BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.Nos.1403/2008 to F.A.No.1445/2008 AGAINST C.C.Nos.31/2007 to C.C.No.73/2007 DISTRICT FORUM, GUNTUR.
Between:
1. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd.,
Presently known as
Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.,
4th floor, Resham Bhavan, 78,
Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai-400 020
Rep. by its authorized Signatory
Mr.Mahendra M.Chavan. ..Appellant/opp.party No.1
in F.As.1403/08 to 1445/08
2. Bhagya Lakshmi Fertilizers,
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet,
Guntur District,
Rep. by its proprietor. ..Appellant/opp.party No.2
in F.As.1403/08 to 1408/08 1410/08, to 1412/08, 1414/08, 1415/08, 1417/08, 1418/08, 1421/08 to 1422/08, 1424/08 to 1431/08, 1433/08 to 1441/08 & 1445/08.
3. Anantha Laxmi Traders,
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet,
Guntur District,
Rep. by its Proprietor. ..Appellant/opp.party No.2
in F.As.1413/08, 1416/08, 1419/08, 1423/08, 1432/08, 1442/08, 1443/08
4. Vasavi Traders,
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet,
Guntur District,
Rep. by its Proprietor ..Appellant/opp.party No.2
in F.As.1409/08, 1420/08, 1444/08
And
1. B.Yedukondalu, S/o.B.Veeraiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1403/2008.
2. Pasam Pothu Raju, S/o.Govindu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1404/2008.
3.Choppara Rama Murthy, S/o.Anamaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1405/2008.
4. Ravipudi Mariyadesu S/o.Pullaiah
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1406/2008.
5. P.Venkata Narayana, S/o.Nagaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1407/2008.
6. Kilaru Venkateswarlu, S/o.Dasariah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1408/2008.
7. Nallamothu Venkata Narayana, S/o.Nagaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1409/2008.
8. Pasam Ramanjaneyulu Chalmaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1410/2008.
9. Dumpeti Yesu Babu, S/o.Raghavulu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1411/2008.
10. Gorantla Appa Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1412/2008.
11. Kilari Siva Ram Prasad, S/o.Nageswara Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1413/2008.
12. Nakka Vinayaka S/o.Adi Narayana,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1414/2008.
13. Nakka Srinu, S/o.Nageswara Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1415/2008.
14. N.Ramakotewar Rao, S/o.Venkata Ramaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1416/2008.
15.Choppara Singaiah, S/o.Venkaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1417/2008.
16.Pasam Ankamma Rao, S/o.Koti Ratnam,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1418/2008.
17. Nallamothu Seshagiri Rao, S/o.Sri Ramulu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1419/2008.
18. Katragadda Rama Krishna, S/o.Nageswara,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1420/2008.
19. Gorantla Venkateswarlu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1421/2008.
20. Salisam Venkateswarlu, S/o.Seshiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1422/2008.
21. Nallamothu Masthan Rao, S/o.Narayana Swamy,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1423/2008.
22.Are Lakshmi Narayana,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1424/2008.
23.Pasam Venkata Narayana,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1425/2008.
24.Ravipudi Chinnodu, S/o.Venkata Swamy,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1426/2008
25. Kodali Sudhakar, S/o.Adeiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1427/2008.
26. Pasam Vedadri S/o.Chalmaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1428/2008.
27. Chejarla Yohan Rao, S/o.Yasoda Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1429/2008.
28. Katari Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1430/2008.
29. Pasam Lakshmi Narayana S/o.Venkateswarlu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1431/2008.
30.K.Raja Mohana Rao, S/o.Amaraiah
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1432/2008.
31. Gorantla Ankamma, S/o.China Venkaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1433/2008.
32. Mekala Nagaiah, S/o.Subba Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1434/2008.
33. Bejegam Narayana Swamy, S/o.Amaralingam,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1435/2008.
34.Pasam Subba Rao, S/o.Govindu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1436/2008.
35.Nallamothu Sidha Rao, S/o.Ramaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1437/2008.
