(Delivered on 07/04/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed by the original opposite party Nos. 1&2 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25/08/2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur   in consumer complaint  No. 13/2011, by which  the complaint  has been partly allowed.  The original opposite party Nos. 1&2 are  hereinafter referred  to as appellants and original  complainant  who filed the consumer complaint  is hereinafter referred to as respondent,  for the sake of convenience.

2.         The  case of the  respondent  as set out  by  him in  the consumer complaint in brief is as under,

            The respondent  is a farmer  and he had purchased paddy seeds from the dealer i.e. appellant No. 2 as produced by the  appellant No. 1. He purchased the said seeds for  price  of Rs. 3,540/- on 19/06/2010. He had sown  the said paddy seeds  in the agricultural land  belonging himself , his mother  and son as described in  detail in para No. 1 of the complaint.  However, after germination of the seeds it was found by him that  there is admixtures  in the paddy seeds purchased by him from the appellant No. 2. Therefore, he made complaints to Taluka Quality Control Inspector, Panchyat Samittee, Parshioni who inspected  the crop on 22/10/2010 and submitted  report that  there is 45% adulteration  in the seeds.  Therefore,  the respondent suffered loss of 200 quintals of   paddy. The price of paddy was Rs. 2800/-  per quintal. Hence,  the respondent  is entitled  to compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/-. The respondent therefore, issued notice  dated 15/12/2010 to the appellants  which was refused  by them.  The respondent  therefore,  filed complaint  before the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur  claiming  direction  to the  appellants  to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/- towards loss sustained  by him  and also to pay him litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/.

2.         The appellant No. 1 which is a manufacturer of the seeds filed  reply before the District Consumer Forum  below and resisted the complaint.  It admitted that  it is  the producer of the seeds in question.  It  denied that there was adulteration   of the seeds and that the respondent suffered loss due to that reason. It is the defence of the appellant No. 1 that  no intimation  was given  to it before inspection  of the agricultural land by  the concerned  authorities.  The 7/12 extract filed by the respondent  shows that  the paddy seeds were sown  only  in one hector  of agricultural land. The panchanama relied by the respondent  is not binding  on the appellant No. 1 as it was prepared behind the back of the appellant No. 1 and it is not signed  by  independent  panch witnesses.  Moreover,  the panchanama prepared by the  Inspector of Panchyat Samittee, Parshioni shows 45% adulteration , whereas  panchanama prepared by the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee shows 17.5% adulteration. Thus there is  contradiction  in both the reports. Moreover, the panchanama was not  prepared in accordance with directive of the Maharashtra State  Government.  Therefore, the  said panchanama cannot be relied on. The other farmers  got very good yield  from the same seeds. Therefore, it was prayed  by the appellant  No. 1 that  complaint  may be dismissed.

3.         The appellant No. 2 also filed  reply to the complaint  and thereby resisted  it. It denied  all the allegations  made in the complaint  and requested that , the complaint  may be dismissed.

4.         The District Consumer Forum  below  after hearing  both the parties and   considering evidence brought on record believed  the panchanamas  produced by the respondent  and disbelieved  the certificate issued by the appellant No.1. The

District Consumer Forum below  also observed  in the impugned order that  the  report produced by the respondent  was  duly prepared by expert officers and there is no reason  to disbelieve  the same.  The District Consumer Forum below  thus  partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant  No. 1 to pay  compensation of Rs. 18,000/- towards loss sustained by  the respondent.  The District Consumer Forum below  also  directed  the appellant No. 1 to pay Rs. 3,540/- to the respondent  towards refund  of price of the seeds.  The District Consumer Forum below  also  directed the appellant Nos. 1&2 to pay litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- to the respondent.  The District Consumer Forum below also directed appellant Nos. 1&2 that the above impugned order be complied within a period of 30 days from receipt of coy of that order and in case of default the aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a.  from date of that order.

5.         As observed above, feeling aggrieved, the original O.P. Nos. 1&2 have filed this appeal. We have heard Advocate Mr. Paliwal appearing for the appellants and Advocate Mr. Chichbankar appearing for the respondent.  We have also perused the record and proceedings of the appeal.

