Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. These nine appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common questions of law & facts are involved in all of them. 

2. These appeals are filed by the original opposite party No.2, which is a seeds producer company namely National Seeds Corporation Ltd (for short NSCL). The original complaints bearing Nos.331/09, 266/08, 184/09, 250/09, 186/10, 187/10, 212/10, 96/10, 332/09 were filed by respective complainants against the opposite party No.1 – dealer of the seeds and opposite party No.2 / appellant – producer of the seeds, seeking compensation. The Forum by passing impugned orders partly allowed the said nine complaints.  The District Consumer Forum, Akola passed the common order in three consumer complaints bearing Nos. 331/09, 332/09 & 96/10 on 29.09.2010.  The said District Consumer Forum, Akola also passed common order in three consumer complaints bearing Nos.186/10, 187/10, 212/10. The District Consumer Forum, Akola passed separate order in two complaints bearing Nos.184/09 and 250/09 on 28.04.2010. The District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal passed order in consumer complaint No.266/08 on 16.10.2009.

3. The common facts in brief giving rise to all these nine appeals are as under.

The respective complainants are also joined in these nine appeals as respondents. They had purchased groundnut seeds of TAG-24 variety from the respective dealers, who are also joined in all these appeals.  Those seeds were produced by opposite party No.2 NSCL.  The respective complainants had sown those seeds in their respective fields.  Those seeds were germinated and crops were also grown in their respective fields.  However, it is alleged by the complainants that the crop did not bear the requisite number of groundnut pods. Therefore, they made complaints to various Government authorities, who inspected their respective field. Those authorities included expert in agriculture field.  It is also alleged by the complainants that in the report submitted by the said authorities concluded that the seeds were adulterated.  Therefore, they alleged that they sustained loss, which they specified in detail in their respective complaint. Hence, they filed aforesaid nine complaints before the Forum and claimed respective compensation and cost as specified in detail in the aforesaid complaints.

4.      The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 appeared before the Forum and they also resisted all those nine complaints by filing their reply.  They denied the allegation of adulteration / admixture in the seeds and submitted that there are various reasons of low yield of the seeds.  They are namely quality of land, use of pesticides, temperature of planet, water resource, preparation of land and use of fertilizers.  There was very high temperature of 46° from the month of January 2009 to April 2009.  It caused adverse effect on the crop and its yield.  The report given by the Committee is incorrect and Committee did not consider the aforesaid material aspect while submitting the report. Moreover, the complainant did not send seeds to the laboratory for testing and hence without any report of the laboratory, the report given by the Committee is incorrect. Complicated facts are involved in the complaint and hence it cannot be entertained by the Forum.  Moreover, the Seeds Act 1966 and the Rules made thereunder & Seed Control Order 1986 are also required to be considered.  The seeds were brought to the market only after they were certified by the Government machinery. Thus, opposite party Nos.1 & 2 prayed that all these complaints may be dismissed.

5.      The Forum after considering evidence brought on record passed the identical orders in all the nine complaints and thereby granted compensation and cost as follows.

6.      As observed above all the nine appeals are filed by opposite party No.1 against aforesaid identical impugned orders.  We have heard Advocate Mr A M Nabira appearing for the appellant in all appeals.  We have also heard Mr K P Gawande, authorised representative of the respondents in appeal bearing Nos. A/10/587, A/10/688, A/10/689 and Advocate Mr S A Mohata  appearing for respondents in appeal  bearing Nos.A/11/11, A/11/12 & A/11/13.  We have also heard Advocate Mr S G Ingle appearing for the original complainant / respondent in appeal bearing No.A/10/239.  None appeared for the original complainant / respondent in two appeals bearing Nos. A/10/447 and A/10/448.  We have also perused the material placed before us by both parties in all these nine appeals. Aforesaid parties made common submission in all these nine appeals, which we have considered.

