Complainant/s:             Sharanabasappa @ Sharanappa S/o 

                                       Parappa Kurtakoti, R/o Kanavi, Post:

                                       Kanavi, Taluk and Dist: Gadad.  

                                            (Rep. by Sri.D.M. Nadaf, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H. PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs by invoking Consumer Protection Act 2019 to pay Rs.3,32,400/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, from 26.01.2020, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

             The averments of the complaint in brief are:

         2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, stating that, he is an agriculturist having agricultural lands along with his brother bearing sy.No.62/2 to the extent of 3-Acres 39-Guntas.  Out of which, complainant is cultivating 1-Acre 19-Guntas.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 is the manufacturer of Serengeti Beens seeds of Syngenta Company and OP No.2 is the seller of the said seeds.  It is further submitted that, on 05.01.2021, complainant purchased Serengeti seeds of 20 packs weighing 500 grams from OP No.2 and sowed the same in his land to the extent of 1-Acre 20-Guntas.  After sowing the said seeds, some of the plants were flowering but, the plants did not leave the nuts and the crop was stunted and there was no crop from it.  Thereafter, without looking out of the way, complainant approached the Senior Horticulture Director, who conducted spot inspection on 21.04.2020 and gave a report stating that, the seeds were poor quality and requested the to give Scientific report on 21.04.02020.    on 112.05.2021, the Research Director, Horticulture University, Bagalkot gave a report that, the seeds were belongs to private company and the same were not recognized by the University.  The said fact was published in the Prajavani News Paper dated 25.04.2021 about the defective seeds and also about loss of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Thereafter, OP NO.2 visited the land of complainant and asked the complainant to take Rs.5,000/- and put a signature on the bond paper  with a consent that, no case will be registered against the OPs, the same was rejected by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, both the OPs by colluding with each other have sold a defective seeds and committed a fraud and deficiency of service on the complainant and therefore, both the OPs are liable to pay the compensation.  The complainant has incurred Rs.32,000/- towards seeds, fertilizer, single plough, iron hente, four tractors of crib manure, line-costing, five labors for seeded mercenary, 14 labours for garbage cleaning, trigger spraying etc.  The complainant was expecting Rs.2,00,000/- per acre.  Therefore, the complainant has incurred in all a sum of Rs.3,32,400/-, the same is to be borne by the OPs as they have committed fraud, deficiency of service for the loss incurred on the failure of beans crop.  Complainant approached the OPs several times and also issued legal notice on 28.07.2020 to give compensation, but it went in vain, which is deficiency of service on the part of OPs, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 28.07.2020 when the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,32,400/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, from 26.01.2020 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony by allowing the complaint. 

         3.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OPs appeared through their Advocates and filed written version. 

          The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1

          4.       The OP No.1 contended that, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

          It is further submitted that, the yield from any seed depends on a lot of other external factors.  Moreover, OP No.2 already apprised the complainant that, during summer the crop performance will be affected and may also result in less yield and the plot needed good maintenance.  It is denied that, the same seeds were used by the complainant on his field as no concrete or substantial proof has been adduced by the complainant.  It is submitted that, the loss in yield was due to the negligent act of complainant only and the quality seeds of OP No.1 that undergo several checks and tests before being released in the market cannot be blamed in this regard.  With regard to the reports of Horticulture Department, it is submitted that, the field inspection was done without notifying the OP No.1 and in its absence the veracity of the report itself is questionable.  The report of the Senior Assistant Director merely gives a cursory inspection report with no scientific analysis and merely requests the Director of Research, University of Horticulture Science to display scientists so that substantial and fruitful analysis could be done in this regard.  It is evident from the letters dated 12.05.2020 and 05.06.2020 that, the request was denied as the OP No.1 is a private company manufacturer and as per the policy of Department of Horticulture only University accredited seeds could be inspected.  Therefore, it is evident that, no scientific analysis has been carried out to ascertain the defects in the seeds and the allegation made by the complainant is baseless and unsustainable.  It is pertinent to note that, the complainant has connived with the local newspaper reporter in order to defame OP No.1 and gain undue advantages.  OP No.2 during its investigation came to know that the same reporter had published a general news of beans grown in and around Hosur village and he published that, the farmers are facing problems with marketing of the harvested produce due to lockdown, with very lows price and also no purchases, the same was published 8 days before the complaint was issued in paper.  It is vehemently denied that, the seeds were of low quality or there has been any collusion in this regard and it is also denied that, the loss of income was due to any action or omission of the OP No.1 and therefore, OP No.1 is not liable to pay any single paisa to the complainant on any account.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2

          The OP No.2 contended that, the complaint is not tenable either in law or on facts, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