6.         The sum and substance of the submission of the learned advocate of the appellants is as under,

i.          The panchanama prepared by the committee is not  in accordance  with procedure  laid down by the Government of Maharashtra and therefore, it cannot be made basis  for granting compensation.

ii.          The 7/12 extract shows paddy seeds were sown only in land  admeasuring  1 Hector 2 R., whereas  the respondent  claimed  that   paddy seeds  were sown in 6 acres of land .  Hence, the case of the  respondent  cannot be believed.

iii.         The inspection of the crop was carried out  by  concerned  authority  without prior  intimation  to the appellants and therefore, said  panchanama /report  cannot be  believed.

iv.        The appellant No. 1 only  after receiving  the  satisfactory  report of the seeds, dispatched the said  seeds for sale. The affidavits of the cultivators  were filed  before the  Forum showing  that they got excellent  yield  from the  seeds of  same lot.

v.         The purchase bill  relied on  by the respondent  was having overwriting  and erasing and there is variation  in the report  of Taluka Quality Control   Inspector, Panchyat Samittee, Parshioni and finding of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee and therefore the  said reports  cannot be relied on.

vi.        The District Consumer Forum below  has not properly  considered the evidence brought  on record and  erred in partly  allowing  the complaint. Therefore,  the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

7.         The appellants  advocate  relied on decision in the  following cases.

i.          Zimidara Agro Center Vs. Sukhdev Singh & another, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition  No. 2354/2016 as per order dated 31/05/2017. In that case the manufacturer  had produced  the report of laboratory to support  its case. It is therefore,  held that  when the report  from the accredited laboratories  is produced , validating the quality of the seeds  of a particular lot of a particular variety and it is shown that  seeds of the same lot, of the same variety, were purchased by the  complainant , it would  not  be justified to  rely upon the report  of agricultural  officer based upon the site inspection  alone.

ii.          Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Jagdish, reported  in 2015(2) CPR 670 (NC).  In that case  at the time of inspection, it is held that the complainant should  have  asked  inspecting team to intimate  the O.P. as well scientist for carrying  out inspection  and as  inspection has  not been done by duly Constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on the said  inspection report.

8.         On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that in the instant case no documents were  produced by the appellants as  obtained from recognized laboratory to show that the seeds were pure and not defective. He also relied on the decisions of the following cases.

i.          Leadbetter Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tanneru Rangaiah & others, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No. 3772/2009 as per order dated 08/10/2015. It is held  in that case  that  the  manufacturer of the seeds  did not produce  any  reliable technical evidence to prove that  the seeds did not suffer from any genetic defects.  Therefore, the order passed by the Forum below granting compensation  to the  farmer  was upheld.

ii.          N.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Guruswamy & another, reported in  I (2002) CPJ 13 (NC). In that case  the crop  did not appear to be satisfactory &  local Agricultural  Authorities had  opined that  seeds  are not  of  same quality  as purchased in the name of  “Arkajyothi” brand & the sample was not sent for laboratory test. It is held  that there was  negligence on the  part of N.S.C. Ltd. Company  to send sample for Laboratory test.  Hence, revision petition is dismissed.

iii.         National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Abdul Aziz Fakir Mohd.  Inamdar & another, reported in I (2009) CPJ 225 (NC).  In that case seeds sown were  found to be uncertified and having low germination capacity  was proved by report of Enquiry Committee. Hence,  the complaint was  allowed. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission also dismissed the revision petition.

iv.        Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. Arun Singh and another, reported in  II (2016) CPJ 224 (NC). In that  case  it was found that  Certificate of Seeds Certification Agency is of no help to the  petitioner.  The report of Senior Agricultural Development Officer  was found reliable as  given  by a Government  official who has got no interest in  case and  is an independent person. Therefore,  the revision petition  filed by Ajeet Seeds Ltd. was dismissed.

v.         Kanta Kantha Rao Vs. Y. Surya Narayana, reported in  (2017) CJ 619 (NC).  It is held that  in order to prove that  seeds  sold to the complainants  were  of sub standard quality  and defective, the petitioner  could have  sent  sample  of the same for  testing  to  laboratory, which  it  had failed  to do so. Therefore, it is held that no adverse inference can be drawn against  complainant on the ground of his having  not sent sample of seeds for  testing to laboratory.  Hence, revision petition was dismissed.

vi.        Shri Ram Bioseed Genetics India Ltd. and another Vs. Badri Prasad and others,  reported in (2017) CJ 782(N.C.).  It is observed that  Inspecting Officer of State  Agriculture Department has given  a categorical finding that  seeds were defective  and  as inspection of crop cannot be made again associating the  petitioner  and seeds  company,  then the  report of Officer of Agriculture becomes an important piece of evidence  being  report of an expert. It is further held that  the report  submitted by Inspecting officer will be  treated as an expert report  and same  is admissible as evidence under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore,  the revision petition  was dismissed.