36.Pasam Venkata Rao, S/o.Hanumantha Rao,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1438/2008.
37. Kataru Mutyalu, S/o.Ankalu,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1439/2008.
38. Gorantla Srinu, S/o.Kotaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1440/2008.
39.Nakka Govindamma, S/o.Nakka Baji,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1441/2008.
40. Nallamothu Nataraju, S/o.Narayana
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1442/2008.
41.Chopparapu Naga Raju, S/o.Amaraiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1443/2008.
42. Nallamothu Pulla Rao, S/o.Narayana
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1444/2008.
43.Gorantla Potha Raju, S/o.China Basavaiah,
Nadendla Village & Mandal,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
in F.A.No.1445/2008.
44. The Joint Director of Agriculture
Collectorate Compound,
Guntur. Respondent/Opp.party No.3
in F.As.1403/08 to 1445/08
(Respondent/O.P.No.3 not necessary
Party to all appeals.)
Counsel for the Appellants:M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.
(Common in all appeals)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Satynanarayana Moorthy.
(Common in all appeals)
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the facts are similar in all these cases.
F.A.No.1403/2008:
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.31/2007 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 4 packets of “Tejaswini” hybrid chilli seeds produced by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party, who is the dealer, at Rs.20/- per packet vide bill No.20 dated 26-6-2006 issued in the name of the complainant. Each packet contains 10 grams of seeds and the complainant submits that the first opposite party advertised extensively stating that the hybrid variety chilli seed produced by it is infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. The complainant further submits that opposite party No.1 also gave the morphological and genetic characteristics of the seed wherein they represented that the crop will come into 50% flowering stage by 45 to 48 days and the fruits will be in pendent position and that the plants will grow to a height of 4 feet.
The complainant sowed the seeds in a nursery at Bobbepally as per the directions of opposite party No.1, the plants were propagated and grown to a usable size and thereafter the same were transplanted in his .50 cents in the month of August, 2006. The complainant submits that he took all necessary precautions for cultivation of the chilli crop and invested an amount of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-for the purpose of nursery, transplantation and cultivation. There was no flowering in about 90% of the crop and the entire crop is still in vegetable phase. Even the small portion of crop where some fruits of chillies were found, they were found erect or semi erect position instead of pendent position and there was no growth in the plants and also the plants were not similar with a mixture of other varieties. The complainant further submits that the entire crop was infested with thrips and the crop was a total failure. The complainant and other farmers who also raised the same crop with the seed produced by opposite party No.1 had similar complaints and they approached the second opposite party who informed that he would represent their case to the first opposite party, manufacturer but none of the respondents chose to visit their fields. Immediately the complainant and the other farmers made a representation to the third opposite party, who in turn appointed a special team consisting of 5 members which includes a scientist and the special team visited the village on 12-10-2006 and inspected the fields of all the farmers who raised “Tejaswini” chilli crop and submitted their report to the Joint Director of Agriculture. Based on the report of the special team, the Joint Director of Agriculture issued proceedings dated 30-10-2006 wherein it was stated that the crop has been severally infested with ‘thrips’ and the growth is also at different stages and the fruits are in semi erect or in erect position. The third opposite party also advised the complainant and other farmers to approach the Consumer Forum for getting compensation but did not take any action against the producer or dealer. The complainant submits that it is only because of the sub-standard seeds manufactured by opposite party No.1 and sold by opposite party No.2, that they sustained loss of yield the market value of which is Rs.7,000/- per quintal and in normal conditions the crop would yield 30 to 35 quintals and they spent about Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- per acre and the net loss sustained by them is Rs.75,000/- per acre. Hence this complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- per acre towards compensation together with interest at 24% p.a. and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the RTA extracts of the land are not filed by the complainants and that the said chilli (MHP-1) produced by the company undergoes several parameter tests in their quality control laboratory which is recognized by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Central Government of India and accreditation was also granted by the International Seed Testing Association. The alleged problem of attack of the disease is not due to the quality of the seeds but due to unsuitable environment condition and lack of proper cultivation practices. They supplied the seeds only after complete satisfaction of genetic purity standard, quality of seed and confirmation of minimum limits of germination. Yield depends upon the methods of sowing, sowing time, usage of seed rate, usage of manures, fertilizers, irrigation, weed control and disease control measures.
