ORDER

HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1.      These two revision petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Orders dated 29.11.2012 and dated 30.11.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.

2.      In both the cases before this Commission, the Respondent No. 1 is the respective Complainant.

Respondents No. 2 to No. 6 are the same. They were being proceeded against ex parte. However, a proxy Counsel put in appearance for Respondent No. 2 and representatives put in appearance for Respondent No. 5 on the date of arguments i.e. 25.09.2019 in the Circuit Bench at Chandigarh.

Learned Counsel, Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate appeared for the Petitioner, Dhaanya Seeds Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Seed Co.’.

Learned Counsel, Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No. 1, the Complainant, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

3.      In both cases, the Seed Co. was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

The Award made by the District Forum was against only the Opposite Party No. 1, the Seed Co.

The Seed Co. alone filed Appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Commission.

The State Commission upheld the Award made by the District Forum, that is to say, the State Commission confirmed the Award against only the Seed Co.

4.      We heard learned Counsel for the Seed Co. and learned Counsel for the Complainants, and perused the entire material on record.

5.      We note that the two revision petitions have similar facts and same questions of law involved.

6.      We are taking R.P. No. 1203 of 2013, arising from the Order dated 29.11.2012 of the State Commission in F.A. No. 79 of 2008, The Managing Director, Dhaanya Seeds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jagat Singh & Anr., as the lead-case.

R.P. No. 1203 of 2013:

7.      Brief facts of R.P. No. 1203 of 2013, the lead-case, succinctly articulated, are that the Complainant purchased Hybrid Maize Seeds developed and promoted by the Seed Co. The Seed Co. claimed and propagated that its yield would be 20 to 25 quintals per acre. However, the said Seeds failed to give the yield as claimed and propagated. The Complainant, the concerned farmer, a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, filed a Complaint before the District Forum alleging ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’.  

8.      The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the case, and,  vide its Order dated 12.12.2007, allowed the Complaint.

The Award made by the District Forum, as contained in para 23 of its said Order dated 12.12.2007, is reproduced below:

23.  In the back drop of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we award compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant which will be payable by O.P. 1 besides costs of proceedings which are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by O.P. 1. In case the amount is not so paid within time interest @ 9% P.A. will be payable till the date of payment. 

9.      The State Commission heard both sides, made its appraisal, and, vide its Order dated 29.11.2012, dismissed the Appeal of the Seed Co.

The appraisal made by the State Commission is reproduced below:

20.  The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant developed a hybrid variety of maize seeds i.e. DMH 849/DMH 879, which was procured and distributed by the Markfed Punjab (respondent No. 2) through respondent no. 6 to the farmers including Sh. Jagat Singh S/o Sh. Mela Singh (respondent No.1). The respondent No.1 also purchased Urea and DAP fertilizer and packets of L Turki and medicines from the respondent No. 6 for the use on the maize crop as advised. The respondent No. 1 alleged that the seeds which were sown in 22 acres of his land initially grew as were depicted on the packets but failed to give the produce as assured by the appellant and the respondent No. 2. It was contended that the plants were in existence with pouches but without seed crop. It was also alleged that the seeds supplied by the appellant failed while the crops of other varieties of maize had given good yield in adjoining fields. The respondent No.1 approached the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2 to 6 for providing compensation on account of failed maize crop.

21.  It has been contended by the respondent No.1 that the team of experts of respondent No. 2 visited the fields and found the version of the respondent No. 1 correct but still nothing was done to redress the grievance of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the District Authorities and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Roopnagar, reported the matter to Vice Chancellor, PAU Ludhiana and requested for giving expert opinion. The VC PAU Ludhiana appointed a team of experts who after visited the fields gave the opinion as under:-

“This is an untested hybrid and nothing in known about its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction. The role of environment in the poor performance of variety DMH 849 cannot be evidenced as the crop condition of the adjoining fields where farmers have planted other varieties like Hishell at same time was quite good. It has not been approved for cultivation in the State of Punjab by the State Varietal Approval Committee. This hybrid was never tested / evaluated in research trails in the State by the PAU. It is an untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid in this State and concluded that the hybrid failed to meet the standards of the hybrid interms of uniformity plant stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production and admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears).”

