(Passed on  31.10.2013)

Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      All these 101 appeals are being decided by this common order as common question of law & facts is involved in them. They are preferred by the same appellant namely Karnataka Agro Seeds against separate orders dated 17.11.2008 & 31.08.2007 passed in the separate complaints filed against it by the respective complainants who are the farmers and who are joined in these appeals as the respondents.  Identical orders have been passed in all these said complaints by District Forum below by which the complaints have been partly allowed.

2.      The common case of the respective complainants in all the said complaints in brief is that they had purchased seeds of Sesamum (Teela) of G-1 variety Lot No.64, from the original dealers who are joined in respective complaints as opposite parties  and they are hereinafter referred to as dealers. The said seeds were manufactured by the sole manufacturer who is the appellant herein who was also made opposite party in all the complaints. The said seeds were properly sown in respective agriculture land of complainants and after proper cultivation and spreading of the fertilizers; there was proper germination of those seeds. However, grown crop did not have the branches, flowers and capsules (Bondi).  Therefore all the said complainants made complaint to the officers of Agriculture Department. The District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee after receiving the said complaints, paid visit to the fields of the complainants and inspected the same.  They submitted a report that the said seeds purchased by the complainants were defective. The complainants did not get yield from the said crop and thus, they sustained loss. Hence, they claimed compensation from the aforesaid dealers and the manufacturer as specified in their respective complaints.

3.      The appellant / manufacturer and the dealers resisted all those complaints by filing their respective Written Version before the Forum below. They denied that the seeds purchased by the respective complainants were defective.  The dealers submitted that they cannot be held liable for payment of compensation if seeds are found defective.

4.      The manufacturer (appellant) denied its liability and submitted that the report submitted by District Seeds Committee is incorrect.  The seeds were duly certified by Karanataka Seeds Certification Agency which is not joined to the complaints. The District Seeds Committee inspected the crop prior to the maturity period of 120 days of the said crop and therefore, its report is not correct. No laboratory test report is filed by the complainant to prove that the seeds are defective. It, thus, submitted that the complaint may be dismissed.

5.      It is seen from the perusal of the record that initially the complaints were partly allowed by the Forum below and the said order was challenged before the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai by filing appeals. Those appeals were decided on 16.10.2006 and they were allowed and the orders passed in all those complaints were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Forum below for afresh decision on the basis of report of Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur.

6.      The Forum below after remand considered the evidence brought on record and partly allowed all those complaints, giving direction to manufacturer to pay to the respective complainant compensation as specified in the impugned orders.

7.      Adv. Shri Umesh Mangwe appeared for the appellant in all these appeals and he filed Written Notes of Argument.  Adv. Shri M B Wankhede appeared for the respondents i.e. the original complainants in appeal Nos. A/09/71 to A/09/168 on 09.10.2009 and filed his power.  Adv. Shri Kulkarni appeared for respondent / original complainant in appeal Nos.A/09/1009 to A/09/1111. However, both the said advocates of the respondents in all these appeals failed to appear at the time of final hearing of all these appeals.  Advocate of the appellant served private notice to Adv. Shri M B Wankhede for his appearance for final hearing in these appeals. The order dtd. 16.09.2013 passed in appeals shows that Adv. Shri Umesh Mangwe made a statement before this Commission that he received message on phone from Advocate Shri M B Wankhede that he received the notice in appeals. Advocate Shri U Mangwe produced copy of that private notice served to Advocate Mr M B Wankhede, acknowledgement signed by him (Adv. Shri M B Wankhede) and service affidavit in support of service of said notice. Hence, we accepted that advocate Shri M B Wankhede was duly served with private notice for final hearing in these appeals. He remained absent despite of service of that notice.  Under these facts & circumstances we proceeded to decide all these appeals on merits.

8.      The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Forum below did not consider properly the Laboratory Test Report produced on record, showing that there was no defect in the seeds.  He further submitted that the Central Laboratory, Nagpur has given report that the seeds are pure and are 99.6% genuine and as per the standard given by the Central Laboratory under Seeds Act.  He further submitted that Agriculture Officer did not visit to the farms of all the complainants but he paid visit to only farms of the five farmers and on that basis he has drawn the report, which cannot be accepted. According to him the said report was premature as seeds yield maturity date after sowing was 90 days to 120 days but report was submitted after 55 to 60 days only and hence, on this ground also the said report cannot be believed.  He also argued that Central Laboratory Test Report produced on record is final & conclusive and on that basis all these complainants ought to have been dismissed.

9.      Moreover, according to him, Central Laboratory while testing seeds, determined each & every factor in respect of physical purity, inter matter, other varieties and growth of the plant, genetic purity and therefore, said report cannot be brushed aside without valid reason and that merely because there are many complainants, it cannot be presumed that the seeds were defective. 