Opposite party No.1 also contends that if the complainant/farmer had lodged a complaint in writing, the Seed Inspector must take into his possession the marks/labels, the seed containers and a sample of unused seed to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and would investigate the case for failure of the crop by sending the sample to the Seed Analyst for a detailed analysis at the State Seed testing laboratory. In the present case, this was not done by the Seed Inspector. The farmers in Guntur District have been cultivating chilli “Tejaswini” Hybrid seed since the last five years and this hybrid seed had well adapted to the soil and climatic conditions and given a good performance in the past. Opposite party No.1 submits that cultivation of Hybrid Tejaswini has helped the farmers in the District to realize better yield and grater profits for their efforts. There was no scientific study or trial report to suggest that Hybrid Tejaswni is more susceptible to the virus than any other hybrid grown in the district. Thrips and Aphids are known to transmit Peanut Bud necrosis virus which is due to prolonged dry spell and untimely rains and the pesticide selection, quality, correct dosages and timely application are all beyond the scope of the seed marketing company. The opposite party also submits in their counter that they filed literature with respect to these viral and mycoplasmal diseases of vegetable crops published by INDIAN INSITUTE OF HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH, BANGALORE (ICAR) and the disease of vegetable crops, genetics and breeding vegetables and hand book of vegetable science and technology to prove the specific details of cultivation, practice, control of insect pests, virus/diseases occurring in the chilli crop and recommendations are given to protect the crop from the attack of inspects and pests.
Opposite party No.1 further contended that the report of Joint Director of Agriculture did not take into consideration that the crop was severally infected by ‘thrips’ and the following information was required to be checked by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur and the report does not disclose whether the same was checked.
· The percentage of the intensity of the infestation observed in the field and the reason for the spread of infestation on the chilli plants
· Method of cultivation practices adopted by the complainant farmers
· Total germination percentage of the chilli plants in the fields
· Availability of Irrigation facilities
· Use of pesticides/insecticides for prevention of the infestation
· Present/Past Environmental conditions before/after transplanting the chilli seeds.
· Total Rainfall in the district
· Whether chilli plants samples were collected for laboratory test
· Whether any seed samples were called for from the respondent company to count genetic purity of the seeds
· Whether the state of the respondent company representative, Mr.P.Suresh, has been recorded?
· Temperature (before/after transplanting the chilli plants and at the time of flowering stage)
· Total expected yield from the said crop
· Expected loss ( in Qtls) of the crop due to attack of “Thrips”
· Total loss in (Amount) from the said crop expected
· Total yield harvested by the complainant farmers
· Whether complainant farmers mixed seeds of some local varieties with that of the respondent’s variety at the time of sowing/transplantation due to a prolonged dry spell (Germination might have been affected due to long dry spell) if yes, to what extent?
· Whether the same problem was noticed to the knowledge of the Scientist/Breeder of Agricultural University/Research Station for further Analysis. If Yes, what they had reported.
Unless this information is certified by the Joint Director of Agriculture, the opposite parties contend that the liability cannot be fastened upon them. It is also their contention that the Joint Director of Agriculture never stated that the loss of crop is due to the defective seeds. The farmers have already obtained some yield from the said crop. The delay in the flowering stage from 45-48 days to 60-70 was due to continuous dry spell in the month of October,2006 and has nothing to do with any defect in the seeds, hence they seek dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Opposite party No.2 also filed counter and denied the allegations and alleged that the Joint Director of Agriculture did not secure the presence of opposite parties at the time of inspection of the fields and giving the report. He further alleged that the degree of virus infestations speak about the non conducive climatic conditions and the complainants taking appropriate steps for arresting the spread of ‘thrips’. He further stated that the report of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur has given to go by the standard technical assessment methodology of the growth pattern of the chilli crop with reference to the filed level, climatic conditions and the mode of agricultural operations under taken with regard to the seasonal transplantation work and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A36, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.37,500/- for Ac..50 cents of land owned by the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.