7.      The sum & substance of the submission of learned advocate of the appellant in all these appeals in brief is as under.

i.        The original complainant did not sow the seeds as per ratio of quantity of seeds & area of land and used fertilizer in excess of required quantity and therefore, the seeds have not given required yield.

ii.       The original complainant used faulty method of sowing of the seeds and on account of their own fault and carelessness; the seeds could not germinate properly.

iii.      The inspection conducted by the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee is not proper and in violation of rules and Government Resolution dtd.26.10.1998. Inspection was carried out in the absence of the appellant and hence the inspection report has got no value and the Forum below erred in relying on the same.

4. The Forum also failed to consider that there are various agro-climatic conditions, which caused adverse effect on the yield of the crop.

5. The impugned orders are illegal and needs to be set aside.

          The learned advocate of the appellant relied on the decisions in following cases in support of his submission.

a.      Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Sadhu & Anr., AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2023

          In that case, there was allegation of substandard seeds.  It was observed under facts & circumstances of that case that claim for compensation on the ground that the seeds were substandard, is not tenable.

b.      Hindusthan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., IV (2005) CPJ 47 (NC)

          It has been held in the said case that the sample of insecticides was not analysed as per prescribed procedure under Consumer Protection Act and report of Quality Control Inspector cannot be discarded. Therefore, inferior quality of insecticides is not proved.

c.       Khamgaon Taluka Bagayatdar Shetkari & Fale (Fruits) Vikri Sahakari Sanstha, Khamgaon. Vs. Babu Kutti Daniel, III(2006) CPJ 269

          In that case, no reason was given for poor germination of seeds. Panchanama was silent on quality of seeds. There was no evidence regarding substandard or adulterated quality of seeds. It is also observed that failure of germination may be due to agroclimatic factors and therefore no deficiency in service is proved.

d.      Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram, II(2005) CPJ 94 (NC).

          Under the facts of that case, it is observed that Non-standard quality of seeds is not proved.

e.      Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. Vs. Vijaykumar Shankarao & Anr., II(2009) CPJ 148 (NC)

          In that case, there was no evidence on record indicating seeds to be of non-standard quality and hence unfair trade practice was not proved.

f.       Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd. Vs. Gowri Peddanna & Ors., I(2007) CPJ 266 (NC).

          In that case, testing laboratory report of the seeds showed 99.6% purity and therefore it is held that no deficiency in service in is proved.

g.      Mahendra Hybrid  Seeds Co Ltd Vs. Nilkant Punjaji Kavade & Anr. in appeal No. 2545 of 1998, decided by State Commission, Circuit Bench, Aurangabad on 15.02.2007.

          In that case, the evidence brought on record did not disclose adulteration or defectiveness of the seeds and therefore complaint was dismissed.

h.      Mahrashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd Vs. Sanjay Murlidharrao Manikar & Anr. in appeal No.993/2000 decided by State Commission, Mumabi on 21.03.2006.

          In that case, cotton seeds were not sent to the laboratory for analysis by the complainant.  There was noting on record to show that due to substandard quality of seeds, germination got affected. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

1. Mahrashtra Hybrid Seeds Co Ltd Vs. Maruti Pandurang Jadhav in appeal No.1641/1998 decided by State Commission, Mumbai on 18.12.2006.

In that case, it was observed that opinion given by the Seeds Committee is without any technical testing and is only on local inspection.  Unless seeds or plants are tested in laboratory, one cannot come to definite conclusion about the admixture seeds.

j.        Kesari Venkata Reddy Vs. Anaparthy Venkata Chalapathi Rao & Anr., I(2000) CPJ 439.

          In that case, seeds were certified by recognised agency and there was good germination of seeds.  Loss of crop was due to virus disease. Necessary precaution to prevent spreading of disease was not taken and other farmers planted same seeds in same area & yield in their lands was very good. It is therefore held that the complainant failed to prove loss of crop due to defective seeds.

k.       Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Vs. Vilas Gangaram Jagtap in appeal No.744/2008, decided by State Commission, Mumbai on 05.05.2009.