10.    He also submitted that huge compensation is awarded without any evidence to the complainants and that agriculture officer admitted a fact that there is possibility of late yield and his said admission was also not considered by the Forum below.  He also argued that various factors like, climatic condition, soil, temperature, water facility and the fertilizers used affect the yield of the crop and the same were not considered by the Forum below.  Hence, he urged that all these appeals may be allowed and impugned orders may be set aside.  He relied upon the observations made in the following cases:-

i.               Gujarat Insecticides Limited Vs. Ram Niwas & Anr., in RP.No.4128 of 2012 and other Revision petition & decided by common order on 13.09.2013 by Hon’ble National Commission.  It is observed in that order that even if there are conflicting findings given by the Central Laboratory and State Laboratory, it is very much clear that the finding of the Central Laboratory which is part of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India must take precedence over the views express by the State Laboratory.

ii.             Samshersing Vs. M/s Bagri Beej Bhanda & Anr. in R.P.No.2597 of 2012 decided on 11.09.2013 by Hon’ble National Commission.

 It observed that  the factum of the complainant having suffered a loss due to a poor quality seeds has not been established by any scientific and other evidence. Based on the report of one officer of Agriculture Department, it cannot be stated that the version of complainant is true.

iii.    Bantaram Vs. Jaibharat Beed Bhandar & Anr. – in R.P.NO. 506 of 2013 decided on 17.05.2013 by Hon’ble National Commission.  It is observed that the report of Agriculture Department cannot be accepted as notice of the inspection of the field for associating them with inspection was not given.

iv.    Managing Director, M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd. & Anr. Vs. K Rangareddi & Ors. in RP No. 1721 of 2007 decided on 08.08.2012 by Hon’ble National Commission.  It is held that it is well settled that delay in maturity of crop can be due to various reasons & circumstances, such as climatic conditions, no proper watering and not taking proper care of crop.

v.     M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M Madhusudan Reddy and Anr., 2012 ALL SCR-901. It is observed that the Corporation must be able to easily make available samples to District Forum for being sent to appropriate Laboratory for analysis in cases of consumer complaints.

vi.    Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sharad Motirao Kankale & Anr. in RP No.4323 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 23.03.2012.  It is observed that crop can fail because of several reasons including not following the correct agriculture practices and not taking proper pest control measures, etc.  In that case there was no evidence that crops failed because of any genetic defects in the seeds.  It is held that the onus lies on complainant to prove defects in seeds.

vii.   Mahyco Seeds Ltd Vs. G Vyankata S Reddy & Ors. in RP No. 2046 of 2007 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 23.05.2011.  In that case it was found that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by other side to contradict the findings of the said laboratory. It was held that there was no evidence to prove that crops failed because of genetically deficient seeds.

viii.  Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kupolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., 2006 (1) CPR – 113 (NC).  In that case, the sample was not proved to be taken from the lots sold to the complainants and therefore, it is observed that procedure u/s 13 (1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was not followed and hence, the complaints were dismissed.

ix     Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd Vs. Gowri Peddanna & Anr., 2006 (3) CPR 408 (NC). In that case there was Testing Laboratory Report showing that seeds were of 99.6% purity.  There was inadequate growth of the crop.  The complaint was dismissed as it was not proved that there was genetic impurity in the seeds.

x.     Basant Kumar Panda alia Batakrishna Panda Vs. Prafulla Kumar Das, 2004 (2) CPR 62 Orissa State Commission. It is held that whenever an allegation of defective seeds is made, same is to be proved by way of laboratory test.

xi.    Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu & Anr., 2005 (1) CPR 169 (SC). In that case there was poor germination of seeds.  The expert committee observed that “crop condition varied  satisfactory to excellent” and that variation was other than the quality of seeds.  The said report was clear, definite and specific in findings that variation in condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors.  Therefore, it is held that in the light of report of Expert Committee, complaint was unable to be dismissed.

xii.   Marketing Executive Western Agricultural Seeds Vs. Santosh Yadav & Ors. in Appeal No. A/10/1044 decided on 15.06.2011.

xiii.  Mahyco Seeds Ltd Vs. Yashwant Basate & Ors. in Appeal No. 1587/2007 decided on 30.08.2010

xiv.  M/s Ankur Seeds Pvt Ltd Vs. Ganesh Valu Dhande & Anr. in appeal No. 1139/2009 decided on 09/04/2010.

xv.   Sheetal Hybrid Seeds Pvt Ltd. Vs. Manikrao Patil & Anr. in appeal No. 1179/2005 decided on 30.03.2010.

In all these cases which are at Sr. No. xi to xiv above, the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra Mumbai allowed the appeals and dismissed the  complaints  as it was not proved that seeds were defective.

11.  We have considered very carefully, the aforesaid decisions and the evidence brought on record.

12.  It is not disputed that the seeds manufactured by the appellant were purchased by the respective complainants from respective dealers of appellant and they were sown by them in their respective agriculture lands and that though there was proper germination of those seeds, but the crop did not bear the branches, flowers and capsules (Bondi). Therefore, complaints were made by all these large number of complainants to the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee, comprising of experts which inspected their fields and submitted their report stating that there were no capsules to the crop and that the characteristics of the crop do not match with the G-1 variety of the seeds and there is no yield and therefore the farmers have sustained loss.

