ASHOK KUMAR TOMAR vs NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.

THE facts, in brief, of the present complaint are that the complainant is engaged in farming activity for the purposes of earning his livelihood. He purchased 130 kgs. of rice seed (Pusa Basmati-1) from the opposite party at New Delhi on 27.5.1997, against receipt for the amount of Rs. 2,736.90. At the time of said purchase, the complainant was assured by the opposite party regarding the quality of the seed, as well as, the requisite chemical treatment already given to the seeds. It was also assured by the opposite party that the said seeds would yield good crop to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. THE opposite party also issued certificate of quality carrying L No. 455556 alongwith certification tag No. 489530 indicating the quality of seeds as well as the chemical treatment given. It is alleged by the complainant that when the seed packets were opened for preparing nursery for the crop, soil and other waste materials were found in the packets which raised suspicion in the mind of the complainant regarding the quality of the seeds. THE complainant, therefore, immediately wrote to the opposite party vide letter dated 8.6.1997, bringing the defects in the seeds to its notice and sought help of the opposite party in that regard. Since, no reply to the said letter was received from the opposite party, the complainant was constrained to sow the seeds, in good faith, as he had already made requisite preparations for the same and could not afford to wait any further.

THE complainant, being reputed for quality production in the field of Agriculture, his paddy fields were selected for the IPM demonstration in the prestigious Exhibition on "Progress and Development of Agriculture", held in 1997. For the said Exhibition, the complainant made further investment and put in his best efforts for cultivating rice but despite the best efforts, the crop was neither healthy nor of the required quality of standard Basmati rice crop. It is alleged by the complainant that the poor quality harvest was the result of contaminated, sub-standard and inferior quality seeds supplied by the opposite party. THE complainant apprised the opposite party vide letter dated 3.10.1997 of the problems faced by him but no response was received from the opposite party. It is stated by the complainant that he made repeated requests to the concerned departments of opposite party as well as Agricultural Ministry vide letters dated 4.9.1997 and 20.10.1997 for help, but to no avail. THE complainant also approached the District Seed Officer, Meerut, who inspected the fields of the complainant and expressed his views regarding the sub-standard quality of the seeds. A registered notice dated 31.10.1997 was also sent to the opposite party requesting it to depute its official to come and inspect the crop, as it was ready for harvesting but no reply was sent by the opposite party to the said notice of the complainant. THE complainant had to sell the crop at a much lower rate than expected and as such suffered huge financial loss as well as mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation. THEreafter, the complainant filed the present complaint praying for directions to the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 8,02,736.90 alongwith interest @ 36% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation alongwith costs. The opposite party was duly served by registered post but since the same was not received back undelivered, due service was presumed and thereafter on 19.7.1999, the opposite party was proceeded ex parte. The complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence alongwith the documents as well as written arguments.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the complainant as well as have gone through the documents/material on record. We have also gone through the evidence and written submissions of the complainant.

SINCE the opposite party has neither filed any written version/reply nor evidence by way of affidavit, the case of the complainant stands unrebutted. Further, the complainant has placed on record copies of the receipts for the amount of Rs. 2,736.90, paid as price of the seeds (Exhibits C-1 and C-2), as well as copies of warranty and certification regarding the quality of the seeds sold by opposite party to the complainant (Exhibits C-3(i) and (ii). The complainant has also annexed copies of letters and legal notice issued to the opposite party alongwith proof of posting (Exhibits C-5 to C-7). The above said documents prove the case of the complainant that the opposite party sold spurious sub-standard rice seeds to the complainant representing the same to be of a particular quality and standard but the same were contaminated and of inferior quality resulting in low yield and that too of poor quality due to which the complainant suffered heavy losses. The complainant has also placed on record a copy of the brief report/observation of Dr. D.K. Garg on IPM trial conducted on his fields by the National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (Exhibit C-4), contents of the same are being reproduced below : "During the Kharif 1997 an IPM trial was conducted in one of the farmer''s fields (Sh. Ashok Kumar Tomar) at Baraut. This year he planted about six acres under Basmati rice variety, Pusa Basmati-1. Seeds were procured from National Seed Corporation counter situated in Pusa Campus, New Delhi. In this trial three treatments were taken viz. IPM, sole chemical control and farmer''s own practices, each treatment having an area of about two acres. The trial exhibited satisfactory results from the IPM point of view, but the yield levels were far below the expectations. The main reason for this seems to be the quality of seed. At the nursery stage itself the fields showed uneven plant stand indicating that the seed quality was not pure enough. Moreover the plants were less vigorous as compared to the plant type exhibited by the variety (Pusa Basmati-1). This has probably led to poor yield as compared to pure (Pusa Basmati-1) which can give a yield up to seven tonnes per hactare under the similar management practices. One of the breeders Dr. F.U. Zaman who is responsible for the development of this variety also visited the IPM trial fields and he also attributed the condion of the crop to the genetically poor seed quality." (Underlined by us)

The above report clinches the matter and as such the case of the complainant stands proved. The complainant has also relied upon the following decision in support of his case : (a) Mehboob Beg v. Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation, 1991 (1) CPR 257; and (b) Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Limited v. Kastoor Chand, Vol. I (1996) CPJ 209. Wherein compensation has been granted to the complainant on account of defective seeds having been sold to him by the opposite party.

SINCE the opposite party has sold defective goods/seeds to the complainant, the opposite party is liable to refund the price of the seeds i.e. Rs. 2,736.90 as well as pay compensation for financial loss suffered by the complainant. Exhibit C-8 contains the calculation of the said loss. The same is being reproduced for ready reference : Loss Due to Less Production and Poor Quality Or say 2.50 lacs The complainant has also claimed compensation on other grounds as well, for example cost of fertiliser, labour, harvesting, etc. which cannot be allowed as the said expenditure would have been incurred by the complainant in any case, even if the quality of the seeds had been genuine Pusa Basmati-I. The National Commission in its decision in the case entitled Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation Limited v. A. Karuppanan Servai, reported as I (1996) CPJ 110 (NC), has no similar facts, granted compensation to the complainant. As such, in view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,736.90 as cost of the seeds, as well as Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for loss incurred. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant and the above said amounts are to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till actual payment. The present complaint is disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.