BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JULY 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1629/2012

V/s

ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.28.06.2011 passed in CC.No.61/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot.

2.      The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist and a owner of Survey No.751/1 measuring 8 acres 32 guntas of land situated at Shirur Village of Bagalkot Taluk & District.  He purchased Onion Bejo F1 Hybrid Onion orient seeds from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 on 28.07.2010 vide Lot No.13203 by paying Rs.9,900/-.  The complainant alleged that he sown the onion seeds in his land in the second week of August 2010 and used all plant protections method and noticed that the crop was consisting of split/doubles (bowls) because of the defective seeds.  He brought this fact to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 and requested him to come and visit the land, whereas the Opposite Party No.1 dragged the matter.  Thereafter, he requested the Assistant Director of Horticulture Zilla Panchayat, Bagalkot to visit the land and to give report.  As per the request made by the complainant on 23.12.2010, they visited the land and inspected the land and gave report on 07.01.2011 stating that the spilt/doubles was high and there was a admixture of white coloured bulbs these problems are associated with poor quality of seeds.  On the basis of the report, the complainant issued a legal notice to Opposite Parties to compensate the same. Hence, the complaint.

3.     After service of notice, the Opposite Parties have appeared through their counsel and filed version and admitted the sale of the seeds and denied all other allegations made by the complainant.  Further contended that the complainant has not alleged that there is no germination apart from that there is no specific report from the competent authority.  There is no specific pleading that when exactly seeds were sowed and when the inspection was done by Assistant Director and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.     After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint along with damages, mental agony and costs.  Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal.  Heard the arguments of appellant.  Respondent has not argued the matter inspite of sufficient time granted to them.

5.     Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that there is no dispute that the respondent has purchased Onion Bejo F1 Hybrid Onion orient seeds from appellant Nos. 1 & 2 and in the second week of August 2010 the same was sowed in his fields.  The allegation of the respondent is that the onion seeds were sowed in his fields, but noticed that the crop was consisting of split/doubls (bowls) because of the defective seeds.  Then he approached the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Zilla Panchayath, Bagalkot to inspect the land and to give report.  On 13.12.2010 the officers of Horticulture Department after visited the fields of the respondent gave a report dt.23.12.2010 stating that “crop consist of split/doubles was high there was admixture of white coloured bulbs and these problems are associated with poor quality seeds.” 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.

8.     Perused the Order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that the District Commission passed the order after perusing the report dt.23.12.2010 of Assistant Director of Horticulture Science, Bagalkot and relied a citation reported in I 2012 CPJ 317 NC wherein Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds that the farmers are not expected to keep some samples with the presumption that they may need the same for legal battle.  Hence, the District Commission felt satisfied and passed the Order that the seeds purchased by the respondent were defective.  We also agree 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 Horticulture Department Officers dt.23.12.2010.  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 any documents and also no produced any other report 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 respondent to know after sent the seeds to the laboratory for testing as per Sec.13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper.  No interference is required.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed.

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

Forward free copies to both the parties.

                   Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*