Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/1168

ANKUR SEEDS LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1168 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 27.02.2012 passed in C.C.No. 33/2011 by District Commission, Dhar)

 

ANKUR SEEDS PVT.LTD.

HEAD OFFICE-27, NEW COTTON MARKET,

LAY OUT, NAGPUR (M.S.)                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. VIJAY S/O SHIVSHANKAR GUJARIYA PATIDAR,

    R/O 76, JAWAHAR MARG, DHAMNOD,

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

 

2. RAVI KRISI SEWA KENDRA, DHAMNOD

    THROUGH PROPRIETOR RAVI PATIDAR,

    A.B.ROAD, DHAMNOD, DISTRICT-DHAR (M.P.)                                   …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

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

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Abhishek Bhoot, learned counsel for appellant.

           Shri Nitin Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 01.08.2022)

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

This appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant is directed against the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dhar (For short ‘District Commission’) in

 

-2-

C.C.No.33/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed by the District Commission.

 2.               Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are he was an agriculturist by profession and that on 15.06.2010 he had purchased five bags of 5 Kg each Arhar seeds-‘ICPL-87’ from opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 manufactured by opposite party no.2/appellant after paying a sum of Rs.450/- @ Rs.90/- per bag. It is alleged that he sowed all the bags on the same day. It was assured that the crop will come within 160 days. The complainant alleged that after sowing the said seeds crop was not come even after more than 220 days whereas it was assured that the crop will come within 150-160 days. He therefore applied to Agriculture Development Officer to inspect the crop and opposite parties were informed by legal notice to remain present at the time of inspection but they remained absent. On inspection of his crop being carried out by Agriculture Development Officer he found that there is only 5% to 10% crop only in the field of the complainant. Thus the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation for his crop. He along with complaint has filed his affidavit and documents P-1 to P-8.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 remained ex-parte before the District Commission.

-3-

4.                     The opposite party no.2/appellant resisted the complaint by filing written reply on the ground that the complaint is maintainable under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the complainant had purchased seeds for commercial purpose. The onus lies on the complainant to prove that the seeds were defective, and he did not disclose that which manure and pesticides and in how much quantity he used to get a good crop. Crop suffers due to excessive cold and excessive heat also. There was proper germination of seeds, plants rose and there was proper flowering and if the flowers were shaking it is because of climatic reasons and erroneous plant management. Inspection by Agriculture Officer was carried out in its absence therefore the said report is not binding on the opposite party no.2. The seeds were sent to the market only after the quality check under the supervision of proper experts. Seeds were of standard quality, the erroneous plant management was done by the complainant. It is therefore submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.    

 5.               The District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the complainant directing the opposite parties to pay jointly or severally Rs.10,000/- towards field preparation and sowing of seeds, Rs.450/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.60,000/- towards crop compensation, Rs.5,000/-

-4-

compensation towards deficiency in service. It is further directed that the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment. In addition, a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded as costs. Hence this appeal by the opposite party no.2.

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

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/appellant argued that the District Commission erred in relying on the panchnama/observation report while coming to the conclusion that the complainant received only 10 to 15 percent of the production. The District Commission failed to consider that at the time of the alleged panchnama there was no representative of the appellant company and the alleged panchnama is one sided. The District Commission failed to consider that the complainant committed forgery in writing the words 5 to 10% whereas these words were not used in the report. The District Commission has also failed to consider this aspect that in the report, it was specifically observed that first bloom is taken and second bloom is in progress. Thus the observation that the crops did not bear any fruits is contrary and illegal. The District Commission also failed to consider that since the first bloom is taken, the crops were at harvesting stage and already harvested, in such a situation, assessment of quality of the seeds is not possible thus the District Commission cannot inferred on its own  that the seeds were defective.

-5-

8.                It is further argued that there are various reasons attributed with the quality of crops which is mainly depended upon the climate, humidity and temperature.  Thus in the absence of specific finding about the quality of the seeds, the District Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that because of inferior quality of the seeds and the seeds being defective, there is so called less production. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed after quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission. He placed reliance on the decisions of the National Commission in Consumer Protection And Guidance Society Vs National Seeds Corporation IV (2007) CPJ 192 (NC), Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs Babu Ram II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC), Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr Vs Vijayakumar Shankarao & Anr I (2007) CPJ 148 (NC), Revision Petition No.2602 OF 2008 to 2610 OF 2008 decided on 12^th February 2014, Revision Petition No. 2368 OF 2007 Mahyco Seeds Limited Vs Basavaraja Shivappa Byadagi And Another decided on 26 Jul 2011, Revision Petition No. 23 OF 2011 M/S Ankur Seeds Pvt.Ltd. Vs B. Mushtak Basha & Ors and similar revision petitions 24 & 25 OF 2011 decided on 14^th October 2011, Revision Petition No.1451 OF 2011 Syngenta India Ltd Vs P.Chowdaiah & Ors And other Revision Petitions 1452 to 1489 OF 2011 decided on 31^st July 2013, Revision Petition No. 506 OF 2013 Banta Ram Vs Jai Bharat Beej Company &

-6-

Anr decided on 17^th May 2013, Revision Petition No. 2597 OF 2012 Shamsher Singh Vs M/S Bagri Beej Bhandar decided on 11^th September 2013, Mahyco Seeds Ltd Vs G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC) and Indian Fertilizers Co-operative Limited Vs Jagdish S/O Shri Raghunath 2015 CJ (NCDRC) 597.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 supported the impugned order and made a submission that the District Commission has rightly relied on the documents placed before the District

Commission.  Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 placing reliance on the decision of the National Commission in Shrihari Limraj Karanjkar Vs Ajeet Seeds Limited 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 213 argued that it cannot be expected from the complainant/farmer to preserve the sample of seed so that same can be scientifically examined and the report filed by the expert cannot be discarded on the ground that committee did not mention cause for non-setting of seeds in flower. The District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to compensate the complainant.

