ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This revision petition filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 31.08.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘State Commission’) dismissing First Appeal No. 771 of 2011 filed against order dated 04.04.2011 in complaint no. 325 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2.     The facts, in brief, are that the respondent purchased three bags of seed of paddy metro seeds P-1460 from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.7200/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.200/- per kg vide bill no. 2245 dated 31.07.2008. The seeds were manufactured by respondent no. 2. The respondent planted the seeds on 11 acres of his land as per directions mentioned on the bag of the seeds. The seeds supplied to the respondent by the petitioner were found to be of inferior/lowest quality. The respondent contacted the Agriculture Department on 12.10.2008 with an application. The Deputy Director, Agriculture, Karnal constituted a committee to assess the loss caused due to the supply of inferior seeds to the respondent. The Committee visited the lands of the respondent and observed that there was no uniformity in maturity and ripening in the paddy fields. Approximately 25% plants were in flowering stage, 35% in dough stage and the balance 40% had physiological matured and ready to harvest. The Committee also concluded that this uneven maturity caused loss of quality and quantity of paddy and estimated a loss of around 60% per acre in paddy yield. Based upon the rate for paddy, the respondent’s financial loss was quantified at Rs. 8,000/- per acre due to the supply of inferior seeds by the petitioner which amounts to Rs.88,000/- in 11 acres of land.

3.     The consumer complaint filed was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the sample of seeds were not analyzed as per procedure prescribed under section 13(1)(c) of the Act and therefore deficiency in service and unfair trade practice was not established on the basis of MRF Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Lal 1993 (3) RCR (Civil) 207, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana 2009 (1) CPC 471 and Hindustan Pesticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. 2006 (1) CPC 36. The respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum on the basis of the Committee’s report holding that it was not possible for the farmer to retain seeds on the presumption that they may be required to be tested with the direction to pay Rs 88,000/- for loss of crop, Rs.11,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,500/- as costs within 60 days failing which payment with 6% interest. The petitioner is before us impugning this order praying that this it be set aside. 

4.     We have heard the submissions of both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully.      

5.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not noticed by the State Commission and that he did not file any written statement. He argued that the Committee constituted by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal undertook inspection of the fields where paddy was stated to be planted without any intimation to him and in his absence. He also submits that the Committee’s report dated 15.10.2008 did not mention revenue details such as killa and khasra number of the fields inspected and was silent regarding the quality of seeds or the parameters on which the report was prepared. He argues that the procedure prescribed under section 13(1) (c) of the Act of getting the seeds tested by an authorized laboratory has also not been followed. He places reliance on Maharashtra Hybrid seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Parchuri Narayana 2009 CPJ 180 (NC) and the order of this Commission in RP no. 3179 of 2010 J.K. Agre Genetics Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Sehgal & Ors. dated 13.09.2011 wherein the procedure under section 13(1)(c) has been held to be an essential basis for the settlement of such claims. It was submitted that the petitioner was not the manufacturer of the seeds in question and the appeal was decided ex parte by the State Commission which erroneously relied upon the Committee’s report.

6.     On behalf of the respondent, learned counsel submitted that the order of the State Commission records that the petitioner was served but did not appear and was therefore proceeded ex parte; therefore, he cannot contest the reliability of the Committee’s report at this stage. It is submitted that the Committee comprised of a Subject Matter Specialist, a Senior Coordinator, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Haryana Agriculture University, Karnal and the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Karnal who are all experts in agriculture and have set down reasons in the report for the estimation of loss in paddy yield of 60% per acre. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy & Anr Civil Appeal No. 7543 of 2004 which examined the compliance with section 13(1)(c) of the Act and held that

“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 Forum 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 Act had not been followed.

….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….”

It is also argued that the State Commission correctly relied upon several judgments in arriving at the finding that the petitioner was liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in supplying mixed variety paddy seeds to the respondent and was therefore liable to compensate the respondent.

7.     From the submissions made and records, it is apparent that despite being noticed, the petitioner chose to not appear before the State Commission and had to be placed ex parte. His contention that the report of the committee constituted by the Agriculture department be not relied upon, cannot be accepted at this stage. On the basis of evidence on record, it is evident that the seed was purchased from the petitioner and was sown as per the prescribed process. It is also evident that the germination of the seeds was uneven and not as per the optimal growth expected. Consequently, crop yield was naturally expected to be less than optimum and was accordingly assessed by way of an estimation exercise directed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture who was approached by the respondent. This crop yield estimation exercise had to be resorted to in the absence of the availability of any seeds from the lot purchased by the respondent. In the normal course, a farmer cannot be expected to retain seeds for use as sample in anticipation of crop failure. Therefore the respondent cannot be faulted for not having done so. While the procedure prescribed in section 13(1) (c) of the Act requires testing of seeds in an appropriate laboratory, in the absence of any sample of the seeds having been retained, the extent of the loss has to necessarily be estimated through an alternative method. The procedure under this section cannot be mandatory in the circumstances of the instant case. The committee constituted for the purpose by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karnal comprised of experts in the field and has assessed the loss based upon its technical expertise. The report of the committee has been accepted by the State Commission in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Madhusudan Reddy (supra). The finding of the State Commission therefore cannot be found fault with since it has gone by a report of technical experts under the circumstances of the case as the applicability of section 13(1) (c) was not feasible.  

8.     In the light of the foregoing, we do not find merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the order of the State Commission affirmed.