          It is submitted that, except the present complaint, the there are no complaints received from the farmers who have sown beans in Gadag District and Karnataka State.  This is a case pertaining to seeds and comes under the purview of Seeds Act, 1966 and therefore, the provisions of the same are applicable to the present case.  It is mandatory on the part of the complainant to send samples of the seeds for the scientific analysis under Sec.38(2) of the C.P. Act.  In this regard, OP is relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in CPJ 2005 NC Page 47 rendered between Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., and Kipoulu Sambsiva Rao and others.  The complainant has drawn the inferences that the seeds were defective only from his observations.  The proper growth of the crops depends upon proper agriculture operations such as pre-preparation of the land, fertilization and use of the pest and disease control medicines, proper irrigation subject to climatic and seasonal conditions, soil structure and suitability, simply because the crop was not good or yielding, it cannot be said that seeds sown was not good, in this regard OP relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission reported in CRP 1995 (viii) Page 650.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has not filed any experts or scientists report in support of his claim to prove that there was defect in the seeds, in the absence of such a report, the liability cannot be fastened on the OP.  It is needless to state that, OP No.2 is only a retail dealer and has sold the packed seeds as supplied by the producer and this OP has acted as an agent of known principal and as such this OP is not liable to indemnify any of the claims of the complainant.  This OP has been unnecessarily dragged to this Commission to answer the false, frivolous claim as such this OP is entitled to receive compensatory cost as per the citation reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 538 Radha Rai V/s Tayeballi Dawoodbhai and AIR 1999 S.C. 80 Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd., V/s GoGo Garments.  Therefore, there is no cause of action for the present complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

         5.  The complainant filed his Chief affidavit along with 07 documents.  On the other hand, OP No.1 filed chief affidavit of its authorized signatory and OP No.2 filed the chief affidavit of the Proprietor and no documents have been produced.

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

6.   On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1.  Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency

in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the

OPs and entitled for the relief?

    7.       Our findings to the above points are:-

              Point No. 1:  Partly Affirmative

              Point No. 2:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

           8.  POINT NO.1:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

           9.      The Complainant has filed this Complaint against the OPs stating that, he had purchased beans seeds from the OPs and the same had not been given good yield and for that, complainant approached the OPs several times for the same.  Both the OPs kept mum until the complainant issued legal notice.  Further, complainant approached for the report from the concerned Authority, but he did not got it due to some reasons. 

          10.     On the other hand, both the OPs present before the Commission filed their written version.  OP No.1 submits that, Syngenta India Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacturer of active ingredients and formulates pesticides, herbicides and fungicides and processes field crop and seeds.  OP No.1 has acquired good marketing reputation and working in the interest of farmers across India and striving to improve overall productivity by providing superior hybrid seeds and crop protection products in various crops.  The complaint is totally false and further submits that, the copy of international seed test laboratory report and the Telangana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., laboratory reports of the concerned batch of the instant seed are produced before the Commission and further submits that, expected yields from the seeds does not only depends on the seed factor but also other important factor such as cultivation practices, proper/adequate soil and its preparatory tillage before planting, proper irrigation, proper manures and doses of fertilizer, climatic conditions during germination, pollination, flowering, seed testing and process and applications of insecticides and fungicide etc.  The complainant has not produced any scientific analysis before the Commission.

          11.     On the other hand, OP No.2 submits that, complainant has not produced any report before the Commission to prove that, he had not acquired good beans and OP No.2 also submits that,  the proper growth of the crops depends upon proper agriculture operations and OP No.2 is only the retail dealer and has sold the packed seeds supplied by the producer. 

          12.     On-going through the records on file, arguments from both the side, written arguments and the documents produced by them, it is seen that, complainant produced Invoice receipt along with property document and the correspondence done by him for obtaining the report from the concerned authority and also produced the seeds packet which has been sown by the complainant, the same has been manufactured and sold by OP No.1 and 2. 

          13.     On-going through the packet which has been produced by the complainant, it is observed that, it is a packed packet which was manufactured by OP No.1.  In this packet the lot number had been mentioned and even the date, month and year of the test is also mentioned.  The date of the test is 11.01.2020.  On the other hand, OP No.2 produced the document, it is said to be the seed testing report dated 01.10.2020 and mentioned the same lot number in this document.  This packing cannot be considered because merely producing of a computerized copy and it is not interlinked to the date which has been mentioned in the packet and the report.  If OP No.1 has already tested the seeds, why don’t they produced the same date report before the Commission.  Moreover, the contention of the OPs is that, they failed to produce the test report.  Of course, Commission had also observed that, the complainant has not produced any test report before the Commission.  But we cannot overlook that the complainant made an attempt for the same and even the same had been published in a State paper and a report has been published in Prajavani Daily News Paper which widely circulated in the State.  Moreover, cannot come to the conclusion that, without filing an exact report on the yield hence, Commission come to the conclusion that, complaint is to be concluded on non-standard basis. 

          14.     OP No.2 has produced some of the citations before the Commission and it is a settled fact that, OP No.2 is a retailer who has sold the seeds which has been manufactured by OP No.1.  It is a packed seeds and the complainant has not proved that, the OP No.2 has made deficiency in service. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in partly Affirmative.          

           15.  POINT NO. 2: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

          1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed.

          2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.32,400/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the OP No.1 is liable to pay an interest @ 18% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

          3.       Further OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges. 

          4.       Complaint filed as against OP No.2 is dismissed.

5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 1^st day of June-2021)

          (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

               MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT