appeal No.322/2016 before the State Commission.

       State Commission partly allowed the Appeal reducing the amount of compensation from ₹51,660/- to ₹17,472/- while confirming the finding of fact recorded by the District Forum regarding deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Parties in supplying defective seeds.

       While confirming the finding of District Forum, the State Commission observed as follows :

 “From the above reports it is very clear that the seed was poor in fertility status which clearly means that grain filling did not happen because of the defective quality.  The persons who submitted Ex.A4 report are Scientists having expertise in the field, hence the credibility of the report cannot be doubted.”

       Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the Appellants preferred these Revision Petitions. 

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as no notice was issued to them for the inspection, the report of the Agriculture Department cannot be accepted.  He further contended that the Complainants ought to have filed the seed testing report from an authorized laboratory and they had failed to do so and relied on the judgement of this Commission in Banta Ram vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company & Anr. – II (2013) CPJ 617 (NC) in which this Commission has observed that as the Petitioner/Complainant had not got the seeds tested from any laboratory or moved application before the concerned authorities in that regard,  report of the Agriculture Department cannot be accepted.  The facts in the instant case are different as the report of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and that of the Scientists were filed before the District Forum and marked as Exhibits A-3 and A-4 and Mandal Agriculture Officer, namely, Mr.M.Changalarayudu and Dr.S.Neelima, who was the head of the team of Scientists, were examined before the District Forum.  In his chief examination, Mandal Agriculture Officer, deposed that the seeds setting was very poor and tht he had reported the same to A.D. Agriculture Nandidkotkur about the field condition and requested him to depute scientists for ascertaining the poor setting of the sunflower seeds.  The Scientist, Dr.S.Neelima, clearly deposed that the distributor of the company was also present at the field at the time of inspection.

On a pointed query as to when the manufacturer was informed of the Complaint in the suit and as to what action has been taken by the Company, learned Counsel submitted that he was unaware as the distributors did not inform him about the alleged defect.

The contention of the petitioner that proper crop management practices were not followed is not substantiated by any documentary evidence.  On the other hand the scientist has clearly recorded that all agronomic and best management practices were followed.  It cannot be said that the Petitioner Company was not aware of the findings and observations of the Mandal Agriculture Officer as well as the Scientists.  He submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) was not adhered to by the fora below and that the burden of proof lies on the Complainant to establish that the seeds were indeed defective.

       This contention of the Petitioner is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. – (2012) 2 SCC 506, wherein it was clearly stated that onus under Section 13(1)(c) shifts to the manufacturing company to supply the said seeds from that particular batch before the District Forum and send the same for testing.  Relevant portion of the judgement reads as under :

“The National Commission took cognizance of the objection raised by the Appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Act had not been followed and observed:

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 the third case, the National Commission held:

Holding in favour of the complainant, the National Commission stated that, 'it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.

39.    The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position.”

It is observed from the record that this procedure was not adhered to by the Petitioner Company.  There is absolutely nothing on record as to the reason why the Petitioner Company did not file any application under Section 13(1)(c) or produce any sample seeds before the District Forum. 

In these circumstances, the Fora below relied on the reports of the Agriculture Officer and Team of the Scientists, which are reproduced as under :

            Sir,

                Sub:- Field inspection of Sunbred-275- Syngenta Company in
                        Mandlem Village of J.Bunglow Mandal on 24.01.2011- Field
                        Inspection Report – Submission – Reg.
               Ref:-  Farmers representation on 24.01.2011 at Office of M.A.O,
                        J.Banglow.
                                                     ***

       In the above reference cited, the farmers who are cultivating Sunbred-275 Sunflower variety which pertaining to Syngenta Company Limited, in Mandlem Village of J.Bunglow mandal during Rabi-2010-2011.  I visited to Mandlem village on 24.01.2011 inspected Sunbred-275- Sunflower fields of concerned complaint farmers.  The Sunbred-275-Sunflower seeds purchased from in various licensed seed shops in Nandikotkur mandal in different dates.  The farmers particulars and field inspection report furnished below:

        Name:-                                       T. Salanna, S/o. Chinna Somanna
        Village:-                                     Mandlem Village
        Bill No and Date:-                       126/10.11.2010
                                                         Lot: 10119104
       Quantity purchased on kgs:-        2 kgs
       Area grown per acres:-                1 .0 Ac
      Field Observations:-                 Pollination stage to seed setting stage
     

       In the above Sunflower Sunbred-275 fields, I have observed harvesting stage of the Sunbred-275 Sunflower crop is very  poor seed setting and remaining of the Sunbred-275 fields are flowering to pollination stage.  Plant growth is satisfactory and an average height of the plant 140-165 cms.

            Hence, I request that kindly may be deputed to Sunflower Scientist for inspection of the above Sunbred-275 Sunflower fields at an early date.

 
                                                                                   Yours faithfully,
                                                                             Signed by Rayudu,
                                                                 Mandal Agricultural Officer,
                                                                                         J.Bunglow.

       Exhibit A-4, which is the report of the team of Scientists, reads as under :

 “1.     The plant stand and crop growth in the field was satisfactory.

  2.     All the agronomic and pest management practices were followed.
  3.     The crop was sown during October last week to November 1st week under irrigated conditions.

        Keeping in view the above points, the ill filing nature of grains in the sunflower Hybrid Sunbred 275 in the inspected fields may be attributed to Poor fertility status of the hybrid.

Dr. S.Neelima                 Sri K.Ashok Kumar             Dr. A. Sitha Rama Sarma”
Scientist(Br)         Scientist(Agro)                 Scientist(Ento)
RARS,Nandyal                  RARS, Nandyal                                   RARS,Nandyal

       At the cost of repetition, having regard to the fact that the Petitioner Company did not choose to produce any seeds before the District Forum to send them for testing and also that in the Agriculture Officer’s and the Scientists’ reports, there is a finding that the ill filling nature of grains in the Sunflower Hybrid Sunbred 275 is attributed to the poor fertility status of hybrid seeds,  I do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the Fora below.

       It is also pertinent to note that the State Commission has given a detailed order regarding compensation taking into consideration the Minimum Support Price (MSP) fixed by the Government of India at ₹2,600/- per quintal for the Crop year 2010-11, in which season the Complainant had raised the said crop estimating the loss at 17,472/- (Ac 2.40 cents x 4 quintals x ₹2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = ₹17,472/-.

       Keeping in view the limited Revisional jurisdiction of this Commission, envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Fora below.

       Accordingly, all these Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.