          In that case, it was not disclosed by the complainant what were the fruits he reaped, at what price he had sold them in the market and what was the market rate of sale of those Pumpkins. Hence, it is observed that in the absence of any proof, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

8.      On the other hand, the learned advocates and representative of the other side supported the impugned order and relied on the decisions in following cases.

a.      National Seeds Corporation Vs. M Madhusudan Reddy, I(2012) AIR (SC) 1160.

          It is held that complaint of defective seeds by the farmer can be entertained by the Consumer Forums even though there is a special Act namely Seeds Act.

b.      National Seeds Corporation Vs. Udhveta & Ors., IV(2016) CPJ 665 (NC).

          In that case, inspection of fields revealed mixing of different varieties of seeds. An expert report found that Urad seeds did not sprout flowers and beans within the ordinary period of 40-50 days and neither petitioner nor State Government had filed any objections to the said report.  Hence, it is held that the compensation to the complainant has been rightly awarded.

c.       National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs. Malda @ Mal Krishan, IV(2015) CPJ 54 (NC).

          It is observed that once complainant has lodged his grievance with State Agriculture Department and a Committee of experts appointed by State authorities have upheld the version given by complainant, it can be safely presumed that the complainant had sufficiently discharged his onus to prove that sees in question were of defective quality.

d.      National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs. Shivaputrappa Vitthaldas & Ors., III(2016) CPJ 398 (NC).

          In that case, the complainants had established his case, which was supported by scientists report.  The manufacturer did not file any application before the Forum for testing of seeds.  Therefore, raising contentions before National Commission by manufacturer cannot be sustained.  Hence, it is held that State Commission has rightly relied on scientist’s report.

9.      In the instant case, it is not disputed that groundnut seeds of same TAG-24 variety produced by the appellant / original opposite party No.1 were sold by its respective dealer to the respective complainant. Those seeds were sown by them in their respective agriculture land.  It is also not disputed that all those seeds were properly germinated and crop was also grown. It is also not disputed that the respective complainant had made a complaint to the Officers of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee appointed by the State Government of Maharashtra and Members of the said Committee had paid visit to the respective agriculture land of the complainant and submitted report that there is admixture of seeds which caused loss in yield of crop.

10.    It is also pertinent to note that a letter dtd.26.05.2009 written by Regional Manager of the appellant to Divisional Manager filed on record and not disputed by appellant is very specific. In that letter it is admitted that the groundnut TAG-24 supplied by the dealer of Akola as received from National Seeds Corporation of Guntoor (A.P.) is having admixture problem, which was inspected by Committee of State Agriculture Department alongwith scientist of Dr. P D K V. Akola, due to which farmers lodged complaint about very very low yield as compared to TAG-24 variety and suffered huge loss.

11.    Thus, the said letter itself is clear admission of authorised representative of the appellant, which proves that the TAG-24 variety is suffered from admixture problem i.e. adulteration in the seeds and therefore, the complainants suffered loss in the yield.

12.    Moreover, the members District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee after due inspection of the crop of the respective complaint submitted reports and supported the case of the respective complainant that there is admixture in the TAG-24 seeds and therefore, the respective complainant suffered loss in the yield.

13.    The appellant has not rebutted the aforesaid evidence by bringing on record cogent evidence.  The Forum in the respective impugned order has considered in detail the material evidence brought on record and came to the correct conclusion and finding.  The aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of the appellant are thus not applicable to the facts & circumstances of present case as they are totally different from those of said cases discussed above.

14.    We are of thus considered view that the Forum committed no error in holding that the groundnut seeds produced by the appellant and sold to the complainant by its dealer were adulterated and therefore, the complainants sustained heavy loss in the yield thereof. 

15.    The Forum has also rightly assessed compensation to be paid by the appellant to the complainant on account of adulterated and defective seeds produced by the appellant and sold to the complainants.

16.    Thus, we find that all these appeals are devoid of merits and they deserve to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.        All these appeal bearing Nos. A/10/687, A/010/239, A/10/447, A/10/448, A/11/11, A/11/12, A/11/13, A/10/688 & A/10/689 are hereby dismissed.

ii.       No order as to costs in all these appeals.

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