BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.     APPEAL NO.351/2017

The Managing Director,

Armani Gold Hybrid Sunflower Seeds,

Produced and Marketed by                 ...Appellant/s
Singeta India Ltd., Amar Paradigm,

S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road,

Baner, Pune, Maharashtra state 

(By Sri.Nagaraja.S, Advocate)

-V/s-

1. Bhimappa

S/o Somappa Bandiwaddar,

R/o Mannikerei, Tq: Bilagi,

Dist: Bagalkot,

                                                          Respondent/s

2. The Proprietor,

Vasavi Agro Services,

Dealers in Fertilizers, Pesticides

And Seeds, Bus Stand Road,

Bagalkot-587101, Karnataka

(Respondent No.1 – By Sri.Vijaya Kumar.G.Bagoji, Advocate)

(Respondent No.2- deleted)

2.     APPEAL NO.352/2017

Singeta India Ltd.,

Amar Paradigm,

S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road,                  ...Appellant/s
Baner, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Reptd.By its Managing Director  

(By Sri.Nagaraja.S, Advocate)

-V/s-

1.     Bhimappa

S/o Mr.Siddappa Jadadelli,

C/o Navilahole, Tq: Badami,

Dist: Bagalkot, Karnataka      

                                                          Respondent/s

1. The Proprietor,

N.H.Guddur,

                   Opp. Bus Stand, Bilagi,

                   Karnataka

(Respondent Nos.1&2 – Absent)

3.     APPEAL NO.353/2017

The Managing Director,

Armani Gold Hybrid Sunflower Seeds,

Produced and Marketed by                 ...Appellant/s
Singeta India Ltd., Amar Paradigm,

S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road,

Baner, Pune-411045, Maharashtra

(By Sri.Nagaraja.S, Advocate)

-V/s-

1. Mallappa,

S/o Mr.Pundappa Meti,

Aged about 56 years,

R/o Herakal, Bilagi Taluk,

Bagalkot district

                                                   Respondent/s

2. The Proprietor,

Kiran Seeds house,

MG Road, Bagalkot,

Karnataka

(Respondent No.1 – By Sri.Vijaya Kumar.G.Bagoji, Advocate)

(Respondent No.2- Absent)

COMMON ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER

The Appellant/1^st Opposite Party in complaint No.93/2015 and 92/2015 and the Appellant/2^nd Opposite Party in complaint No.54/2015 have preferred all these appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2016 and 26.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot.  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 fact of the complaints is that the complainants have purchased Armani Gold Sunflower seeds of OP Company/Syngeta India Ltd from authorized dealer of the OP Company on different dates. To sow sunflower crop in irrigated agriculture lands owned by the complainants situated at Mannikere and Navilahole villages, Bilagi and Badami Taluk. The complainants were always used Sandoz Company Sunflower seeds to sow, but the authorized dealer of OP Company/Syngeta India Ltd has advised and forced the complainants to purchase the OP Company/Syngeta India Ltd product and assured the same seeds would be given more yield than other Companies seeds and believing the words of authorized dealer, the complainants have purchased the OP Company’s seeds. Thereafter, the complainants has sown the said Sunflower seeds to their irrigated agriculture land and followed all cropping instructions given by OPs and also taken the plant production measures to control pests and diseases. Even then crop did not give any yield due to poor quality of seeds supplied by OPs, resulting loss of 7.5 to 8 quintal of expected yield as per assessment certificate issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture Bilagi and Badami in respect of summer season crop and the complainants have lost 32 quintal above sunflower expected yield.

The complainants further submits that the complainants informed the above facts to the authorized dealer of the OP/Syngeta India Ltd and the OP Company representative visited the complainants irrigated lands and observed the loss of crop as stated above and also assured to compensate, but the OPs have not compensated till date as assured by them. Further the complainants (in complaint Nos.93/2015 and 92/2015) asked the information under the RTI Act, 2005 through his counsel by name K.M.Kaladagi, advocate, Bagalkot to joint Director of Agriculture Department, Navanagar-Bagalkot about the seasons and other aspects in order to grow the sunflower in the irrigated land and the same authority has given booklet contending the information about sunflower and as per the said information the sunflower can be grown at any season of the year. The OPs have done unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service by doing above said act. Hence the complainants are facing financial loss and mental agony. The complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs and the same notice has been served on the OPs, but they have not replied to the said legal notice.      Hence, complainants have filed these complaints against the OPs for deficiency in service committed by the OPs for selling the defective seeds.  