13.  The appellant has relied on the laboratory testing report only, which is considered by the Forum below in detail. We agree with the findings arrived at under the impugned orders for the following reasons.

14.  The Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Khamgaon had purchased seeds of G-1 variety of Lot No.64 having Code No. 22907-017-2004-2005-S for Rs.90/- from one of the dealer of the appellant, on 09.09.2004. He sent the same to the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur for report on 18.09.2004.  The said laboratory initially demanded control seeds and their physical characteristics vide letter dtd.23.09.2004. However, the appellant did not furnish the same though demanded from it by Agriculture Officer for aforesaid purpose and hence, the same were not sent to the said laboratory and accordingly, information was given to that laboratory on 28.10.2004. The said laboratory then subsequently demanded the specimen seeds on 05.03.2005. The Agriculture Officer sent its office sample to the said laboratory on 19.03.2005. The said laboratory lastly demanded varietal / morphological characteristics vide letter dtd.06.08.2005. The same were also not furnished to the said laboratory. Lastly the said laboratory submitted report on 22.02.2006, stating that the genetic purity of seeds is of 98%.

15.  Thus, the aforesaid three material demands made by the testing laboratory for testing were not fulfilled by the appellant.  In the absence of the said materials for coming to proper conclusion, the report submitted by testing laboratory has become doubtful. The seeds which were initially purchased from the dealer of the appellant by Agricultural Officer were sent for testing, but same were not found sufficient for testing. The Agriculture Officer as noted above then sent its office sample of the seeds for testing. There is no evidence as to how, when and from where office sample was collected by Agricultural Officer fro testing. No explanation is given why the seeds were not again purchased directly from the dealer of the appellant by the Agriculture Officer for testing. No code number of the said office sample is brought on record.  It is not shown that the seeds of the office sample sent subsequently to the laboratory were of the same variety and lot number and bearing the same code number, which were sold to complainants.  Thus it is not proved that the sample of seeds sent second time by the Agriculture Officer was taken from the same lots sold to the complainants.

16.  In our view, no proper procedure was followed for collecting the same seeds from the dealer of the appellant and for sending the seeds of same variety to the testing laboratory. There was no sufficient material made available to the testing laboratory for proper testing. In view of above discussed infirmities, we find that the report submitted by the said testing laboratory cannot be believed.  Apart from this, it is seen from letter dated 08.10.2004 referred to in impugned order s that it was admitted by the appellant in its said letter that it has to submit it licence to Additional Director Agriculture for permission to market in Maharashtra and it was applying shortly for its renewal.  It means that appellant had no valid licence to sell its seeds in this Maharashtra State.

17.  Moreover, the validity of the seeds was till 05.12.2004 only, but they were tested on 22.02.2006 i.e. much after expiry period of validity. The complaints are not made about the genetic purity of seeds but they are relating to their not giving proper yield. The District Forum below has rightly not relied on that testing report after proper appreciation of evidence brought on record.

18.  The report of the District Seeds Committee, on the other hand, is very specific and reliable.  It fully supports the case of the complainants.

19.  In the aforesaid case of M/s National Seeds Corp. Ltd Vs. M Reddy & Anr., 2012 ALL SCR 901 it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the District Forums relying upon report obtained from agriculture experts called to examine whether crops had failed due to defective seeds, cannot be faulted because procedure adopted was in no way contrary to Sec.13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case also, as we have found for the foregoing reasons that the laboratory testing report discussed above is not reliable to prove that the seeds were of good quality, and as we find that the Dist. Seeds Committee on due inspection of the crops submitted its report, the same is rightly believed by the Forum below.

20.  We find no substance in the submission of learned advocate of the appellant that the said report of District Seeds Committed is premature.  As there is no evidence to prove that said report is premature.  The District Seeds Committee is comprising of experts and in the absence of any reliable seeds laboratory testing report of the same lot of seeds sod to the complainants, we find that the said report of the expert committee deserves to be believed.

21.  The facts & circumstances of the present case, discussed above, are thus totally different from those of aforesaid cases relied upon by the learned advocate of the appellant and hence, the decisions in the said case are of no assistance to the appellant in these appeals.

22.  Thus, we hold that there is sufficient material on record to prove that the seeds manufactured by the appellant and purchased by complainants from its respective dealers were defective and hence, they sustained loss. Therefore, they are entitled to claim compensation from the appellant.

23.  We also find that the compensation assessed by the Forum below is just & proper and needs no interference in this appeal.  We thus hold that all these appeals deserve to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.               All  these  appeals  bearing  Nos. A/09/71 to A/09/168  &  Nos.

A/09/1009 to A/09/1111 are hereby dismissed.

ii.             No order as to cost in these appeals.

iii.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.