The brief point that falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled to any relief sought for in the complaint?
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased 4 packets of “Tejaswini” hybrid chilli seeds produced by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party, who is the dealer at Rs.20/- per packet for sowing in his Ac.0.50 cents of land. It is the complainant’s case that the opposite parties had advertised that this Tejaswini seed is infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre and the morphological and genetic characteristics of the seed wherein they represented that the crop will come into 50% flowering stage by 45 to 48 days and the fruits will be in pendent position and that the plants will grow to a height of 4 feet. It is the further case of the complainant that even after expiry of 70 days, there was no flowering in about 90% of the crop and the entire crop was still in vegetable phase. Even the small portion of crop where some fruits of chillies were found, they were found erect or semi erect position instead of pendent position and there was no growth in the plants and also the plants were not similar with a mixture of other varieties and also severally infested with thrips and the crop was a total failure. The complainant together with several farmers who also suffered similar loss complained to opposite party No.2, who submitted that he would represent to opposite party No.1 but when the complainants received no response, he and the other farmers of Nadenla village sent a written representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture and a Special team visited the village on 12-10-2006 and inspected the fields of the farmers who raised Tejaswini chilli crop and submitted the report to the Joint Director of Agriculture. Based on the report of the Special team, the Joint Director of Agriculture issued proceedings dated 30-10-2006 advising the farmers to approach the Consumer Forum for compensation.
The contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that the complainant/farmer had not adhered to the proper crop management practices is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. It is their own case as stated in para 25 of their counter that the farmers in Guntur District have been cultivating Tejaswini Hyrbid chilli seeds since the last five years and have got good yields every year by adopting good management practices such as timely plant protection measures, irrigation and inter cultural operations. When it is their own case that the farmers in this district have been using Tejaswini Hybrid chili seed and where adopting good management practices, at the same time, the appellants cannot turn round and contend that the failure of the crop is only due to bad crop management practices. They further contend in para 25 of their counter that the hybrid chillies grown in the district during the year 06-07 Kharif- to a larger extent belonged to Hybrid Tejaswini perhaps due to the fact that the hybrid had well adapted to that soil and climatic conditions and had given a satisfactory performance in the past. Having stated so in their counter, their contention that the complainant farmer did not follow good management practices and also that the soil and climatic conditions were the reason for thrips is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently contended that the crop was severally infested with thrips which is a pest and there is no nexus between the quality of the seed and the infection of the crop with the said thrips. He further contended that the said thrips is only due to dry spells and bad climatic conditions. When the appellants themselves have stated that the Hybrid are well adapted to the soil and climatic conditions and have given a satisfactory performance in the past, now to submit that the same climatic conditions is a cause for thrips is unsustainable. To reiterate, when the farmers in the Guntur District admittedly are using this Tejaswini hybrid chilli seeds for the last five years and have been getting good results, now to contend that they did not use proper pesticides and management practices properly and hence the crop was infested by thrips is also unsustainable.
The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that their quality control measures are very stringent and that three affidavits of third parties i.e. Affidavit of Mr.Ponnuri Suresh, Marketing Manager of 1st opposite party, Mr.Mahendra Chavan, Manager (Legal) of first opposite party, Mr.Arun Kulkarni, Manager (Quality control) Dr.Chandrakumar Saragur, Manager (Quality Assurance) of first opposite party have been filed to establish that all necessary precautions were taken in quality control prior to marketing the seed. We are of the considered view that these affidavits are all self serving statements since all of them are personnel working of the first opposite party company.
Now we address ourselves to whether the sale of seeds is as per the statutory regulations or not.
Point No.1 There can be no gainsaying the fact that the sale of seeds is hedged in by several statutory restrictions calculated to zealously protect the farmer who is generally considered to be highly vulnerable to heavy odds. The conduct of sale of ‘notified kind or variety’ of seeds is governed by the following pieces of legislation and subordinate legislation and the statutory notifications. (hereinafter called compendium of laws for brevity)
1. The seeds Act 1966 (the Act) especially Secs. 2(5), 2(8), 2(9),
2(16), 5, 6 & 7 of the Act enriched by item (b) of the Statement
of Objects and Reasons.
2. The Seeds Rules 1968 (the Rules) especially Rules 7 to 13.
3. S.O.No.767 (E) dated 6.11.1991 providing for specifications for the size, contents, colour, mark or label to be affixed on the seeds container (container itself is defined u/s 2 (5) of Seeds Act as including even the sack, bag, wrapper among some more things)
4. S.O.No.882 (E) dated 18.12.1991 providing for minimum
limits of genetic purity of seeds of notified varieties.
5. Seeds (Control) Order 1983 especially clauses 3 and 9.
It is discernable from the above summary of law that the law of seeds is tailored mainly to assure the farmers purchasing seeds, the guaranteed germination and genetic purity as also purity of quality.
Before we apply the aforementioned compendium of law the frist and foremost thing we have to make sure of is whether the seeds in question are of notified kind or variety?
In this connection Sec.5 of the seeds Act provides for as follows:
5. Power to notify kinds or varieties of seeds: -
If the Central Government, after consultation with the committee, is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for purposes of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such kind or variety to be a notified kind or variety for the purposes of the Act and different kinds or varieties may be notified for different States or for different areas thereof.
It is therefore evident from Sec.5 that it is only a notification in that behalf that can make the seeds in question as being ‘notified kind of variety. Unfortunately we could not lay our hands on any such comprehensive notification. None-the-less we could find a long list of seeds captioned under “Varieties of Seeds” each variety having been shown as belonging to a ‘Group’ and ‘Crop’ and having been notified as a variety by virtue of a respective S.O. or G.O. “Chilli” also figures in this ‘vegetable’ variety.
Now that we are convinced that the seeds in question are notified in terms of Sec.5 of the Seeds Act, the next step would be to ascertain whether the seller had tendered evidence of complying with the conditions laid down in Sec.7 & Sec.6 of the Seeds Act which read as follows:
Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties
7. No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless-
(a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of
germination and purity specified under clause (a) of
section 6;
(c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed
manner, the mark or
label containing the correct particulars thereof, specified under clause (b) of section 6; and
(d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.
Power to specify minimum limits of germination and purity, etc.
6. The Central Government may, after consultation of the Committee and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify –
(a) the minimum limits of germination and purity with respect to any seed of any notified kind or variety:
(b) the mark or label to indicate that such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) and the particulars which marks or label may contain.
The opposite parties assailed Ex.A11 but they did not produce any label for which an extensive procedure is contemplated by Rules 7 to 13 of the Seed Rules r/w notification set out as (3) and (4) of the compendium of laws supra.
In order to have a better insight into law in this regard the relevant seeds Rules and the SOs itemized as (2) to (4) of the compendium are extracted hereunder in extenso:
7. Responsibility for Marking or Labelling. – When seed of a notified kind or variety is offered for sale under section 7, each container shall be marked or labeled in the manner hereinafter specified. The person whose name appears on the mark or label shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information required to appear on the mark or label so long as seed is contained in the unopened original container:
Provided, however, that such person shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the statement appearing on the mark or label if the seed is removed from the original unopened container, or he shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the germination statement beyond the date of validity indicated on the mark or label.
