Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

2668/07

M.P.STATE SEEDS CERTIFICATION AGENCY - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH JAAT - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SUSHIL GOSWAMI

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2668 OF 2007

(Arising out of order dated 06.10.2007 passed in C.C.No. 36/2006 by District Commission, Harda)

 

MANAGER,

M.P.RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM

VIKAS NIGAM, BEEJ BHAWAN,

36, MOTHER TERESA MARG,

ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL.                                                                                … APPELLANT.

 

                    Versus

 

1. JAGDISH JAAT, S/O SHRI KISNA JAAT,

    R/O VILLAGE-BHAIROPUR, POST-GUNNAS,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)  

 

2. PRAHLAD JAAT, S/O SHRI JAGDISH JAAT,

    R/O VILLAGE-BHAIROPUR, POST-GUNNAS,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)

 

3. MANAGER,

    VRIHTAKAAR SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT

    KADOLA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)

 

4. M.P.RAJYA BEEJ PRAMINIKARAN SANSTHA,

    GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                         …. RESPONDENTS.   

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2008

(Arising out of order dated 06.10.2007 passed in C.C.No. 36/2006 by District Commission, Harda)

 

M.P.STATE SEEDS CERTIFICATION AGENCY,

GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL,

THROUGH ASSISTANT SEEDS CERTIFICATION

OFFICER.                                                                                                       … APPELLANT.

 

                    Versus

 

1. JAGDISH JAAT, S/O SHRI KISNA JAAT,

    R/O VILLAGE-BHAIROPUR, POST-GUNNAS,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)  

 

2. PRAHLAD JAAT, S/O SHRI JAGDISH JAAT,

    R/O VILLAGE-BHAIROPUR, POST-GUNNAS,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-HARDA (M.P.)

 

3. MANAGER,

    VRIHTAKAAR SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT

   

-2-

KADOLA, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-DHAR (M.P.)

 

4. M.P.STATE SEEDS FARMS DEVELOPMENT

    AGENCY, BEEJ BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS,

    BHOPAL (M.P.)                                                                                   …. RESPONDENTS.                       

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                None for the complainants.

           None for the opposite party no.1-society.

           Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation.

            None for the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 27.09.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:             

                    Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.2668/2007 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.36/2006. First Appeal no. 2668/2007 has been filed by the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation whereas First Appeal no.1541/2008 has been filed by the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency for setting aside the impugned order.

-3-

 3.               Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainants are that they are agriculturists by profession and that on 01.06.2006 they had purchased 8.10 quintal Soyabean seeds-‘J.S.335-F-2’ from opposite party no.1-society manufactured by opposite party no.2-seed corporation after paying a sum of Rs.13,267/- @ Rs.1575/- per quintal. It was assured that there will be minimum 70% germination. The complainants alleged that after sowing the said seeds there was germination within 3-4 days but because of adulterated seeds there was germination reduced by less than half. On 10.07.2006 complaint was made to Deputy Director, Agriculture, on which an inspection was carried out by the inspection team on 11.07.2006 and a panchnama was prepared. Thus the complainants had filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking Rs.13,267/- cost of seeds, Rs.7,000/- towards again sowing, Rs.60,000/- compensation for his crop, Rs.20,000/- compensation for mental and physical pain with interest @ 24% p.a.

4.                The opposite party no.1-Society resisted the complaint by filing reply to the complaint on the ground that the certified seeds received in sealed packet from the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation were sold to the complainants. On sealed packet, quantity of seeds, seeds certification date, validity of seeds, legal warning regarding seeds with seal and signatures of the officer-in-charge were scored. The opposite party no.1-

-4-

society is a cooperative society which provides services to the farmers by selling the seeds in cash and credit and not committing deficiency in service.  

5.               The opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation resisted the complaint by filing written reply on the ground that the opposite party no.,2 & 3 i.e. Seed Corporation and Seed Certification Agency sold the seeds through different societies in all over M.P. and if the society did not keep the seeds properly, the opposite party no.2 is not liable for the same. The complainants have filed complaint collusively on 10.07.2006 as they had produced panchnama dated 11.07.2006.  The complainants did not file any bill that from where they had purchased the said seeds. The opposite party no.2 has not committed any deficiency in service and had supplied good quality seeds. It is therefore submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

6.               The opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainants did not make any allegations against it and therefore they are not necessary party to the case. It is therefore prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed with costs.   

7.                The District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the complainant directing the opposite parties to pay jointly or severally Rs.13,267/- towards costs of seeds, Rs.3,000/- towards field preparation

-5-

and sowing of seeds, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop and Rs.2,000/- each for mental and physical pain totaling Rs.40,267/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 28.10.2006 till payment to the complainant. Hence these appeals by the opposite party no.1 & 2.

8.                Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation as none appeared for the complainant, opposite party no.1-society and the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency.  Perused the record.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/appellant in the present appeal-Seed Corporation argued that the District Commission erred in not considering the fact that when they sowed seeds, on that day there was excessive rain and weather is not suitable for sowing soyabean seeds and due to which germination effected. The District Commission also did not consider this aspect that the opposite party no.1-society had sold 1200 quintal of same seeds in Harda District but except the complainants no other farmer made a complaint regarding seeds from which it is clear that the seeds were not defective. The complainants not sowed the seeds as per weather condition and for which they themselves are liable. It is further argued that the District Commission failed to consider that the opposite party no.2-Seed Corporation after earning the seeds got verified the same by the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency. The germination percentage

-6-

of the seeds in question as per germination capability test report was shown as 75 and the same seeds were sold to the complainants. The District Commission did not consider this fact that the complainants neither got the seeds nor soil of agriculture land tested by appropriate laboratory.  

