This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Nirankari Agri Seeds against the order dated 15.2.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.228 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, who was the complainant before the District Forum purchased 40 kilogram of paddy seeds of variety 1121 for sowing in his 10 acres of land.  As the crop progressed, it was observed by the complainant that all plants are not of equal height and all plants are not uniform.  The complainant made a complaint to the Chief agriculture officer who got inspected the field of the complainant by the agriculture Development Officer who submitted a technical report dated 1.10.2014.  Later on final report was also submitted on 28.11.2014.  It was found in the report that the plants were of different sizes which indicated the mixing of seeds in the sold variety.  Agriculture Officer also assessed that the yield per quintal was only 14 quintal and about one third plants were of different variety, thereby resulting in lesser yield by 30% .  The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot, (in short ‘the District Forum’) against the manufacturer and the dealer for sub-standard seeds.  The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, however, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 29.01.2016 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 9.06.2015 till realization.  Opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  The opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.228 of 2016.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal by its order dated 15.02.2017.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not associated with the inspection of the agricultural officer and no intimation was given to the petitioner for such an inspection either by the agricultural officer or by the complainant.  Thus, the report of the agriculture officer is not binding on the opposite party No.1/petitioner.  It was further stated that burden of proof for defects in the seeds lies on the complainant.  To support his contention, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Commission in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op.Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop, 2015 (1) C.P.J. 530, (NC) wherein it has been observed that:-

“8.   He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 – Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P. Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies in which it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report.  He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 4280 to 4282 of 2007- Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. in which it was observed as under:

“Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu & Anr., II (2005) SLT 569 = 11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC = (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant”.        

 Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds. 

9.       In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon in the light of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and learned District Forum committed error in holding deficiency and allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.”

6.      It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seeds were certified seeds and no fault can be found in the seeds.  The seeds were certified by Haryana seed certification agency which is a government agency and no malafide can be imputed to the certifying agency.  There has been no laboratory test to prove that the seeds were not of the proper quality and by visual inspection of plants, no qualitative comments can be passed on the seeds.  To support his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), wherein it has been observed that:-

“9.     The report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by counsel for Petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director(Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. Respondent’s action in not informing the Petitioner about the so called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. II(2005) CPJ 13 (SC)= II (2005) SLT 569.”

7.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant stated that the report of the agricultural officer is very clear that one third of the seeds were not of the proper quality and the package had the mixture of seeds.  The District Forum has observed that the possibility of mixing of seeds cannot be ruled out while converting 40 kilogram bag into 10 kilogram packets.  It was promised by the manufacturer that the seeds will yield 20 quintals per acre whereas the actual yield assessed by the agriculture officer was only 14 quintal per acre and therefore the District Forum has allowed the compensation for shortage of 6 quintal per acre that is 60 quintal in total.  State Commission has also confirmed the order of the District Forum.  It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the scope under the revision petition is quite limited against the concurrent finding of facts given by the fora below. 

8.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record.  First of all it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding that the 30% seeds were of another quality and therefore, the loss of six quintal per acre has been compensated to the complainant.  The facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission against the concurrent finding of facts given by the fora below as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

9.      Two main points have been raised in the revision petition.  The first is that the opposite party No.1 was not involved in the inspection and the petitioner was not intimated about the date of inspection and therefore, the report given by the agriculture officer cannot be binding on the petitioner. The report given by agriculture officer is an independent report and no allegations have been made against the inspecting officer. Moreover, the agriculture officers are the departmental officers who work as subject matter specialists in their field in the State Agricultural Development Administration. Government is paying heavily to such subject matter specialists for the benefit of the farmers who are generally poor and gullible to the trade machinations of the input suppliers.  Therefore, the reports given by subject matter specialist cannot be taken lightly or as unauthentic unless the same is contradicted by some other cogent technical report.  It is true that the principle of natural justice requires the participation of the manufacturer/petitioner in the inspection, but an independent clear technical report given by a subject matter specialist cannot be thrown away only on the ground that the petitioner was not associated.  

10.    Now coming to the second point raised by the petitioner that the seeds were certified by the Haryana Seed Certification Agency and therefore no fault could be found with the seeds.  I am of the view that if the plants are not uniform in the field of crop then definitely there are different varieties of seeds sown in the field.  It is also seen that the seeds were certified in the packets of 40 Kg whereas the seeds have been sold in the packets of 10 Kg and the District Forum has observed that at this stage some mixing of seeds could have happened.  As the 10 Kg packets were supplied by the opposite party No.1/ manufacturer to the opposite party No.2/ the dealer, even the benefit of doubt cannot be given to the petitioner.

11.    In my view, the findings given by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission cannot be found fault with.  Lab test generally provides for germination test however in the present case, the germination was not the issue, but there was mixing of other seeds in the lot of variety 1121.  Mixing of seeds can very well be detected by the subject matter specialist by visual inspection of plants to great extent.  Therefore, in my view, the absence of lab test cannot be fatal to the claim made by the complainant in the present case.

12.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 15.02.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission and accordingly the revision petition No.1183 of 2017 is dismissed.