3. After service of notice, OP Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and submitted that the complainants purchased the OP Company/Singeta India Ltd seeds i.e. Sunflower seeds by name Armani Gold Hybrid in the year 2015 January, but the said Armani Hybrid sunflower seeds were not defective and it is a good quality seeds and the same were tested by the University of Agriculture Science, Dharwad (USA). The entire complaints of complainants they had not stated that they had filed any complaints before the University of Agriculture Science Dharwad or the Agriculture office at Bilagi or Bagalkot for fake seeds or defective seeds. As per the book of University of Agriculture Science, Dharwad (USA) the total yield of Sunflower form 1 hector i.e. (1 hector=2.5 acres) is 10 quintal minimum to 12 quintal maximum. There is no certificate produced by the complainants to show that the seeds supplied are of defective or low quality. No such tests are conducted on the seeds by the complainants or by the Agriculture office, Bagalkot. The complainants have not at all tested the seeds in the competent laboratory whereas the OP Company has tested the seeds in the government laboratory supplied to the farmers.

The OP Company is producing the testing report of sunflower hybrid Armani and other seeds conducted by University of Agriculture Science, Dharwad. The testing report states that the Armani gold seeds is best comparing other seeds in all types of testing as days, total yields and even the oil yield is more than the other seeds available in the market. As per data there is rainfall only 2 mm in the month of January, 2015 and Feb. 2015 is “0”. Due to insufficient rain the plant may not be grown properly because the sunflower seeds need 77 mm rain fall, hence Armani seeds are not defective.  

The seeds used by the complainants were of a very high quality. The quality and the yield of the fruit does not depend only on the quality of seed used by the farmer, instead, several other facts such as cultivation practices, proper/adequate soil and its preparatory tillage before planting, proper irrigation, proper manure’s and doses of fertilizer, climate conditions during germination and process and applications of insecticides and fungicide etc. are also very important for the quality and yield of the fruit. Therefore it is completely wrong to make the producer of seed liable for the inferior quality fruit or lesser yield. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. After trial, the District Consumer Commission, Bagalkot partly allowed the complaint Nos.93/2015 and 92/2015 against the 1^st OP and dismissed the complaints against the 2^nd OP and in complaint No.54/2015 has partly allowed the complaint against the 2^nd OP and dismissed the complaint against the 1^st OP.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st OP/Armani Gold Hybrid Sunflower Seeds produced and marketed by Singeta India Ltd and 2^nd OP/ Syngenta India Ltd filed these Appeals before this Commission. [The OP No.1 and 2 are the one and the same]

6. Heard the arguments. Appellant filed written arguments in all three cases. 

7. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that there is no dispute that the respondents have purchased Armani Gold Sunflower seeds from the Appellant in Jan/Feb.2015 and the same was sowed in their fields.  The allegations of the respondents are that the Armani Gold Sunflower seeds were sowed in their fields; even then crop did not give any yield due to poor quality of seeds supplied by the OP Company/Syngenta India Ltd. When they have approached the authorized dealer of OP Company 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 and Badami Taluk, Dharwad District for crop inspection who referred to the Scientists of the Agriculture University, Dharwad has visited the lands of the complainants gave a report stating that “In almost all the field’s plants with poor seed set were noticed in some of the plots which were in flowering stage higher number of sterile plants were observed in both Kaveri champ and Sandoz Armani hybrid etc”. Hence, legal notice was issued by the respondent on 20.08.2015 and 8.7.2015 to the appellants and the appellants have not replied the same. Hence, the respondents have constrained to file the complaints before the District Commission. 

8. 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.

9. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that the District Commission passed the order after perusing the report of the Scientist of the University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad. 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 the Scientist of the University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad. 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, the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law.  We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  There is no merit in the appeals. Hence, no interference is required. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed and we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The Appeal Nos. 351/2017, 352/2017, & 353/2017 are hereby dismissed.

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

Keep the original copy of the order in Appeal No.351/2017 and the copy of the same in all other connected cases.

Forward free copies to both the parties.

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER