Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/11/1334

MAHICO HYBREED SEEDS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOHAR - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1334 OF 2011

(Arising out of order dated 12.07.2011 passed in C.C.No.84/2006 by District Commission, Dhar)

 

MAHYCO HYBRID SEEDS COMPANY LTD,

AURANGABAD ROAD, DAWAALWADI,

BADNAPUR, 76 JAALNA, MAHARASHTRA

THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.                                                      … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. MANOHAR S/O BHAGWAN TARE,

    R/O MANDI ROAD, DHAMNOD,

    TEHSIL-DHARAMPURI, DISTRICT-DHAR (M.P.)

 

2. UNNAT KRISHI FARM SERVICE & MACHINERY

    STORES, THROUGH PROPRIETOR NARAYAN

    BHAI DILIP GUPTA, OPPOSITE TEJAJI MANDIR,\

    DHAMNOD, TEHSIL-DHARAMPURI,

    DISTRICT-DHAR (M.P.)                                                                         …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Atul Dhariwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2.

 O R D E R

(Passed On 23.08.2022)

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

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant against the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhar (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.84/2006 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed.

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are that on 20.05.2005 he had purchased cotton seeds ‘BT-162’ from opposite party no.3/respondent no.2 manufactured by opposite party 1 & 2.  Before sowing the seeds he prepared his land after incurring expenses of Rs.7,500/- and after sowing the seeds as per directions of the company, in December-2005, the crop dried up and cotton hair fell out. The complaint was made to Agriculture Development Officer, Dharampuri and opposite party no.3/respondent no.2. On the basis of complaint, the Agriculture Development Officer inspected the crop and prepared inspection report, thereafter legal notice through advocate was also given to the opposite parties but was neither replied nor paid compensation. Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in selling poor quality cotton seed to the complainant which caused financial loss to the complainant. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking compensation for loss of crop.  

3.                The opposite party no.1 and 2/appellant resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission as it comes under the jurisdiction of civil court. The complainant

has not filed any expert report in support of his complaint. As per complainant, the Agriculture Development Officer, who inspected the crop

-3-

on 17.09.2005 did not intimate the opposite party and the panchnama so prepared was also not given to them. Without expert report, it cannot be said that the seeds were defective.  The complainant did not give the details such as purchase bill, lot & batch no. which were purchased from the opposite party no.3 and therefore, the opposite party no.1 and 2 failed to conduct the quality test of said seeds. The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence that he got only 3.5 quintal crop, there are so many reasons of shortening of crop. As per Seeds Act, 1966 and as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) seeds ought to have been sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing. The crop is damaged either due to excessive water or long dry spell. Since the local Agriculture Officer without giving notice to them made a panchnama therefore, it is not applicable to them.  It is submitted that the technical persons (Plant Pathologist and District Marketing Manager) of the opposite party company visited the field of the complainant in the month of September-2005 and taken cognizance of the complaint. During the field visit of Company representatives they observed that the filed was heavily affected by fungal leaf spots disease (Ramularia, Alternaria and Cercospora) diseases which occurred due to long dry spell and no control measures were adopted by the complainant to secure the crop. The opposite parties also submit that the complaint of the complainant is vague and there are no details about the

-4-

crop cultivation practices adopted by him like use of fertilizers, pesticides, inter-crop management, manures, water intervals etc. There was less magnesium is found in the soil. The crop depends upon the soil, manure, water, insecticides and pesticides. The complaint is filed on false and baseless grounds therefore, it be dismissed with costs.

4.                The opposite party no.3/respondent no.2 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant borrowed the seeds from it and there was overwriting (kaat-peet) in the bill. The complainant had given wrong lot number of seeds. The complainant sown only 450 gm seeds in his two beegha agriculture land which is less. The complainant had stated that his crop dried up in December-2005, whereas the time period of seeds sold by it was 180-200 days. If the complainant sown seeds in May-2005 then the time for crop ends in December-2005. The complainant got prepared report by his known agriculture officer in which there is nothing regarding poor quality of seeds. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,625/- towards cost of the seeds, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards preparation of land, manure, water, insecticides and pesticides, care and loss. Interest @ 8% p.a. was

also awarded on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of complaint till payment. In addition, cost of Rs.1,000/- has also been awarded.

-5-

6.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant argued that the District Commission failed to consider the inspection report of the agriculture officer in which he had stated that the position of BT cotton was good at the time of inspection. The appellant had moved an application under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, for examination of seeds by the appropriate laboratory wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if he did not have the seeds of the said lot number, the company will provide the same but the complainant refused to get the examination of seeds on the ground that the opposite party is trying  to avoid to pay compensation on the ground of scientifically examination of seeds. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the District Commission deserves to be set-aside. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the appeal be allowed. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Vs Sadhu and Another 2005 AIR SCW 1208.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 supported the impugned order and argued that the District Commission relying on the report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer rightlyawarded compensation on account of crop failure due to inferior quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties. She argued that it cannot

-6-

be expected from the complainant/farmer to preserve the sample of seeds so that same can be scientifically examined. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another (2012) 2 SCC 506 and the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in A. P. Seeds Development Corporation Ltd & Anr Vs Medapaudi Ravi Kumar & Ors 2019 NCJ 541 (NC).  

9.                We have perused the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. The complainant had filed his affidavit and the documents marked as P-1 to P-7, P-9 and P-10. The opposite party no.3/respondent no. 2 has filed his affidavit and a document.

10.              First of all we would like to consider the preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer. From the record we find that it was not denied by the opposite party no.3 that the complainant did not purchase the cotton seeds from his shop. The complainant purchased the seeds from the opposite party no.3 which is evident from the bill dated 17.05.2005 (P-1). The opposite party no.3 sold the seeds manufactured by opposite party no.1 and 2, to the complainant after taking consideration, thus the complainant is their consumer. The District Commission has rightly held that the complainant is a consumer.

-7-

11.              Now coming to the merits of the case, we have gone through the complaint filed by the complainant along with his affidavit. On going through the complaint as also the affidavit we find that both the documents were not signed by anyone. We observe that there is categorical allegation of the complainant that the yield is not as per standard from the cotton seeds which were purchased by him from the opposite party no.3. P-5 is an application dated 17.09.2005 addressed to Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Dharampuri District-Dhar requesting him to inspect the crop and to give certificate regarding loss, copy of which endorsed to Deputy Director, Agriculture Dhar and the opposite parties. P-4 are the three registry slips nos.4788, 4799 & 4790 sent to opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.3 respectively. The date mentioned on the said slips is of November-2005, however, there is no acknowledgement due, which clearly goes to show that the copy of application dated 17.09.2005 were sent to the opposite parties in the month of November-2005.

12.              Now we go through the P-5 the inspection report of cotton crop of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Dharampuri filed by the complainant. We have carefully gone through the said report dated 17.09.2005 issued by Senior Agriculture Development Officer regarding inspection of cotton crop stating therein that as per statement of the complainant that three times cotton was picked up from the crop, irrigation

-8-

was done three times in dry spell. The farmer has stated that he had sown three lines of non BT seeds around BT seeds and there is no problem of dried up. He further stated in last that one box of BT cotton seeds was sown in 0.500 hectare, the condition of this cotton crop is good. But certainly this report does nowhere indicates that less crop of the complainant is because of defective seeds.  This report also does not spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crop. Further it is apparent from the complainant’s statement that the crop was not sent for scientific testing and is based only physical inspection.

13.              In regard to this report, it is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant made an application to the Senior Agriculture Development Officer only on 17.09.2005 to inspect his crop and on the very same day he inspected the crop and submitted the report without any signature of complainant or any other witnesses in whose presence the inspection was carried out by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer. The proprietor of the opposite party no.3 Dilip Gupta has specifically mentioned that the complainant is a Retired Agriculture Development Officer, thus in these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the report was prepared in the office itself without inspecting the filed on 17.09.2005 on receipt of application at the behest of complainant.

 

-9-

14.              On going through the record, we observe that there is an application dated 13.10.2006 filed by the opposite party no.1 under Section 13(1)(c) regarding examination of seeds in question by the appropriate laboratory in which it has been specifically mentioned that if the complainant did not have the cotton seeds of alleged lot no, the opposite party no.1 is ready to supply the seeds of same lot no. for examination. However, that application was opposed by the complainant by filing reply to that application on 06.12.2006 stating that the opposite party just want to avoid to pay compensation and is trying to get the examination of the seeds. This clearly goes to show that the complainant did not approach the District Commission with clean hands and pure intention. The District Commission also did not bother to get the seeds tested in the laboratory.  

15.              Needless to say, that the quality of crop depends on various factors like composition of soil, irrigation, use of insecticides/pesticides, environmental conditions etc and cannot be attributed to quality of seeds only. The variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seeds but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, moisture content at the sowing time and physical condition of soil.

16.              The complainant on whom the onus was to prove that the seeds were defective failed to establish by any scientific report that the seeds

-10-

purchased by him where of inferior quality or defective more particularly when the opposite party no.1/appellant manufacturer of the seeds filed an application for examination of the seeds. The report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer 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 Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. II (2011) CPJ 99 (NC).

17.              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 shown by the complainant were of mixed type and did not match the quality and the Agriculture Officer also gave report to effect that seeds were of inferior quality.  However, in the present case, in the report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, he has expressed no view regarding defective seeds. The complainant was also failed to get the examination of the seeds in the laboratory. Thus in absence of any concrete proof regarding defective seeds, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible.

18.              The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 in National Seeds Corporation (supra) and A. P. Seeds Development (supra) are of no help as in those cases the

-11-

Agriculture Officer gave report regarding defective seeds as also in that case it has been mentioned that the complainant cannot be expected to save the seeds for examination. But the facts of the case in hand are totally different, here the report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer is silent regarding defective seeds and the opposite party no.1/appellant manufacturer was ready to give the sample of seeds of same lot no to the complainant for examination.

19.              In our considered view, in the absence of any credible evidence regarding defective seeds put forward by the complainant, the District Commission committed grave error in allowing the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay compensation. 

20.              In view of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

21.              In the result, the appeal filed by the opposite party no.1/appellant is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.

           

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

            Presiding Member                             Member