10.              On  going through the record, we find that earlier these appeals against the impugned order were decided by this Commission vide order dated 04.07.2012 and the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency was directed to pay 50% of the awarded amount to the complainant.  Against which the opposite party no.3-Seed Certification Agency approached the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4063 OF 2012.  Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 26.09.2013 allowed the revision petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2012 passed by this Commission and remanded the matter for disposal of appeal on merits.  

11.              The complainant has filed documents along with his affidavit. We observe that there is categorical allegation of the complainant that though there was germination in the seeds within 3-4 days but because of adulterated seeds germination was reduced by less than half.  We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant. Exhibit ‘C-1’ is bill dated 01.06.2006 regarding purchase of seeds. Exhibit ‘C-2’ to ‘C-7’ are the tags of the seeds. Exhibit ‘C-8’ is panchnama dated 11.07.2006 prepared.

-7-

Exhibit ‘C-10’ is letter dated 10.07.2006 of the complainant to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Government of M.P. Harda. As we carefully go through the panchnama dated 11.07.2006 (Exhibit ‘C-8’) stating that on 01.06.2006 the complainant had purchased 8.10 quintal Soyabean seeds-‘J.S.335-F-II’ from Kadola Khad Bikri Kendra (Samiti) by bill dated 814 dated 01.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.13,267/-. Lot number of said seeds was Oct-05-12-151-2490 F II (A). It is further stated that the complainant farmer sowed 3.60 quintal seeds in 8.50 acre on 04.07.2006. In the said panchnama it is further mentioned that the agriculturist/complainant told that in 8.50 acre there was 10 to 15% germination which was destroyed and again seeds were sowed. It is further mentioned that the agriculturist/complainant told that 4.50 quintal seeds were sowed in 11 acre land acquired from Chakrapani Pandey.   

12.              In the said panchnama it is further mentioned that germination of soyabean seeds in aforesaid 11 acre land was inspected by random procedure by counting number of plants in one sq.m. Average 9.91 plants were found in one sq.m. Normally the number of plants will be 40 in one sq. m. Therefore, the percentage of germination was 24.77% The said panchnama was signed by number of persons. This panchnama also does not bear any signature and seal of Senior Agriculture Development Officer or any other officer of the Agriculture Department and is on simple paper. This panchnama does not spell out the reasons for the so called failure of

-8-

the crop.  Further, it is apparent from the complainant’s statement as well as from the panchnama, that the crop was not sent for scientific testing and is based only visual inspections and conjectures.

13.              The complainant in support of his claim has filed only this panchnama. A perusal of the aforesaid panchnama shows that any officer of the Agriculture Department in whose presence panchnama was prepared has nowhere stated that the seeds were defective. The onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainant, which he failed to discharge.

14.              As per the complainant’s submission, he became aware of the fact that the seeds sowed by him have not sprouted, at very early stage i.e. within 3-4 as is clear from the panchnama that first time he sowed seeds on 04.07.2006 and second time he sowed seeds on 09.07.2006. There is however, no specific mention in their pleadings, whether subsequently they had freshly proceeded regarding cultivation of new crop, after buying new seeds. The complainant on whom the onus was to prove that the seeds were defective failed to establish by any scientific report that the seeds purchased by him were of inferior quality or defective. The panchnama so prepared is also silent regarding defectiveness of seeds.  We support our view by the decisions of the National Commission in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs Sharad Motirao Khandelwal & Ors II (2012) CPJ 373 (NC) and in

-9-

Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. II (2011) CPJ 99 (NC).

15.              Recently, in case of Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharpoor Singh & Another I (2022) CPJ 87 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has found that the Agriculture Team observed that seeds sown by the complainant were of mixed type and did not match the quality and that Agriculture officer also gave report to effect that seeds were of inferior quality.  However, in the present case, in so called panchnama no one has expressed no view regarding defective seeds. Thus in absence of any concrete proof regarding defective seeds, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible.

16.              The panchnama is prepared on the complaint of the complainant. Panchnama does not say that any expert mind has been applied for conducting inspection and spot survey nor any affidavits have been filed by the farmers who were present on the spot at the time of inspection. Though there is no seal and signature of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer or any other officer of the Agriculture Department on the said panchnama (C-8) which is on simple paper. Simply on the allegation of the complainant that after sowing the seeds, the crop was not proper, it cannot be held that the seeds purchased by the complainant were

 

-10-

defective to make opposite party liable for selling defective seeds.  There should be sufficient and reliable evidence.    

17.              In the absence of any evidence, that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties were defective, the District Commission erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 relying upon the panchnama dated 11.07.2006.  The District Commission have misread the said panchnama which does not bear any seal and signature of any officer of Agriculture Department.

18.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed.

19.              In the result, the appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. This order be placed in record of Appeal no. 2668/2007 and a copy be placed in record of Appeal no. 1541/2008.

 

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member