10.              Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 argued that the opposite party no.1/respondent no.2 is seller of Arhar seeds ‘ICPL-87’ purchased by the complainant and not the manufacturer. On going through the pamphlet of the said seeds supplied by the opposite party no.2,

-7-

the complainant purchased the said seeds. He only sold the seeds which were received by it from the opposite party no.2, therefore, the opposite party no.1 cannot be said to be deficient in service and the District Commission has committed grave error while allowing the complaint and  directing the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainant jointly and severally.  

11.              On  going through the record we find that the complainant has filed documents along with his affidavit. We observe that there is categorical allegation of the complainant that there was no sprouting in the seeds and the yield is not as per standard, which were purchased by him from the opposite parties.  We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant. Exhibit (P-6) is a letter dated 20.01.2011 by Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block-Dharampuri District-Dhar addressed to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Dhar stating that on receipt of an application dated 14.01.2011 by an agriculturist Vijay S/O Shri Shivshankar Patidar that he had sown Arhar ICPL-87-119 and there is no fruiting, an inspection was carried out with concerned Rural Agriculture Development Officer on 20.01.2011. It is further mentioned in the said letter that inspection report cum panchnama, application and bill is enclosed herewith. As we carefully go through the inspection report cum panchnama dated 20.01.2011 (Exhibit P-4), regarding inspection of the crop stating therein that the plants are

-8-

appearing of size 7.5 to 8 feet and at present buds and flowers are appearing, however by striking some words it has been written that 5 to 10%

fruits are seen but that strike out words has no initials. It is further mentioned in that so called inspection report cum panchnama that as per agriculturist he sown ICPL-87-119 Arhar seeds. Further it was specifically observed that first bloom is taken and second bloom is in progress. But certainly this report cum panchnama does nowhere indicates that less flowering and fruiting of the Arhar crop of the complainant is because of defective seeds. This report cum panchnama also does not bear any signature and seal of Senior Agriculture Development Officer and is on simple paper. This report does not spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crop.  Further, it is apparent from the complainant’s statement as well as the report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer, that the crop was not sent for scientific testing and is based only visual inspections and conjectures.

12.              A perusal of the aforesaid report shows that Senior Agriculture Development Officer in his report has nowhere stated that the seeds were defective. The onus to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainant, which he failed to discharge.

13.              As per the complainant’s submission, he became aware of the fact that the seeds sown by him have not sprouted, at very early stage. 

 

-9-

There is however, no specific mention in their pleadings, whether subsequently they had freshly proceeded regarding cultivation of new crop,

after buying new seeds. The complainant on whom the onus was to prove that the seeds were defective failed to establish by any scientific report that the seeds purchased by him were of inferior quality or defective. The report of Senior Agriculture Extension Officer, Block-Dharampuri District-Dhar 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).

14.              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 sown by the complainant were of mixed type and did not match the quality and that 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. Thus in absence of any concrete proof regarding defective seeds, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible.

15.              The decision of the National Commission in relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1 in Shrihari Limraj

-10-

Karanjkar (supra) is of no help as in that case the Agriculture Officer verified the fact regarding low germination whereas in the present case the report is silent and everything is stated as per statement of the complainant. The facts and circumstances of the present case in hand are different. In that case the National Commission has observed that seller came forward and requested to test the seeds sold by him because farmers are illiterate and the seeds be sent to the laboratory.  In the present case the opposite party not requested regarding testing of seeds in the laboratory.  Even then it has to be seen that the report submitted by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer is liable to be believed or not.  If it is not liable to be believed merely on the ground that the seller has not come forward for testing the seeds, no inference can be drawn. 

16.              The report submitted by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer (P-5) is prepared on the complaint of the complainant. Report does not say that any expert mind has been applied for conducting inspection and spot survey nor any affidavits have been filed by the farmers who were present on the spot at the time of inspection. Though there is no seal and signature of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer on the said report P-5 which is on simple paper. On the back of it the Senior Agriculture Development Officer signed. Looking to the said report it appears that it is prepared in the office on the hearsay without inspecting the spot i.e. field of

-11-

the complainant. Simply on the allegation of the complainant that after sowing the seeds, the crop was not proper, it cannot be held that the seeds purchased by the complainant were defective to make opposite party liable for selling defective seeds.  There should be sufficient and reliable evidence.     

17.              In the absence of any evidence that the seeds supplied were defective, the District Commission erred in allowing the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 relying upon the report of Senior Agriculture Development Officer.  The District Commission have misread the report given by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer.  

18.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed.

19.              In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

 

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

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member