8. Contents of the mark or label. – There shall be specified on every mark or label-
(i) particulars, as specified by the Central Government under
clause (b) of section 6 of the Act;
(ii) a correct statement of the net content in terms of weight and
expressed in metric system;
(iii) date of testing;
(iv) if the seed in container has been treated-
(a) a statement indicating that the seed has been treated;
(b) the commonly accepted chemical or abbreviated chemical (generic) name of the applied substance; and
(c) if the substance of the chemical used for treatment, and present with the seed is harmful to human beings or other vertebrate animals, a caution statement such as “Do not use for food, feed or oil purposes”. The caution for mercurials and similarly toxic substance shall be the word “Poison” which shall be in type size, prominently displayed on the label in red:
(v) the name and address of the person who offers for sale, sells or otherwise supplies the seed and who is responsible for its quality;
(vi) the name of the seed as notified under section 5 of the Act.
9. Manner of marking or labeling the container under clause (C) of section 7 and clause (B) of section 17. – (1) The mark or label containing the particulars of the seed as specified under clause (b) of section 6 shall appear on each container of seed or on a tag or mark or label attached to the container in a conspicuous place on the innermost container in which the seed is packed and on every other covering in which that container is packed and shall be legible.
(2) Any transparent cover or any wrapper, case or other covering used solely for the purpose of packing of transport or delivery need not be marked or labelled.
(3) Where by a provision of these rules, any particulars are required to be displayed on a label on the container, such particulars may, instead of being displayed on a label be etched, painted or otherwise indelibly marked on the container.
10. Mark or Label not to contain false or misleading statement. – The mark or label shall not contain any statement, claim, design, device, fancy name or abbreviation which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the seed contained in the container.
11. Mark or label not to contain reference to the Act or Rules contradictory to required particulars. – The mark or label shall not contain any reference to the Act, or any of these, rules or any comment on, or reference to, or explanation of any particulars or declaration required by the Act or any of these rules which directly or by implication contradicts, qualifies or modifies such particulars or declaration.
12. Denial of Responsibility for mark or label content prohibited. – Nothing shall appear on the mark or label or in any advertisement pertaining to any seed of any notified kind or variety which shall deny responsibility for the statement required by or under the Act to appear on such mark, label or advertisement.
13. Requirements to be complied with by a person carrying on the Business referred to in Section 7. – (1) No person shall sell, keep for sale, offer to sell, barter or otherwise supply any seed of any notified kind or variety, after the date recorded on the container, mark or label as the date upto which the seed may be expected to retain the germination not less than that prescribed under clause (a) of section 6 of the Act.
(2) No person shall alter, obliterate or deface any mark or label attached to the container of any seed.
(3) Every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety under section 7, shall keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seed sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record shall be as large as the size notified in the official Gazette. This sample, if required to be tested, shall be tested only for determining the purity.
S.O.No.767 (E), dated 6.11.1991.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Seed Committee, hereby specifies the size, contents, colour, mark or label to be affixed on the container of the seeds of notified kind or variety, namely : -
(1) The length and breadth of the mark or label shall be 15X10 cm.
(2) The contents of the mark or label shall contain the following information, namely :-
(i) Label No…………………
(ii) Kind……………………..
(iii) Variety…………………..
(iv) Lot No……………………
(v) Date, month and year of test…………..
(vi) Valid upto……………………..
(vii) Germination (Minimum)………………..%
(viii) Physical Purity (Minimum)…………….%
(ix) Genetic Purity (in case of variety) (Minimum)………….%
(x) Weight…………………
(xi) *Name of the chemical used for seed treatment, if seed is treated.
(xii) Name and address of the person who offers for sale, sells or otherwise supplies the seed.
Note:- (a) * if seed has been treated, the following statement shall also be printed on the label.
If the substance of the chemical used for treatment, and present with the seed is harmful to human beings or other vertebrate animals, a caution statement such as “Do not use for food, feed or oil purposes”. The caution for mercurial’s and similarly toxic substance shall be the word “POISON” which shall be in type size, prominently displayed on the label in red.
(b) If label is to be affixed on a smaller container than the size of the label, it may be reduced proportionately. However, the length and breadth ratio and contents shall remain the same.
[(3) The colour should be a close match to opaline green colour, ISC No.275 of IS-5 (colours for ready mixed paints and enamels).]
2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
S.O.No.882 (E), dt.18.12.1991
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b0 of Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Seed Committee hereby specifies the minimum limits of genetic purity of the seeds of notified varieties as follows unless specified otherwise.
Genetic purity of the seeds of notified varieties:
Minimum Genetic
Purity Standards
( % )
(a) Varieties 98
(b) Composites, synthetics, multilines 95
and hybrids
2. This notification shall come into force on the date of the publication in the Official Gazettee.
It is pertinent to note that the appellants/opposite parties did not chose to file the seed packets in proof of their contention that they adhered to all the above rules and regulations. The burden of proof shifts on the appellants and they failed to prove that their seeds met the standard of seed law.
Did the appellants/opposite parties establish their case by sending the seeds for testing under Section 13(1)(c)?
The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the Joint Director of Agriculture filed only a memo and not a report and that no notice was given to him before the conduction of inspection and that the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1)(C) was not adhered to. Now we address ourselves to this contention of the appellants/opposite parties that Section 13(1)(c) was not adhered to and that the District Forum was right in awarding the compensation. We rely on the judgement of the Apex court in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) in MAHYCO v. ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS wherein it observed that
‘ it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they would not be in a position to send the seeds for analysis. Under these circumstances the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its accord sent the seeds for analysis to an appropriate laboratory. The opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory’.
In this judgement, the supreme court had clearly laid down the law that the burden of proof shifts on the opposite parties to send the seeds for testing which in the instant case, the appellants failed to do. We also rely on the judgement of the Apex court in I (2004) CPJ 122 (NC) IN NATIONAL SEEDS CORPN. LTD. V. M.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY that:
‘Burden to prove defect not discharged by complainant and their contention is not accepted. The farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds and get it tested to meet requirements under section 13(1)c)
and also in 1994 (I) CPR 747 (NC) IN MALAPRABHA NEERWARI BALAKEDARARA (IRRIGATION CONSUMER) CO-OP. SANGH LTD., v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA that
‘a Commissioner’s report can be accepted by the Consumer Forum/
Commission with respect to defective seeds when opposite party has
not sought seed certification and Section 13(1)(c) become un-implementable’.
Hence we can rely on the report of the Joint Director of Agriculture or any other approved authority and in the instant case the District Forum has rightly relied on the proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture which is based on the report submitted by the Special team which includes a scientist. The Joint Director of Agriculture in his proceedings, Ex.A2 of November, 2006 has stated as follows:
The special team consisting of the following (5) Members have inspected the chilly crop grown with hybrid chilly “Tejaswini” of the farmers of Nadendla village and Mandal who complained about the crop through reference 1st cited.
1. Asst.Director of Agriculture (Irg.)O/o.Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur
2. Scientist (Horticulture) RARS, Lam Guntur
3. Horticulture Officer, Narasaraopet
4. Mandal Agrl. Officer, Nadendla
5. Asst.Director of Agriculture,(Regular)Narasaraopet.
After inspection the above team have submitted the inspection report to this office through the reference (3rd) cited. As seen from the inspect report it is known that the crops have been severally infested with thrips, the crop is at different stages and the fruits so far formed are in semi erect to erect position.
As per the characters furnished by the Seed Producer the following observations have been found in respect of the chilly Hybrid Tejaswni.
Characteristics as given by the Seed Producer | Deviations observed by the inspecting Committee during field inspection. |
1. The crop will come to 50% flowering stage by 45 to 48 days | Only 30% of the crop has come to flowering stage by 60 to 70 days. The remaining crop is in vegetative phase. |
2. Fruits will be in Pendent position. | All the fruits formed in Semi erect to erect position. |
In the reference 4th chited, M/s.Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd., (Seed Producer) was addressed to inspect the fields and redress the grievances of the complainant farmers before 27-10-06. But the company did not turned up by the stipulated date.