22.  It has been categorically stated in the report that this hybrid was never tested / evaluated in the research trial in the state by the PAU. It was an untested, unapproved and unadopted hybrid in Punjab state and that the hybrid failed to meet the standard of the hybrid in terms of uniformity of plants stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production and admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produce no ears). Evidently, the seeds of the crop inspected by the experts of the university i.e. DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture University for sowing in Punjab. This fact is also substantiated from the report dated 19.9.2006 sent by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Roopnagar to Deputy Commissioner, Roopnagar in which it has been stated that, after visiting the maize crop in village Jindwari, Golani and Bhallan, it was found that the maize seeds of Dhaanya brand i.e. DMH 849 and DMH 879 which were supplied by the Markfed i.e. respondent No. 2 through Societies, were not giving good produce. The report further states that initially the growth was good but subsequently at most of the places the produce was not upto the mark. It has been further mentioned that the reason for failure of the crop in certain areas of the District has been attributed to lack of adaptability and increased temperature at the time of flowering. It has been categorically stated in this report that both these varieties of seeds DMH 879 and DMH 849 were neither approved by the Agriculture Department of Punjab nor by the Agriculture University, Ludhiana.

23.  The appellant has contended that the report of the experts of the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana studied the seeds variety DMH 879 and not DMH 849 which were reportedly sown by the respondent No. 1. However, the report of the Chief Agriculture Officer discussed above clearly states that the seeds of both the varieties i.e. DMH 849 and DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture Department and Agriculture University, Ludhiana. Moreover, the respondent No. 3 and 4 in their written statement have also stated that the Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab (respondent No. 3) and Director, Agriculture, Punjab (respondent No. 4) were the licensing authority under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds Control Order, 1983 which states that no person shall carry on the business of selling, exporting and importing the seeds at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him. Thus, the seeds supplied by the appellant and distributed by the respondent No. 2 to formers through respondent No. 6 were not duly approved by the competent authority as provided under the Seeds Act nor the same were got tested from the Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. It has also been stated in the report of expert committee that the “seeds have not been approved for cultivation in the State of Punjab by the State Varietal Approval Committee.”

24.  It has been contended by the appellant that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Agriculture have also analysed the sample of the seeds in question from the Himachal Pradesh University, Palampur and found them to be as per standard requirements. It has been further contended that the maize varieties were also tested by the Karnataka Government and the same were also found to be as per standard requirements. This contention of the appellant is not tenable because the quality of seeds tested and approved by a particular agency for a particular state cannot be assumed to be suitable for any other state. Expert committee of PAU has in fact found this variety of seeds not suitable for State of Punjab. It is surprising that the appellants got the seeds approved from Himachal Pradesh University as well as from Karnataka University of Agriculture Sciences, but the same has not been got approved from the PAU before distribution of seeds in Punjab. It was because of this deficiency on the part of the appellant that the seeds varieties were not declared as adaptable in the environment of Punjab specially in the District of Roopnagar.

25.  The appellant has contended that the experts of the Agriculture University had not visited the fields of the respondent No. 1 and has only analysed the crop of the seeds of DMH 879, therefore, the benefit of the report of experts of Agriculture University, Punjab cannot be given to the respondent No. 1. But the report of the District Agriculture Officer, Roopnagar clearly states that both the varieties of the DMH 849 and DMH 879 were not approved by the Agriculture University as well as from Director Agriculture. Moreover, it is not possible for an expert team to visit each and every filed of the affected farmers. The sample study carried out by the University clearly shows that the hybrid failed to meet the standard of hybrid in terms of uniformity of plants stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seeds production or admixture. The appellant has not placed on record approval, if any, obtained from the respondent No. 3 and 4 for distributing the seeds for sowing in Punjab. In fact the appellant has failed to show any document to support its version that the seeds were approved and adaptable in the climate of Punjab.

