JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

This Revision Petition No. 2556 of 2017 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been filed by the Original Opposite Parties- M/s. Vikas Seeds and M/s. Vikas Chemicals challenging the Impugned Order dated 19.04.2017 of the Ld. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner in Appeal No. 153 of 2012.

2.      The brief factual background happens to be that the Complainant Mr. Kulwant Singh had purchased Medha 888 gawar seeds from the Opposite Party No-2 manufactured by Opposite Party No-1 on the assurance of Opposite Party No-2 that the said seeds are of good quality and will also produce 6 quintals per bigha. The Complainant purchased 13 bags of Medha 888 gawar seeds for Rs.4,095/- vide bill no. 3636 dated 28.06.2011. He sowed the said seeds, but observed that the same were of low quality, old and adulterated as the plants that grew in his crop were small, dead and fruitless. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party /Petitioner No. 2 to complain. He, however, did not receive any positive response from the said Opposite Party No-2. Subsequently, he filed an Application dated 16.09.2011 before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Hanumaangarh, after which, the site inspection was conducted and a site inspection report dated 10.10.2011 was prepared. It was mentioned in the report that 10% of the plants were fruitless and 90% of the plants were fruitful which is contended to be wrong by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant being aggrieved by the adulterated and old medha 588 gawar seeds sold by the Opposite Parties to him, and alleging it a case of deficiency in services, filed his Complaint in the District Commission, Jaipur and sought payment of Rs.2,72,095/-. 

3.      The Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission and resisted the Complaint and filed their reply. It was stated that the claims raised by the Complainant  were wrong as the seeds were of standard quality. The Opposite Parties denied the contents of the inspection report dated 10.10.2011 as the report was prepared in their absence. It was further stated by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties that the seeds in the aforesaid lot were examined in the Seed Examination Laboratory of the Agriculture Department, Shri Ganganagar and on examination, it was found that the breed, purity and sprouts of seeds were correct and only then the seeds were tagged and sold in sealed bags. It was also contended that there is no evidence as to what seeds were sown and in what manner, and that the Complainant ha failed to produce the labelled bag and therefore, it cannot be said that the seeds sown were those of the Opposite Parties. Further, the type of land, irrigation, seed fertilizer, rain and weather, etc., also affect the crop. It was also mentioned in the report of Agriculture Department that there was the effect of blight over the gawar crop and land of the farmer was of weak type.  Further, due to heavy rain and excessive irrigation, the sprouts can be less in count and plants can burn and also shorten in length.  Since about 10% plants of the crop had absorbed excess water, so, it was submitted that any deficiency, without examining the breed of the seed, could not be established.

4.      The District Commission in its order dated 06.08.2012, decided the Complaint no. 223/2011 and observed that the Complainant purchased the seeds but after spouting those seeds, he came to know that the seeds are of three types, out of which some plants were long and short, some were dead and some were fruitless, and consequently most were damaged plants, due to which there was no hope for good crop. It was further observed by the District Commission that the land of Hanumangarh area which is nahri area is of good quality, therefore it cannot be considered that agricultural land of this area is weak. The District Commission thus partly allowed the Complaint and ordered -

“Therefore, we admit the complaint and order the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 19,800/- towards damage of crop, Rs. 4095/- towards value of the seeds, Rs. 35000/- towards expenses on cultivation and seeding of the crop, Rs. 2000/- towards mental harassment and RS. 1100/- towards Litigation expenses i.e. total Rs. 61,995/- to the complainant within a period of one month. If that said compensation does not pay to the complainant within the period of one month the complainant will have right to get said amount with interest to 9% till the date of payment from the date of judgment.”

5.      Feeling Aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by the District Commission, Appeal bearing No. 153 of 2012 was filed by Appellants/Opposite Parties against the Respondent/ Complainant before the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner.

6.      The State Commission in its impugned Order dated 19.04.2017 dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order of District Commission by observing inter alia -

“The Complainant purchased gawar seeds with is correct. When the Agriculture Officer inspected the site, he reported that 10% entire crop was fruitless or ruin crop. The District Forum passed judgement to compensation in the light of that report. There is no error in passing the aforesaid judgement.”         

7.      The Revision Petition has since been filed by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties against the impugned order on the grounds that gawar is a dry land crop and normally is not sown in heavy soil and irrigated condition. Further, the crop was not properly handled by the Respondent as there was 5% blight over the gawar crop and that the Agriculture Department’s report was prepared in the absence of Petitioners.

8.      As already noted in para No. 3 above, the petitioners/Opposite Parties had also claimed that the seeds in the concerned lot had been got examined in the Seed Examination Laboratory of the Agriculture Department, Sri Ganga Nagar, and that on examination, it had been found that the breed, purity and sprouts of the seeds were correct, and only then the seeds had been packed and sold in sealed bags. The relevant report of the Seed Examination Laboratory was apparently a part of the reply filed own behalf of the Opposite Parties before the Ld. District Forum. A copy of the same was not originally filed along with the Revision Petition. However on 24/02/2023, liberty was granted to Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners to place on record a copy of the said report, which was subsequently filed on 01/08/2023, and is now on record.

9.      Perusal of the said report dated 27^th of May 2011 however has the effect of demolishing the defence of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. Perusal of the report goes to show that two different samples of “Guar” being firstly VS –10 –KH –15, and secondly VS –10 – KH –16 had been tested and it was found that the percentage of normal seedlings in these 2 samples was only 80% and 81% respectively. On the other hand 10% of the seedlings in the 1^st sample were found to be Abnormal, and an additional 10% of the seedlings were found to be Dead. The similar percentage for Abnormal and Dead seedlings in the 2^nd sample was found to be 8% and 11% respectively. Now the Ld. District Forum in its impugned order had concluded that only 10% of the complainant’s crop had been ruined due to the inferior quality of seeds. Compensation was therefore awarded to him only at 10% of the value claimed by him. But the own Seed Examination Report relied upon by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties revealed that 19% to 20% of the concerned samples were found to be Abnormal and Dead seedlings. So if at all there had been any error on the part of the Ld. Fora below in appreciating the contents of the said Report relied upon by the Petitioners, it was only to the disadvantage and prejudice of the Complainant/Respondent, and not against the present petitioners, who otherwise could have been found liable to pay compensation to the tune of 19% to 20% instead of 10% as actually awarded to the Complainant.

10.    For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Ld. Fora below.  The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No further orders as to costs.

11.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.