JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainants / respondents, who are soyabeen farmers, purchased soyabeen seeds of variety J.S. 335 from the petitioner in June, 2013.  According to the complainants they have experience of soyabeen farming and therefore had sown the said seeds in their respective land as per the guidelines issued by the petitioner Corporation, besides taking proper care of the crop.  The grievance of the complainants is that after some days they found that the soyabeen crop had different type of flowers and leafs, besides varying length of the pods.  Suspecting adulteration in the seeds sold to them, they approached the concerned Taluka Agricultural Officer, who along with the Members of the Taluka level Seeds disputes Redressal Committee visited the fields of the complainants on different dates and drew spot panchnamas.  The report thereafter was submitted by the Committee, which revealed adulteration in the seeds.  It was reported by the Committee that the soyabeen seeds had been mixed with seeds of other variety and percentage of the mixture of other seeds varied from 25% to 68%.  Being aggrieved from the loss suffered by them, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints after the legal notice sent b them to the petitioner Corporation did not yield a favourable result.

2.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioner Corporation which took a preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers, they having purchased the seeds under buy-back scheme for resale.  It was also stated in the written version filed by the petitioner Corporation that the seeds were sold only after the same had been certified by the Seeds Testing Officer, and in fact, the complainants had sown the seeds through unskilled persons.  It was also alleged that there were insufficient rains during the relevant period and compensation had already been granted to the complainants, who had also received insurance amount.

3.      The District Forum having partly allowed the complaints, separate appeals were preferred by the petitioner Corporation as well as by the complainants before the concerned State Commission.

4.      Vide impugned order dated 15.6.2017, the State Commission, dismissed the appeals filed by the Corporation and partly allowed the appeals filed by the complainants.  The petitioner Corporation was directed to pay compensation as quantified in the order of the State Commission in addition to compensation to each complainants at Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and harassment, including cost of litigation.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.

5.      As far as the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner Corporation is concerned, I find no merit in the same.  It is an admitted position that soyabeen seeds were sold to the complainants and the same were sown in their respective fields.  The complainants having purchased seeds for sowing in their respective fields, they were consumers of the petitioner Corporation and therefore, consumer complaints filed by them were duly maintainable.

6.      It was alleged by the petitioner Corporation that the seeds were sold after certification by a seed testing officer, the fora below noted that the release report issued by the seed certification officer was dated 13.8.2013, whereas the seeds were purchased by the complainants in June, 2013 and the inspection by Taluka Level Committee was carried out at a later date.  It was also noted that the certification pertain to lot No.314 but there was no evidence to prove that it were the seeds of lot No.314 which were sold to the complainants.  Since the certification by the Certification Officer was of a date later than the sale to the complainants, the said certificate obviously could not have pertained to the seeds sold to the complainants.  The fora below, therefore, arrived at a finding that the seeds were adulterated as had been reported by the Taluka Level Seeds Committee.  The aforesaid finding of fact, recorded by the fora below is not shown to be perverse, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and therefore, does not call for any interference. 

7.      As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the State Commission maintained the finding of the District Forum that taking into account the expected rate, along with incentive and bonus, which the Corporation pays the loss to the complainants assessed at Rs.4200/- per quintal for the less crop and at Rs.1200 per qntl. for the lesser price recovered by the complainants for the crop harvested by them was appropriate.  The State Commission took the yield to the complainants at 5 qntl. per bag as against the expected yield of 8 qntl. per bag of seeds.   

8.      The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is that the complainant did not plead in their respective complaints that they had obtained yield of 5-6 qntls per bag and the stand taken by them  was that that could not harvest anything on account of the seeds being adulterated.  The State Commission noted in this regard that some of the complainants had stated in their complaints that they could not get 5-6 qntl, of yield per bag though some of them had taken the stand that they do not get any yield at all.  It was also noted that some of them had submitted bills showing sale of their product in the market showing yield of about 4 qntl per bag.  Considering the stand taken by some of the complainants, who had admitted yield of 5-6 qntls per bag, the State Commission, in my opinion, was justified in taking a uniform yield of 5 qntl per bag.  The compensation awarded by the State Commission is based upon the market price of Rs.4200/- per qntl as far as loss of yield is concerned and it was calculated at Rs.1200/- per qntl. on account of the difference in the market rate and the expected rate.  The assessment of loss made by the State Commission appears to be fair and reasonable and therefore does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  Even the compensation awarded to the complainants who are farmers by profession is rather modest since it also includes the cost of litigation.

9.      No evidence was led by the petitioner to prove that the complainants had received any compensation from the Government or from the insurer for the loss suffered by         them on account of adulteration in the seeds.  Therefore, there could be no occasion to deduct any such compensation out of the compensation awarded by the fora below to the complainants.