26.  Once it has been proved that the seeds itself were not approved for cultivation in State of Punjab and have also failed to meet the standards of hybrid, it cannot be said that the compensation cannot be granted to the affected farmers just because their fields could not be inspected by the team of experts. The contention of the appellant that in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Seeds Rules, in case of failure of crop due to defective seeds, action can only be taken on the report of seed inspector after getting the unused seeds tested from the seed analyst is practically un-implementable because normally farmer will keep unused seeds with him only when he apprehends in advance that the crop will fail. There is sufficient evidence on record that farmer used the seeds supplied by the appellant which were not at all approved for cultivation in Punjab.

27.  Purchase order of the respondent No. 2 (Ex. R-4) placed on record by the appellant shows that the maize varieties of both DMH 849 and DMH 879 were procured by the respondent No. 2. The “sampling” clause of this purchase order states as under:-

“Each invoice will be accompanied by their Laboratory Test report batchwise or certificate to the effect that M/S Dhaanya Seeds Ltd. is responsible for the quality of Maize & Paddy seed. For any complications arising due to failure of samples, non germination of seed or failure of crop, the entire responsibility shall be borne by the supplier for the same. Any claim will be paid by M/S Dhaanya Seeds Ltd.”

28.  Thus, the appellant is directly responsible for payment of any compensation or claim made by the farmers / complainants on account of non germination of seeds or failure of crop.

29.  In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is upheld. The appellant has filed a frivolous appeal and the same is dismissed with special costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).

30.  The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 1.2.2008 and Rs. 25,000/- on 1.4.2008 per the order of this Commission. Amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent No. 1 by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and the appellant.

31. The interest on the amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date of appellant had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.

(paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the State Commission’s Order)

(emphasis supplied by us)

10.    We find the impugned Order dated 29.11.2012 of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the appraisal made by the State Commission, quoted, verbatim, in para 9 above.

The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum.

On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

11.    The case has been appraised by both the fora below. The two fora have arrived at concurrent findings.

Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b) of the Act, we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. 

12.    We but note that it is admitted that the Hybrid Maize Seeds purchased by the Complainant were developed and promoted by the Seed Co. and that the Seed Co. claimed and propagated that its yield would be 20 to 25 quintals per acre.

It is also admitted that the “ “sampling” clause ” of the “purchase order” inter alia categorically stated that “For any complications arising due to failure of samples, non germination of seed or failure of crop, the entire responsibility shall be borne by the supplier for the same. Any claim will be paid by M/S Dhaanya Seeds Ltd.”

It is further admitted that experts, comprising a team of maize scientists from Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, hereinafter referred to as the ‘PAU’, accompanied by officials of Department of Agriculture, State Government of Punjab, visited the fields and categorically opined that:

• The maize variety whose seed was distributed among farmers was DMH 879 from Dhaanya Seed company as told by farmers and evident from empty seed bags seen at the farmers fields and produced in person by some of the farmers.

• This is an untested hybrid and nothing is known about its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction etc.

• The observations gathered by the visiting team from different fields revealed that this variety is very early maturing, susceptible to Post flowering stalk rots, maydis leaf blight etc. In all the fields the crop was non uniform which is unlike hybrids and very short and long, thin lanky plants were seen in all the fields. The shape of tassel was also not uniform which was compact type in some plants and open type in others.

• About 40 per cent crop plants were barren (without cobs) and remaining were bearing cobs of very small size with poor tip-filling and the colour of the grains was variable.

• High disease incidence of Post flowering stalk rot (15%) and maydis leaf blight has caused forced maturity.

• The role of environment in the poor performance of variety DMH 879 cannot be evidenced as the crop condition of the adjoining fields where farmers have planted other variety like Hishell at same time was quite good.

In conclusion, it is the wrong choice of the hybrid. It has not been approved for cultivation in the State by the State Varietal Approval Committee. This hybrid was never tested / evaluated in research trails in the State by PAU. Visual observations by the expert team state that it is an untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid in this State. This hybrid has very early maturity and under timely sown irrigated conditions, it is certainly a wrong choice where 95-100 days maturity hybrid could have been an appropriate choice. Moreover, the stalk rot and maydis leaf blight diseases have added fuel to fire. Aboveall, the hybrid failed to meet the standards of the hybrid interms of uniformity of plant stature and maturity which could be because of faulty seed production or admixture (inbred plants remained barren and produced no ears).

