PER SHRI B.A.SHAIKH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.        Appeal bearing No.A/14/151 is filed by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.4 and the appeal bearing No.A/14/309 is filed by original O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3, feeling aggrieved by an order dated 25/03/2014, passed by District Consumer Forum Amravati, by which the consumer complaint No.85/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 herein/original complainant has been partly allowed. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common questions of facts and law are involved in them. Both the parties are herein after referred to by their original status in the complaint as complainant and opposite party Nos.1 to 5, for the sake of our convenience.

2.      The case of the complainant as set out in the consumer complaint in brief is as under.

i)        The complainant is a farmer and O.P.Nos.1 to 3 are the authorities of seeds producing company namely National Seeds Corporation Ltd. The O.P.No.4 is the dealer appointed by the said company. The O.P.No.5 is an agriculture development officer. The complainant purchased 11 bags of soybean seeds in his name and he purchased 4 bags of soybean seeds in the name of Sanjay Deshmukh vide two receipts dated 15/06/2011 from the O.P.No.4. Each bag contained 30 K.G. of soybean seeds, which were produced by O.P.Nos.1 to 3.

ii)       The complainant had sown soyabean seeds of 14 bags out of 15 bags, in his agriculture land and he had retained one bag of soybean seeds intact. However after sowing said seeds, there was faulty germination of these seeds because of defective seeds. Therefore he made complaint to various authorities as well as to the O.P.No.1 in writing.

iii)      The District Quality Control Enquiry Committee decided to make enquiry on the complaint and hence the Taluka Agriculture Officer inspected the germination of the seeds in the field of the complainant and he also took the sample from the house of the complaint which complainant had retained, for testing in laboratory. He then sent sample of those seeds to the laboratory which certified that the seeds were defective.

iv)      Moreover, the District Quality Control Enquiry Committee also prepared separate report on 26/07/2011 about the inspection of germination and they also found that the seeds purchased by the complainant were defective. The complainant therefore sent notice to respondent Nos.1 , 2, 3 and 4 claiming from them compensation, but the demand made in the notice was not complied by them. Hence he filed consumer complaint before the Forum below claiming compensation of Rs.63,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. towards loss sustained by him and further claiming cost of Rs.5,000/- with notice charges of Rs.2,000/- from the O.P.No.1 to 4.

3.      The O.P.Nos.1 to 3 filed their common reply/written version in brief is as under.

          The seeds sold to the complainant were of lot No.2042 and there are so many factors which effect the germination of soybean seeds as it is very delicate. Those facts are specified in para No.4 of the said reply. The seeds sold to the complainant were duly certified by Seeds Certification Agency Maharashtra State. Therefore it is denied that the said seeds were found defective and faulty. Hence it was prayed by the O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4.      The respondent No.4 filed independent reply/written version and thereby resisted the complaint. Its case in brief is as under.

          The producer of the said seeds is National Seeds Corporation Ltd, which appointed the O.P.No.4 as its dealer. The O.P.No.4 sold 11 bags of soybean seeds of lot No.2068 to the complainant and it also sold 4 bags of the soybean seeds of the same lot, to the Sanjai Deshmukh. The complaint was made to various authorities by the complainant inrespect of soyabean seeds of lot No.2068, but the sample collected of soybean seeds by agriculture officer was of lot No.2042 and therefore the report of the Government Laboratory which is relating to soybean seeds of lot No.2042 is not relating to  soybean seeds of lot No.2068 sold to the complainant by O.P.No.4. The complainant did not sow the soybean seeds during the period from 27/06/2011 to 30/06/2011. Moreover he did not supply the water and fertilizers as required for particular crop. The complainant did not sow the seeds sold by the O.P.Nos.4 to him. Moreover there was no raining during the relevant period as required for germination of the seeds of which details are given by the O.P.No.4 in the reply. There is possibility of spoiling of the seeds due to insufficient water supply. There were numerous complaints of the agriculturists from that region which show that due to scarcity of water they suffered loss. Hence it was prayed by O.P.No. 4 that complaint may be dismissed.

5.      The District Consumer Forum below after hearing of the aforesaid contesting parties and after considering evidence brought on record passed an impugned order on 25/03/2014 and thereby partly allowed the complaint. The Forum below accepted the aforesaid case of original complainant and directed the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs.36,000/- to the complainant towards the loss sustained by him due to defective soybean seeds and also to pay him further compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment within 30 days from the receipt of copy of that order and in case of default the said amount will be payable with interest @ 6% P.A. and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

6.      As observed above, feeling aggrieved by that order, the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 filed appeal No.A/14/309 and O.P.No.4 filed appeal No. A/14/151. We have heard advocates of the appellant in both the appeals. The original complainant failed to appear despite service of notice in both appeals. Therefore both appeals are proceeded ex-parte against him. We have also perused entire record and proceedings of these appeals.