            The learned advocate of the  respondent  thus  requested that  the appeal may be dismissed.

9.         It is seen that  the respondent  not only produced  the duly prepared  report  of the expert  committee but he also filed  photographs  of the crop in support of his submission that  the seeds were adulterate  and he suffered loss due to  that reason  in yield  of the  crop of said seeds.  The complaint made by the respondent  to the appellant No. 2 shows that  its one copy was  also sent by the respondent  to the appellant No. 1. This it was the responsibility of the appellants  to inspect the crop of the respondent  on their own and also  submit    report  of an expert showing  that  seeds were of good quality.

10.       It is also pertinent to note that  panchanama prepared by the  expert agricultural  officer shows that  there was 45% adulteration  in the seeds sown  by the  respondent in his agricultural land. The Agriculture Development  Officer, Zilla Parishid, Nagpur  submitted report  after due inspection  of the crop to Divisional Agricultural Director, Nagpur  Division, Nagpur  vide letter dated 30/11/2010. Copy of that letter was also sent  to the appellant No. 1 for information and necessary  action  as seen from that  letter.  However,  after receipt of  the said letter dated 30/11/2010 both the  appellants  took no  action. Panchanama dated 04/11/2010 prepared by the expert members of the District  Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee shows that  after inspection  the adulteration  in the crop was found  to the  extent of 17.60%. There is  in variance in percentage  of the adulteration as in the  report of the Taluka Quality Control  Inspector it is  shown  45% adulteration and in  the report of the District  Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee it is shown as  17.60% adulteration.  However,  one fact is common  in both reports  that there was adulteration  in the seeds.

11.       We find that  the  panchanama prepared by the District  Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee showing 17.60% adulteration can be accepted  as  there is no cogent  evidence in  rebuttal of  the said  panchanama. The District Consumer Forum  below has rightly  disbelieved  the test report submitted by the appellant No. 1 from its  own laboratory. The said test  report  cannot be said to be issued by the independent  testing laboratory.

12.       Therefore, we are of the considered view that  the District Consumer Forum below has rightly held that  the seeds  produced by the appellant No. 1 and sold to the respondent by the appellant No. 2-dealer  were found  having  adulteration and therefore,  the Forum below  has rightly held  that  the respondent  is entitled  to compensation for loss  sustained  by him due to said  adulteration.

13.       The respondent claimed  total compensation  of Rs. 5,60,000/- showing  loss of 200 quintals  of the paddy. The Forum below granted only compensation of Rs. 18,000/- towards loss in the yield  to be paid  by the appellant No.1 and further compensation of Rs. 3540/- towards  price of the seeds. The respondent has not challenged the impugned order by filing appeal. Therefore, even if the report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee is accepted showing adulteration to  the extent of only 17.60%,  then also we hold that the compensation granted by the District Consumer Forum below is consonance with  the said adulteration shown in the said panchanama prepared by the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee.

14.       Therefore, we hold that  as  the adulterated  seeds were sold  by the appellant No. 2 as produced  by the appellant No. 1,  the appellant No. 1 is  liable to pay compensation of Rs. 18,000/- and appellant No. 2 is liable  to refund price of Rs. 3540/- of the adulterated  seeds to the respondent.  Moreover, the District Consumer Forum below has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 7% p.a.  over the aforesaid  amount.

15.       Therefore, we are of the considered view that  there is no merit in this appeal and aforesaid decisions relied  by the learned advocate of the appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the facts and circumstances  of  those cases are  totally different from those of the  present case as discussed  above. Thus appeal deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed. .

ii.          No order as to costs in appeal.

iii.         Copy of  order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.