Per Shri S.B.Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member.

1.      The above two appeals are filed against the order of the District Forum, Amravati passed in complaint No.181/2011 dated 27/11/2013, partly granting the complaint and directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the complainant the compensation of Rs.59,200/- for loss of crop and Rs.10,000/- as deficiency in service in the span of 30 days from the date of the order. On failure to provide interest upon the amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. Also opposite party No.2 (short O.P.) to provide cost of Rs.2000/- to the complaint.

2.      The complainant filed complaint that his son has 2 Hectare and 29 Ar land in Amravati District with sufficient water supply. In the season of the year    2011-2012 he purchased 7 bags of Soyabean seeds from O.P.No.1 which were produced by O.P.No.2. He paid Rs.9030/- for the seeds. He sowed the seeds with proper care. However he found that the germination was just 10 to15 % in half acre of the land and 5% in the remaining land. He therefore made a complaint to O.P.No.1 and tried to contact O.P.No.2. He contacted  O.P.No.2 on 9^th and 10^th July 2011, but O.P.No.2 sent the representative Shri Varade to verify and to inspect the crop on 14/07/2011. The representative inspected the crop and found it to have germinated to the extent of 5% only. He assured to send a confidential report to O.P.No.2. However he did not give him complaint copy of the report. Therefore the complainant on 15/07/2011 called the police patil, Members of Tanta Mukti Committee and other farmers and got the panchanama of the crop and germination. He also sent a complaint to O.P.No.2. The District Agricultural Seed Grievances Committee (in short committee) inspected his farm on 01/08/2011 and the copy of the inspection report was given to him on 25/08/2011.

3.      The complainant submitted that the committee came to the conclusion that he suffered loss of Rs.1,23,000/- because of non germination of soyabean seeds. The complainant finding the non germination of seeds had sown Jawar (Sourgham) on the same land. Therefore the District Committee deducted Rs.45,000/- of income from Jawar and inferred that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.81,200/-.    

4.      The complainant submitted that had the Soyabeen grown properly, he would have received an income of Rs.2,68,800/-. However as seeds produced by O.P.No.2 were of substandard quality, almost 100 farmers of surrounding area suffered loss. The O.P.No.2 also without any demand gave him Rs.22,000/- as compensation.

5.      Therefore alleging Unfair Trade Practice, because of the substandard seeds, the complainant filed a complaint with a prayer to provide him the loss of crop of Rs.1,23,000/- for Unfair Trade Practice, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as cost of the complaint, totaling to Rs.1,96,000/-. He further requested to provide interest upon the said amount @ 18% p.a. till the final payment.

6.      On notice, O.P.No.1 did not appear inspite of service of notice and hence it was declared ex-parte.

7.      The O.P.No.2 countered the complaint and denied that the complainant had purchased the seeds of O.P.No.2 from O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.2 claimed the complaint to be false and after thought. It stated that the O.P.No.2 had sold the seeds after proper verification of its germination and purity. It was packed before the authorized officers of the Government. It also paid a compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the farmers under the pressure of the Government. However it claimed that the non germination must have been because of the improper sowing and care by the complainant. The O.P.No.2 denied the Panchnama and the report of committee as no representative of O.P.No.2 was present at the time of inspection. Hence O.P.No.2 denied any responsibility for the non germination of the seeds claiming the seeds, to be properly certified and requested to dismiss the complaint as there was no Unfair Trade Practice.

8.      The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that when the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee (Committee) inspected, the representative Shri Varade of O.P.No.2 was present. He did not raise any objection upon the inference of the loss of Rs.1,23,200/- due to non germination of seeds drawn by the District Committee, when the field did not have the Soyabeen crop, but the crop of jawar was sown at the place. The learned Forum held that due to non germination of the Soyabeen Seeds, if the complainant had resown Jawar seeds upon it, to take the crop and protect him from the loss, he has not committed any wrong.

9.       The learned Forum further held that the O.P.No.2 did not raise any objection upon the inference of the loss of Rs,1,23,200/- drawn by the committee and the conclusion of final loss of Rs.81,200/-. Hence the report deserves its acceptance. The learned Forum further held that the Panchanama drawn by the Police Patil and other farmers show that the non germinated seeds produced by the O.P.No.2 were of not of proper standard and hence the germination was of 5% only.

10.    The learned Forum held that though the O.P.No.2 relied on various judgements to support its case, still every case has a different background. Hence those ratios of cases cited are not applicable to the present case. As the attending representative of O.P.No.2 did not take any objection to the inference drawn by the committee and no objection was raised upon the report it becomes binding upon O.P.No.2. Therefore holding the report to be appropriate, passed the order by deducting the already paid the amount of Rs.22,000/-and cost of Jawar.