7.      The learned advocate Mr.I.K.Juneja appearing for the appellant in appeal No.A/14/151 made submission in brief as under. The Forum below failed to consider that the soybean seeds purchased by the complainant from O.P.No.4 were not sown by him in his land and that there was insufficient supply of water and fertilizers to the seeds after sowing, which resulted in to less germination. Moreover there was no cogent evidence before the Consumer Forum below to show that the seeds sown by O.P.No.4 vide invoice Nos.396 and 397 were defective and bogus. There may be various agro climatic adverse conditions for poor germination and poor yield as specified in reply and written notes of arguments in detail. The testing report of Government laboratory is not relating to the soybean seeds sold by O.P.No.4 to the complainant and that the final report of the committee is of no avail to the complainant as it is in respect of the soybean seeds lot No.2042 and not in respect of seeds of lot No.2068 sold by O.P.No.4 to the complainant. The Forum has not considered these material aspect of the case in right perspectives and erred in partly allowing the complaint and therefore impugned order deserves to be set aside.     

8.      The learned advocate of the O.P.No.4/appellant in appeal No.A/14/151 relied on the decision in the following cases.

i)        Mahyco Seeds Ltd…….V/s…….Sharad Motirao Kankale and anothers, reported in  II(2012)CPJ, 373 (NC). In that case there was no report of agricultural expert to confirm that quality of the seeds was poor. It is held that crop can fail because of several reasons and hence the order of Forum by which the complaint was allowed was set aside.

ii)       Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech (India) Ltd…....V/s…… Doddabasappa and others, reported in II(202) CPJ 436 (NC). It is held that variation in condition of crop need not necessarily be attributable to the quality of seeds but could be due to other factors, unless there is specific mention in concerned report of inferior quality of seeds. Onus lies on the complainant to prove the defect in the seeds and he failed to prove the same, the order granting the complaint was set aside.

iii)      Gujarat State Co.op Marketing Federation Ltd…….V/s…… Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel, reported in III(2011)CPJ 433 (NC). In the said case it is held that poor germination of the seeds could be result of various factors and not related to the quality of the seeds.

iv)      Syngenta India Ltd……..V/s……..Velaga Narasimha Rao And others, reported in 2010 STPL(CL) 602 (NC). In that case there was no report of the laboratory to show that the seeds sold to the complainant by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 suffered from any quality defect and did not meet the standards prescribed for such seeds.

v)      Gyan Chandra Sharda……..V/s……Prabhari Sahiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti & others, reported in 2009 STPL (CL) 2590 (NC). It is observed in the said case that cause for the less production was due to excessive rains which resulted in lower yield. In absence of any report from any laboratory or an expert in agriculture to the effect that seeds supplied were defective, it cannot be held that the said seeds were defective.

vi)      Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd………V/s…….Parchuri Narayana, reported in 2009 STPL(CL) 1073 (NC). The test report of the Assistant Director Agriculture had proved in that case that the seeds were having 99% purity and germination capacity of 85%. Therefore the seeds were not found defective.

vii)     Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd……..V/s……Gowri Peddanna and others, reported in I(2007) CPJ 266 (NC). In that case  report of a testing laboratory showed that the seeds were having 99.6% purity and hence no deficiency in service was proved.

viii)    Ganesh Ram……..V/s…….Prop.Kisan Agro Sales, Reported in 2004 STPL(CL) 493 (NC). In that case no material was produced showing that seeds are defective. The seeds were released for Jodhpur but they were sown in Seekar District. It is therefore held that the difference could be on account of variation in agro climatic condition. Moreover nobody could be faulted except panel himself. No noticeable bolting in crop was found and it was held that seeds were not defective.

9.      On the other hand, the learned advocate of the original O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3/appellants in appeal No.A/14/309 submitted in brief is as under.

          The seeds sold to the complainant were duly certified and the germination of the seeds depends on various agro climate conditions. The inspection of the land of the complainant was not done by the District Level Committee in terms of the circular of the State Government and no prior notice was given to the said appellant for inspection of the land of the complainant. There was no privity of contract in between seeds producing company/appellant and the complainant. The seeds purchased were of lot No.2068 as per two invoices/bills filed on record and they were not relating to lot No.2042. The sample was taken from lot No.2042 only and not from lot No.2068 which was purchased by the complainant and hence the report of the testing laboratory relating to seeds of lot No.2042 is of no assistance to the complainant to prove that the seeds of lot No.2068 purchased by him were defective. The District Forum below has not considered these material aspect of the case and concerned provisions of the seeds and erred in partly allowing the complaint. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He relied on decisions in the following cases.

i)        Shamsher Singh…….V/s…….M/s.Bagri Beej Bhandar and others, Revision Petition No.2597/2012 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 11/09/2013.  In that case instruction given by the Government about the procedure to be followed for inspection of the land was not followed while giving the report by agriculture department. Therefore it was held that the factum of the complainant having suffered loss due to poor quality of the seeds is not established by any scientific or other reasons and that on the basis of report of one officer of agriculture department the case of the complainant cannot be accepted to be proved. Therefore the revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed.

ii)       Banta Ram……..V/s…….Jai Bharat Beej Co. and anothers, Revision Petition No.506/2013 decided by Hon’ble Commission on 17/05/2013. It is held in that case that the report of agricultural department cannot be accepted as no notice of inspection of the field for associating them with the inspection was given. It was held that the complainant failed to prove that the seeds supplied by the respondent to him were of inferior quality.