10.    It was contended before the State Commission that the complainants did not ask the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory for analysing the same and reporting whether there was any adulteration in the seeds or not.  The following view taken by this Commission in Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal & Anr. in RP/1033/2015 and connected matters decided on 14.1.2016, is relevant in this regard:

“17.    It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the complainants did not request the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory, in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and in the absence of analysis by an appropriate laboratory, as defined in Section 2(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in holding that the seeds purchased by the complainants were defective.  We however, find no merit in the contention.  A farmer purchases the seeds for the purpose of using them in his fields and while sowing the seeds, he has no reason to suspect that the seeds purchased by him may turn out to be defective or sub-standard.  Therefore, he would have no reason to retain a part of the seeds purchased by him.  Consequently, he is not in a position to offer the sample of the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.  The manufacturer / supplier of the seeds on the other hand, may possibly have the samples of such seeds available with him, even at the time notices of a consumer complaint is received by him.  Therefore, if he seeks to dispute the allegation of the seeds being defective or sub-standard, he must necessarily offer the sample available with him to the District Forum for sending the same to an appropriate laboratory for carrying out an analysis to determine whether the said seeds suffer from a defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect or not.  Admittedly, no such endeavour was made, either by the petitioner or by its dealer, when they appeared before the District Forum.

18.    A similar issue arose before this Commission in Revision Petition No. 381 of 2012 Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Motilal & Anr.  In that case, a complaint alleging poor quality of the seed was lodged by the farmer with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer and Garden Superintendent of the concerned Block.  The fields were then inspected by the Senior Agriculture Development Officer, who reported that the size was irregular and less than the standard claimed by the company.  It was also found that the cucumbers were irregular in shape, their colour was not green and there was less grooming of flowers.  The District Forum and the State Commission, having ruled in favour of the complainants, the matter was agitated before this Commission by way of a revision petition, which was heard by a Bench of two-Members.  Since there was a difference of opinion in the aforesaid Bench, the reference to the Hon’ble President of this Commission was made under Section 20(1A)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It was inter-alia contended on behalf of the petitioners that the report of the Senior Agriculture Development Officer could not be relied upon as the fields were inspected without notice to them and the complainants had failed to obtain any reports about the quality of the seeds from a recognized laboratory. Rejecting the contention, the Hon’ble President who along with one of the Hon’ble Members constituted majority in the Bench,  inter-alia held as under:

          “14. In National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, analysing the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, particularly with reference to Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which confers power on Consumer Fora to obtain test report from an appropriate laboratory with a view to finding out whether the goods in question suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c).  A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test.  After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. 

           In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops.  In one or two cases the Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops.  The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act had not been followed.

          The issue deserves to be considered from another angle.  Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the rules framed thereunder and other legislations, like, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.  They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and government agencies, like the appellant.  Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier.  In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a laboratory.  In some of the cases, the respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant.  Therefore, it is naïve to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory. 

          It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellant’s part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed off.  The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity.  The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers.  Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents.  Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test.  Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained.”

15.    In this behalf, the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy& Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 738 are also apposite:-

“………..Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory.  But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory.  Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis.  In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.”

16.    In the present case, as noted above, noticing that cucumber fruit was deformed and the yield was less than the expected, the Complainant lodged complaint with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer. The said officer found that fruits (cucumber) was irregular in shape; less than the standard claimed by the Company; flowering was less; the fruit was not greener and the agriculturists were getting less yield.  In my view, even if the report does not comment on the quality of the seeds, it did raise a strong presumption in favour of the Complainant that defective seeds were the cause for low yield and deformed cucumber crop.  As observed by the Supreme Court, it was not expected that the Complainant/farmer should have retained a sample of the seeds, so that in the event of less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he could have got it tested in a laboratory to prove that it was defective or of inferior quality.  On the contrary, after the filing of the complaint for compensation, nothing prevented the Petitioners, from tracing out the samples from the batch of the seeds and getting it tested for its quality on their own accord or move an application before the District Forum for sending the sample of the seeds, which ought to have been available with them, for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.  Having failed to do so, the Petitioners cannot be heard to say that from the report of the Agriculture Officer no adverse inference regarding quality of the seeds could be drawn on the ground that the Complainant had failed to send the sample of seeds to a laboratory for testing.  In my opinion, by placing on record the report of the Agriculture Officer, the Complainant had discharged the initial onus to prove that the seeds in question were sub-standard or defective. In light of  the said report, onus shifted on to the Petitioners to prove that the seeds were not defective, as alleged”.

 19.    In view of the above referred decision of this Commission and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation (supra) and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.(supra), it cannot be said that the complainants ought to have retained the samples of the seeds purchased by them and offered the same to the District Forum for sending to an appropriate laboratory for carrying out an analysis to determine whether they were sub-standard/defective or not.”

11.    The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Corporation was not impleaded as an opposite party in the complaint and only its officers were impleaded.  This obviously was a technical mistake but since it was the Corporation which responded to the complaints, the orders passed by the fora below need not be set aside on account of the aforesaid technicality.  It is however, made clear that the liability to pay compensation etc. in terms of the orders passed by the State Commission would be of the Corporation and not of the individual officers. 

12.    Since the revision petitions are being dismissed on merits, I need not pass any order on the accompanying applications filed in some of the revision petitions, seeking condonation of delay in filing the said revision petitions. Those applications also stand disposed of.

13.    Therefore, I find no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection.  The revision petitions are therefore dismissed.