In view of the deviations observed between the characters given by the company as well as the inspection report given by the special team the complainant farmers may be advised to file complaint in the district consumer forum under consumer protection Act, for getting compensation for the crop los from the seed producer besides filing complaints against the seed dealers/producers under Section 420 of Cr.P.C.
Keeping in view that the report of the Joint Director of Agriculture is based on the report submitted by the Special team who inspected the crop and also noted as follows:
‘the company did not turn up by the stipulated date’
we are of the considered opinion that the appellants cannot take umbrage that there was no notice given to them and hence the report of the Joint Director of Agriculture cannot be relied upon.
The learned counsel for the appellants relied in the decision of the Apex court in II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd., v. Sudha and anor. in which it was held that the report of the expert committee indicates that variation in the condition of the crop was not and could not be attributed to the quality of the seeds but to other factors and hence the orders passed by the District Forum State Commission and National Commission were set aside and dismissed. In the instant case the expert committee stated that there was uneven growth and that the yield was less due to usage of these seeds.
He also relied on a judgement of the National Commission in III (2009) CPJ 19 (NC) in Gyan Chandra Sharda V. Prabhjari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahakari Samithi in which it was the National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission and the cause for less production was due to excessive rains which resulted in lower yield and that it was not proved that the seeds were defective by any expert or laboratory report. This is not so in the instant case as the very contention of the appellants is not excessive rains but dry spells of uneven climate which was not established.
He also relied on a decision of this Commission in F.A.No.31/2006 dated 10-2-2009 in Md.Gosuddin v. Mothukula Odelu. This decision is not applicable since there is a specialist i.e. a Scientist who inspected the crop in the instant case.
Lastly the contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that the report does not specify that the infestation by thrips is due to defect in their seeds. To reiterate, when the small farmers have been using the said seed for the last five years and have got good results and in the absence of any documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellants that thrips is caused only due to poor climatic conditions or improper crop management practices by the farmer, we are of the considered view that the propensity of infestation has nexus with the quality of seeds. The report also clearly states that only 30% of the crop was in the flowering stage by 70 days and all the fruits are in erect or in semi erect position instead of pendent position and the crop was at different stages of growth. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no nexus between the infestation of thrips or loss of crop and poor yield with the quality of seeds.
The statement of A.P.Market Committee, Guntur has been accessed by this Commission since the opposite parties did not furnish any details with respect to the price per quintal of chillies but only ascertained that what the District Forum has awarded is excessive. To reiterate, to ascertain whether the compensation awarded by the District Forum is excessive or not, we have gone through the statement of A.P.Market Committee which is as follows:
The average prices during 1985-86 were Rs.1088 per quintal and it has increased to Rs.3874 per quintal in 2003-04. The average modal prices were quoting at Rs.31,01 per quintal in Guntur till December, 2005. Over the years ( in 2006) prices reached a historical high of 6500-7000 per quintal as a result of heavy export orders, increased domestic demand and mismatch of supply demand dynamics. During that time unit value realization has increased from Rs.36 in 2005-06 to Rs.54/- per Kg. In 2007-08, prices traded in the range of 3000-3800 per quintal on increased supply in 2006-07 compared to last year whereas exported stock traded at Rs.5500 per quintal.
Keeping in view the aforementioned statement, even if we take the lowest of the average i.e. Rs.3,000/- per quintal as the average price for 30 quintals, the yield is Rs.90,000/- per acre and the District Forum has awarded only Rs.75,000/-= per acre. We also observe from the order of the District Forum that no further expenditure incurred by the complainant has been awarded but only a cumulative total of Rs.75,000/- per acre was awarded. In the instant case it is half an acre and an amount of Rs.37,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.1,000/- was awarded by the District Forum. Hence we do not see any reasons to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.1404/2008 to 1445/2008:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1403/2008, these appeals F.A.No.1404/2008 to 1445/2008 also fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.06-4-2010
