BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JULY 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1626/2012 to 1628/2012

V/s

                                                   APPEAL NO.1626/2012

                                                  APPEAL NO.1627/2012

                                                     APPEAL NO.1628/2012

COMMON ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER

1.      The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred all these appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.23.02.2012 passed in CC.Nos.242/2011, 243/2011 & 244/2011 on the file District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad.  The appellants in these appeals are one and the same and the matter in issue is also one and the same.  Hence, all these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed-of by this Common Order.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is hereunder;

It is the case of the complainants that they are the agriculturists from Manakwad village of Navalgund taluk & Ingalahalli village of Hubli Tq., Dist: Dharwad.  They have purchased Onion Bejo F1 Hybrid Onion seeds from Respondent No.2 on different date in the second week of July 2010 and sowed them immediately as per package of practices. The complainants have contended that, the onion seed were sown in their fields in July 2010 only.  Generally this crop yields in 3 to 3 ½ months duration, but, inspite of waiting for more than 5 months proper bulb formation of onion crops was not taken place, as it is seen that no bulb formation of onion crops was not taken place, as it ois seen that no bulb formation.  They have approached Respondent No.1 and requested to send their representatives for inspection of the said crops.  Accordingly one Mr. Shridhar, representative of Respondent No.1 has visited the field and has seen that proper bulb formation has not taken place.  Even though, he was convinced that the crop has failed, he has not given the report of crop failure with a malafide intention only to vex and harass the complainants and to protect the interest of his company.  He only assured that he will submit the report to his company.

3.     The complainants further submitted that onion crop yield generally per acre will be around 50 quintals.  The average price of onion per quintal was Rs.6,000/- during December 2010 and January 2011.  Hence, due to failure of onion crop loss incurred to the complainants.  The complainants were depending only on the income generated by their agriculture activity for their livelihood.  Hence, the crop failure has caused lot mental agony and financial loss to them.  The complainants approached the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department of Navalgund for crop inspection, he is reference to the Horticulture Dept., of Dharwad.  That department officers visited the field and they have given a report dtd. 14/1/2011 stating that ‘ F1 Hybrid Seeds are not really advised for sowing. ’ The complainants have given a legal notice to respondents on 2/2/2011 & 5/2/2011 through their advocate.  The Respondent No.1 has sent reply letter dtd.12/4/2011 totally denying the contention stated in the legal notice.  The Respondent No.2 has no bothered to reply to the said legal notice.  Hence, complainants have filed these complaints against the respondents for deficiency in service committed by the respondents for selling the defective seeds.  

4.     After service of notice, Opposite Parties/ Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed version and admitted that the complainants have purchased onion seeds, but, other facts are denied.  Further contended that there is no defects in seeds sold by Respondent No.1 company.  The Respondent denied the representative of Respondent No.1 company had never visited the field of the complainants and he had not even prepared any report.  Respondent submitted that, as per Sec.13 (1) (c) of CP Act it is mandatory on the part of the complainants to send the seeds samples to appropriate laboratory for analysis and the absence of compliance of  Sec.13 (1) (c) of CP Act complaints are not maintainable. 

5.     Further contended that before the sale of seeds, the respondent company conduct GOT i.e. Grow Out Test and after the said test only seeds of respondent company are allowed for sale.   Onion bulb is not hidden inside the soil and bulb formation is always visible.  After 60 – 65 days from the date of sowing onion seeds formation of bulb will start and completes within 90 days.  Inspection report does not disclose as to onion crop inspected is of seeds supplied by respondent company.  As per the report of University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad, minimum requirement of onion seeds per acre is 1.5 kg to 2 kgs., and as per the averment of complaints, complainants not used the required quantity of onion seeds.  Therefore, they could not get the expected yield.  Due to close spacing, deep sowing, irregular watering, excess use of nitrogen and also excess of water by formation of onion will not take place.  Failure of crop of complainants are not due to quality of seeds but due to lack of timely care of crop, application of fertilizers, nutrients, irrigation and spraying of pesticides and insecticides.  The crop failure is due to environmental condition, insufficient rain, heavy rain, cloudy weather and wrong practices adopted by the complainants.  The farmers are not expected to assume that seeds supplied by the petitioner would be defective or adulterated.  Normally, they rely upon the brochure or its advertisement.  Hence, before sowing the seeds they would not keep some seeds reserved for their testing.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.     After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaints along with compensation and costs.  Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal.  Heard the arguments.

7.     Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that there is no dispute that the respondents have purchased Onion Bejo F1 Hybrid Onion seeds from appellant Nos. 1 & 2 in July 2010 and the same was sowed in their fields.  The allegation of the respondents are that the onion seeds were sowed in their fields, inspite of waiting for more than five months proper bulb formation of onion crops was not taken place.  When they have approached appellant No.2 Mr. Sridhar, the representative of appellant No.1 has visited the fields of the respondents, but, he has not furnished any report protect the interest of his company, hence, the respondents have approached the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department of Navalagunda Taluk, Dharwad District for crop inspection who referred to the Horticulture Department of Dharwad.  The officers of Horticulture Department after visited the fields of the respondents gave a report dt.14.01.2011 stating that “F-1 Hybrid seeds are not advised for sowing”, hence, legal notice was issued by the respondent on 02.02.2011 and 05.02.2011 to the appellants and the appellants have replied it on 12.04.2011 and denied all the allegations of the respondents.  Hence, the respondents have constrained to file the complaints before the District Commission.  Per contra, the contention of the appellants is that the District Commission has erred in not appreciating that germination of seeds depends upon environmental factors and crop management such as climate, moisture, temperature, usage of fertilizers, water supply and also contended that the respondents have not sample of seeds were sent to the proper laboratory for analysis as mandated as per Sec.13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.     Perused the Order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that the District Commission passed the order after perusing the report dt.14.01.2011 of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Dharwad and relied a citation reported in I 2012 CPJ 317 NC wherein Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds that the farmers are not expected to keep some samples with the presumption that they may need the same for legal battle.  The District Commission felt satisfied that the seeds purchased by the respondents were defective.  We also agreed with the Order of the District Commission as because the farmers are not expected to keep the samples with a presumption that they will need the same for future legal battle.  The respondents have proved their allegations by producing the report of Horticulture Department Officers dt.14.01.2011.  Then onus shifted on seeds Manufacturer Company to prove that the seeds sold by them are of good quality.  However, the appellants have not produced documents contrary to the said report.  Moreover, as per Seeds Act, the manufacturer is required to keep samples of each batch of seeds with minimum period of time.  Hence, there is no reason for respondents to know after sent the seeds to the laboratory for testing as per Sec.13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper.  No interference is required.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The Appeal Nos. 1626/2012, 1627/2012, & 1628/2012 are dismissed.

The amount in deposit in all these appeals shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.

Keep the original copy of the order in Appeal No.1626/2012 and the copy of the same in all other connected cases.

Forward free copies to both the parties.

                 Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*