11.  Aggrieved against the order O.P.No.2 filed this appeal bearing No.27/2014. Advocate Shri Bhoot appeared on its behalf. The original complainant appeared himself.

12.   The original complainant also filed the appeal bearing No.275/2013 against the order with a prayer to modify and enhance the compensation paid @ 4500/- per quintal to Rs.5000/- per quintal for 56 quintals of Soyabean and with a request for  direction to pay the complainant the total compensation of Rs.3,19,800/-.  

13.              As both complainant and O.P. have filed the appeals against the same order, we decided to hear both appeals together. We also decided to refer the parties with their respective nomenclature before the learned Forum. Both parties filed written notes of argument. The O.P.No.1 in both appeals remained absent inspite service of notice and hence declared ex-parte.

14.     The Advocate Shri Bhoot for O.P.No.2 relied on the following judgements as below.

 i)   Hon’ble National Commission Judgement passed in Mahico Seeds Ltd….V/s….Venkata S…Reddy, published at, III (2011) CPJ 1999 (NC) Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that the investigation in complaint done after harvesting of crop which is not possible, the defects can not be detected through visual inspection and it needs to be tested in laboratory. Complainant did not inform O.P. about failure. Therefore the onus lies upon the complainant which he failed and hence the complaint was dismissed.

ii)    Hon’ble National Commission judgement passed in Maharashtra Hybride Seeds Co.Ltd. …V/s….Gowari Peddanna and others, published at I (2007) CPJ 266 (NC). Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that in the defective seeds allegation and on failure to prove it and when the testing laboratory report supports the case of the petitioner that the seeds were of 99.6% purity, no defect in seeds can be proved.

iii)     Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission Judgement passed in Ist appeal No.795, 796 to 805 of 2006 dated 23/12/2008. The Hon’ble Commission held that the seeds analysis report issued by seeds testing laboratory can not be brushed aside which goes against all the complainants. Seeds analysis is a scientific report. Therefore it has got more probative value than the report submitted by the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee which is an out come of visual inspection only. On the contrary the seeds manufactured by the appellants were analyzed in the seed testing laboratory with conclusion that physical purity was 100%. The learned Forum rejected the scientific evidence without any justification. Hence the complainants have failed to prove that the seeds were adulterated. Hence complaints were dismissed.

iv)     Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra order passed in appeal No.853/2008 in case of Yeshoda Hybrid Seeds Ltd., Wardha dated 31/01/2014 wherein the Hon’ble Commission believed the report of Seed Testing Laboratory and granted compensation only to the extent of the seeds lot for which no report of Government Seeds Testing Laboratory was submitted.

v)      Hon’ble State Commission Maharashtra order passed in appeal No.910/2008 between Ankur Seeds Pvt.Ltd., …V/s….Subhash Kadlug, dated 26/04/2013 holding the seed testing report to be valuable and believable and thus allowed the appeal setting aside the order.

vi)    Hon’ble National Commission Judgement passed in Sonekaran Gladiolie Growers…..V/s…Baburam published at II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) held that in the absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds, no inference can be drawn regarding non standard quality of seeds.

vii)     Hon’ble  State Commission Maharashtra, order passed in Khamgaon TBS and Farmers Sanstha ….V/s….Babu Kutti Daniel published at III (2006) CPJ 269, held that when panchanama is silent on quality of seeds and no reason is disclosed for poor germination failure of germination which may be due to Agro Climatic factors. Hence no deficiency is proved. And dismissed the complaint.

viii)   Hon’ble National Commission Jedgement passed in Shameshersingh ….V/s….Bagri Bij Bhandar, passed in Revision Petition No.2597/2012, dated 11/09/2013, wherein, it was held that in view of the certification of the seeds by the seeds certification agency and in view of not forming of the prescribed seeds grievances committee by the agriculture department, the version of defective seeds by the complainant based on the report of agriculture department and not established by scientific or other evidence, can not be believed. 

15.    The Advocate of opposite party No.2 further relied on the section 9 (3) of the Seeds Act, stating therein that the section 9 provides for the grant of certificate by the certification agency when a proper application giving details about the seeds are filed and applied to it by the person or the agency which intends to sell the seeds. The certification agency after making appropriate enquiry and satisfaction about the quality of the seeds confirming to the standard issues the certificate. The certificate proves that the seeds are of required germination and purity capacity.