iii)      National Seeds Corporation Ltd……….V/s……..Mohanlal and others, reported in II (2010) CPJ 215. The learned State Commission, Bhopal observed in the said case that mere non germination of the seeds does not imply that the seeds were defective or of inferior quality, when the seeds were certified by statutory agencies. No evidence was filed by the complainant to show that the seeds were defective. Therefore no deficiency in service was proved.

iv)      Zimidara Agro Center and anothers…….V/s…….Sukhdev Singh and anothers, reported in 2017 CJ (NCDRC) 218. In that case, it was pleaded that seeds had been duly certified by the quality control laboratory recognized by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, which had also been accredited by International Seeds Testing Association. The said report was found reliable. Therefore it was held that the complainant failed to prove that the seeds were defective or of substandard quality.

10.    It is not disputed that the soybean seeds were sold by O.P.No.4 to the complainant and Sanjay Deshmukh as produced by O.P.Nos.1 to 3 and those seeds were sown by the complainant in his agriculture land and as there was no proper germination of those seeds, the complaints were made to various authorities by the complainant. Moreover it is also not disputed that the said authorities also inspected the land of the complainant and submitted report. Moreover it is also not disputed that the agriculture authority collected sample of the soybean seeds from one of the bag retained by the complainant having lot No.2042 and the said sample of seeds was sent to the Government laboratory for testing. The said laboratory after due testing submitted the report that the germination of those seeds was 21% and the dead seeds were 77%. It is clearly stated in that report that those seeds of lot No.2042 were failed in the testing.

11.    The Agriculture Committee duly formed for inspection of the crop also paid visit to the land of the complainant and submitted the report which is produced on record. As per that report, one of the bag of soybean seeds of lot No.2042 was retained out of the 15 bags of soybean seeds by the complainant. It also shows that the bill of those soybean seeds show lot No.2068 but the bags were having description of lot No.2042. The said report also shows that the seeds sown in the field of the complainant were defective. Moreover the complainant also submitted that actually seeds of lot No.2042 were sold to him though on the bill, lot No.2068 was mentioned.

12.    We find that it is not the case of the seeds producing company that it is not the producer of either soybean seeds of lot No.2042 or of lot No.2068. The report of the aforesaid committee shows that at the time of inspection the representative namely R.N.Rithe of the dealer (O.P.No.4) was present and the representative Shri D.B.Khode of the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 was also present at the time of inspection and they also signed the said inspection report. Therefore it cannot be said that the inspection was done behind the back of the O.P.Nos.1 to 4 by the concerned authorities. The said authorities in that report also concluded that the seeds sown were of lot No.2042 only.

13.    We also find that the O.P.Nos.1 to 3 in their reply/written version filed before the Forum below has also admitted (para No.4) that the seeds sold to the complainant were of lot No.2042 only. It is not stated in their said reply that the seeds sold were of lot No.2068.

14.    Thus we find that though in bills/invoices, the lot No. 2068 of the soybean seeds is shown, but actually it is so mentioned due to mistake on the part of the O.P.No.4/dealer as actually the seeds of lot No.2042 in 15 bags were sold to the complainant and Sanjay Deshmukh and same seeds were sown in the field of the complainant and subsequently found to be defective and of substandard quality.

15.    In this view of the matter we find that the aforesaid all decisions relied on by the learned advocate of appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since they have totally different from those of the present case.

16.    It is also seen from the list of the names of the agriculturist that many other agriculturist of the same area also suffered loss due to these defective seeds produced by appellant Nos.1 to 3. The list of 39 such agriculturist is also attached with the letter of District Development Officer, Zilla Parishad Amravati, and addressed to Guardian Minister, Agricultural and Federation Minister. The said letter is dated 21/10/2011. The said letter also shows the name of complainant at Sr.No.15 to whom compensation is not yet paid.

17.    Therefore the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to compensation for loss sustained by him due to defective seeds. The District Forum below awarded the compensation @ Rs.4,500/- per acre on the basis of report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee. Thus the said loss is assessed at Rs.36,000/- only, which we find to be correct and proper.

18.    The District Forum below also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment to the complainant which we find to be excessive and exorbitant. The compensation of Rs.36,000/- was granted for loss and considering the said compensation, we find that the compensation for physical and mental harassment ought to have been Rs.20,000/-. Hence both the appeals deserve to be partly allowed to reduce the said compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. In the result we pass the following order.      

                                        // ORDER //

I.        Both appeals bearing Nos.A/14/151 and A/14/309 are

          hereby partly allowed as under.

ii.       The impugned order as regards the direction to pay

         compensation of Rs.36,000/- with interest as specified in the  

        impugned order to the original complainant by original opposite

        party Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally is maintained.

iii)      However the impugned order so far as the direction given for  

         payment of compensation Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental

         harassment is modified and substituted to the effect that the

         opposite party Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally shall pay to the

         complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical and

         mental harassment with interest as specified in the impugned

         order.

iv.      Rest of the impugned order relating to payment of litigation cost

         of Rs.2,000/- is maintained.

v.       No order as to costs in both the appeals.

vi.      Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.