(extracts from Report dated 28.09.2006 regarding maize crop failure in Anandpur Sahib and Nurpur Bedi Block in Ropar District)

13.    It is clear that both, ‘deficiency in service’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) and (o) and ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, are well and truly evinced against the Seed Co.

In respect of ‘unfair trade practice’, we may note here that it is a specific provision unique to The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Section 2(1)(r) says of “a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-”.

The list provided in Section 2(1)(r) is illustrative and not comprehensive.

That is to say, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as is judiciously determined, on facts and reasons, on fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r).

In the instant case, promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid in the State of Punjab, when nothing was known of its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction, and which failed to yield the claimed and propagated produce, when, in the adjoining fields, other varieties, at the same time, gave good / higher yield, was decidedly unfair and deceptive within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r).

14.    We find the District Forum’s Award, to wit, compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-, to be complied with within one month, failing which the amount to carry simple interest @ 9% per annum, to be just and equitable.

15.    We also note that the State Commission found the Appeal of the Seed Co. to be “devoid of any merit”, and, observing that “The appellant has filed a frivolous appeal”, dismissed it with “special costs of Rs.10,000/-”.

16.    Thereafter the Seed Co. invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

17.    The failure of the crop took place in 2006. The Complaint was filed by the farmer consumer before the District Forum in 2007. It was allowed by the District Forum in 2007. Appeal under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the Seed Co. in 2008.  It was dismissed with “special costs” by the State Commission in 2012. Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act was then filed by the Seed Co. before this Commission in 2013. It is being decided in 2019. This, in all, has taken about 13 years.

18.    The Act is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.

Its Statement of Objects and Reasons speaks of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”.

19.    The Seed Co. first indulged in ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, then, on a fair Award being made by the District Forum, which was inter alia based on expert opinion from PAU, a premier Agricultural University of the Country, appealed, unsuccessfully, in the State Commission, and then, on its Appeal being dismissed with “special costs”, further agitated in Revision before this Commission. And here, too, its case fails.

20.    All this is not viewed favourably.

21.    The revision petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed.

The impugned Order dated 29.11.2012 of the State Commission is affirmed and sustained.

22.    In addition, we deem it just and appropriate that Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the Seed Co. to the Complainant towards cost of litigation in the revisional proceedings before this Commission (which took about 6 years). 

23.    Further, for ‘unfair trade practice’ per se, the Seed Co. through its Chief Executive Officer & Director is put to stern advice of caution with imposition of cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum.

24.    The Seed Co. shall ensure compliance within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order (paras 21, 22 and 23 above).

25.    The District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law for failure or omission in compliance within the stipulated time-period.

26.    Towards this end, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the District Forum within seven days of its pronouncement.

27.    We further note that such unfair trade practice, of promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved and unadapted hybrid, when nothing is known of its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction, and which fails to yield the claimed and propagated produce, has widespread adverse effects on farmer consumers at large.

28.    We deem it appropriate to advise the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, State Government of Punjab, the Respondent No. 3 herein, to take note of the unfair trade practice as evinced from the Order dated 12.12.2007 of the District Forum, the Order dated 29.11.2012 of the State Commission and the instant Order of this Commission, and to place the whole matter before the Chief Secretary, State Government of Punjab, for inculcating accountability and effecting systemic improvements for future on most immediate priority.

29.    Towards this end, the Registry is directed to send a copy each of the District Forum’s Order dated 12.12.2007, the State Commission’s Order dated 29.11.2012 and the instant Order of this Commission to the Respondent No. 3, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, State Government of Punjab and to the Chief Secretary, State Government of Punjab, within seven days of the pronouncement of this Order.

R.P. No. 1204 of 2013:

30.    The R. P. No. 1204 of 2013 is disposed of, mutatis mutandis, with similar directions, in terms of the examination and reasons contained hereinabove apropos R. P. No. 1203 of 2013, the lead-case.