16.     He further submitted vide seed rules 1968, rule No.17, provides that such certificate granted as above has all the details required to describe the seeds and also has the period for the activeness of the seeds. Such certificate tag is provided to each container of the certified seeds and the container would be sealed appropriately. A person purchasing the seeds has to verify the certificate and he can reject the container if the seal is found to be tampered at the shop itself.

17.    The Advocate for opposite party No.2 thus relying on the ratios emanating from the cited decisions submitted that the contention of the complainant that the seeds were sub-standard based on the inspection report of the Police Patil and other members of the village can not be an expert opinion and can not be accepted as evidence to hold the seeds to be substandard.

18.     Also the district grievances committee inspected the field of the complainant on 01/08/2011, when there was no Soyabeen crop in the field. No readings were taken of the soyabeen as the field was sown with Jawar crop. The seed grievance committee did not observe the directions of the Government of Maharashtra GR. Hence in the absence of scientific testing of the seeds of the opposite party No.2 can not be decided to be substandard.

19.    The Advocate of opposite party No.2 further submitted that the land in which the soyabeen seeds were sown did not belong to the complainant and hence he is not a consumer. Also there is no specific pleading of any service from opposite party No.1 and 2 and hence the deficiency in service can not be attributed to the opposite party. He further submitted that the seed grievance committee should have taken the samples of the soyabeen seed and should have recorded the statement of the opposite party No.2 representative. However it was not done. The opposite party No. 2 also gave the compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant as per the directions of the Government. Hence now the complainant is estoppled from making any further complaint. The Advocate of the opposite party No.2, thus submitted that in view of the non following of the directions of the government by the Seed Grievance Redressal Committee and also in the absence of scientific testing of the seeds and in view of the appropriate certification of the seeds, the complainant failed to prove that the seeds were of sub standard quality. The Police Patil Committee is not competent to certify the sub-standeredness of the seeds. The non germination can be due to agro climatic factors.

20.    The Advocate therefore submitted that the learned Forum did not appreciate the grounds raised by the opposite party No.2 and passed the order which being based on the wrong presumption needs to be set aside.

21.    The complainant filed written notes of argument and justified him to be the consumer because, the land belongs to his son and he had purchased the seeds. He submitted that he repeatedly made complaints to opposite party No.1 and 2 and representative of opposite party No.2 visited the field. But did not give him the copy of the report which he assured to submit to opposite party No.2. He therefore called the Police Patil and the prominent persons in the surrounding and prepared the panchnama and gave the complaint to opposite party No.1 and 2. He further submitted that he had sown the seeds on the right day and had inspected the germination in 12 days. But the germinatin of hardly 5 % was there. To save his further loss, he again sown the Jawar seed but as the seeds were sown delayed, he could not get the complete crop as was estimated to be 56 quintals by the grievance committee. He only got 42 quintals of Jawar which he sold for Rs.18,000/-. However to resow the Jawar and to grow it he had to spent more money than the sale price. Hence he suffered a loss of Rs.22,000/-. He further submitted that the grievance committee considered the rate of Soyabeen for the year 2011-2012. However the rate for 2012 of Soyabeen was around Rs.4800-5000. He therefore amended the complaint and had prayed to provide him loss of Rs.2,68,000/- due to sub-standard seeds. Hence he requested that the learned Forum erred in calculating the loss. Hence the compensation given by the learned Forum may kindly be properly enhanced to give him proper compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered by him as per the prayer, made in the complaint.

22.    He further filed additional written notes of argument submitting that in the State of M.P., various rackets have developed which have started packing the substandard seeds with false certificate from the government. Such criminals are now cheating the farmers in the Maharashtra. He also submitted the various paper cuttings from the news paper to support his contention that the seeds have been sold in black market and also the spurious seeds are being sold to the farmers.

23.    He further alleged that some Sethi Brothers from M.P. is working for opposite party No.2, and obtained seeds certificate from the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Pramanikarn Sanstha M.P. and by preparing bogus tags sold them to many farmers who suffered loss. He also alleged that these racketiers have also counterfeited the tags of Maharashtra Seeds Corporation and are supplying them to the farmers in Maharashtra who were suffering severe loss due to non germination of the seeds. He therefore claimed that he be given the compensation of Rs.3,19,800/- with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- .

24.    We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that the complainant had after finding the non germination of the seeds had made a request to opposite party No.1 and also to opposite party No.2. The representative of the opposite party No.2 had visited and inspected the germination. It is not denied by the opposite party No.2 that Shri Vharade the employee of the company at Achalpur had visited the field and inspected the germination.

25.    We also find that the same Vharade has signed report as a member of the District grievance Committee. We further find that the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee has recorded the situation on the day of inspection. The members of the said Committee were expert in the agricultural field in which the representative of the company of opposite party No.2 was present. It shows that the Police Patil who was a member of the first observation panchanama was also present at the time of the inspection of the committee. The committee had all the required members as per the directions of the Government of Mararashtra. Therefore we find no reason to disbelieve the observations of the committee though there may not be standing crop before them. We also see that if the complainant had sown the second crop of jawar to prevent and protect him from the loss of non germination of seeds his action can not be treated to be unjustified.

26.    We therefore find that though the committee did not collect the samples of the seeds and got them tested through the scientific laboratory still the observations of the committee certainly hold good that the non germination was because of the substandard seeds and not because of any Agro climatic reasons. We also feel that it is not possible in every different situation that the committee would collect the seed sample and get them tested in the laboratory. It is also difficult for the farmer to keep the sample by panchanama at the time of sowing and get them tested either due to  ignorance or due to lack of required facilities at hand. Hence we hold that the cases cited by the appellant do not apply to the present situation. We also see that the appellant has paid the compensation of Rs.22,000/- without any grievance though it is now raising ground that it has paid it under duress. We therefore find that the view taken by the learned Forum that the recommendation of the Grievance Committee needs to be considered and accepted as finding of substandard seeds holds good and needs to be confirmed.

27.    We further find that the Committee has held the loss based on the presumption of the proposed crop of 42 quintals of Jawar which the complainant would have received in the event of re-sowing. However the complainant has submitted that he did not receive the estimated crop of 42 quintals of Jawar but only received 16 quintals which he sold but suffered again the loss of Rs.22,000/-. He further submitted that the committee estimated the loss based on the prices of for the year 2010-2011 where as they should have considered the prices of the year 2011-2012.

28.    We find that the complainant had resown the Jawar crop and protected himself from the future loss. However even with the estimation of the grievances committee he suffered loss of Rs.1,23,200/- in respect of the income from the soyabeen crop. We find that he therefore deserves to get the compensation for loosing the soyabeen crop without the deduction of income which he received because of his alert action to resow the field. We are therefore of the view that the learned Forum should have provided him the entire cost of the income as estimated by the Committee which he would have received of Rs.1,23,000/- without deducting the income from the jawar. We therefore decide to provide him the entire income which he lost from the soyabeen of Rs.1,23,000/- by only deducting the already paid amount of 22,000/-. Thus we modify the direction of the learned Forum to provide him the compensation of Rs.59,200/- by substuting it with Rs.1,01,000/- (Estimated Rs.1,23,000/- already paid Rs.22,000/-) in the confirmation of the order.

29.    We find that the O.P.No.1 has sold the Soyabeen seeds to the complainant which were manufactured by    O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 inspite of the fact that the complainant had purchased the seeds from it and had been making repeated complaints of its substandardness remained silent and without any help. It was incumbent upon the O.P.No.1 to help the complainant in making the proper complaint and also it was incumbent upon it to remain present before the learned Forum and submit as to how it discharged its responsibility as a dealer and trade service provider in selling the seeds. But we find that the O.P.No.1 not only remained absent in the Forum but also remained absent before Commission exhibiting its grave apathy and a total careless attitude towards the complaint of the complainant. It was a seller of the seeds which it had kept in the shop. It is incumbent upon it as a dealer to verify the properness of the seeds, the certification of the seeds and also to bring it to the notice of the purchaser, farmer while selling it to him. Hence he can not be absolved of its responsibility as a dealer. We therefore are of the view that the O.P. No.1 deserves to provide a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for non providing proper trade service in respect of the seeds. We also hold that the respondent No.1 deserves to compensate the complainant by providing cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- in persuing the appeal and submit his say before the Commission.

30.    Recording the reasons as above we find ourself justifiable in confirming the order of the learned Forum with modification by enhancing the amount to Rs.1,01,000/- from  of Rs.59,200/-  of compensation in clause 2 of the order. Hence the order below.

                             // ORDER //

1. Appeal No.275/2013 is partly allowed.
2. Appeal No.27/2014 stands dismissed.
3. The order of the learned Forum passed in C.C.No.181/2011 is modified only to extent of  substituting the figure of Rs.1,01,000/- in place of Rs.59,200/- in clause No.2 of the order.
4. The opposite party No.1 to provide the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000- and a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid in the span of 30 days from the receipt of the order.
5. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to bear their own costs.
6. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
7. Stay if any stands vacated.