BASANTA KUMAR PANDA @ BATAKRUSHNA PANDA vs Prafulla Kumar Das

THE complainant purchased 2 Qtls. 10 Kgs. of paddy seeds of Swarna Variety and 60 kgs. of CR-1009 variety on payment of Rs. 1,260/- and Rs. 360/- respectively on 27.5.1998 from the appellant-opposite party No. 1 the dealer. Complainant expected high yield from these paddy seeds. But they did not germinate at all. He approached the District Forum for compensation for the loss sustained by him. THE District Forum directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,620/- the price of the paddy seeds and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 500/- against which the present appeal is filed.

OPPOSITE party No. 1 took the stand that he was a licence holder and authorised dealer under Orissa State Seeds Corporation Ltd. (''the Corporation'', for short) and admitted to be doing business in the name and style of M/s. Panda Seeds Selling Centre at Dungura Market. His case is that he was only an authorised agent of the Seeds Corporation and gets only commission. He collected the seeds from the Corporation through the District Agriculture Extension Officer, opposite party No. 2. He never sold any paddy seeds to the complainant as alleged on 27.5.1998. According to him, in case the complainant had any grievance, he should have informed the B.D.O. or V.L.W. or A.E.O. or any other officers who have been appointed by the Government. Therefore, the case was not maintainable against him. Heard Mr. U.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the dealer-appellant and Mr. A.K. Samal, learned Counsel for the complainant. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that because he was a mere agent of the Seeds Corporation, he would not be liable for the loss, because if at all he sold the seeds in question to the complainant, and this is not only admitted but also proved from the copies of the cash memos filed in the case and there was any defect in the seeds, the appellant as the agent of the Corporation, or for that matter the manufacturer or the supplier of the seeds, would also be liable for that. The complainant alleged that he purchased the seeds and he sowed in an area of 10 acres of his land. But it is his case that the seeds did not even germinate. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant that the seeds were defective because their fertility could not be proved by sending the sample of the seeds to the testing laboratory by the appellant. The District Forum gave a reasoning that since the complainant had sowed all the seeds purchased by him in the field he could not have any surplus quantity of seeds with him for the purpose of testing by laboratory at his instance. This is a reasoning which we do not accept. Whenever there is an allegation that a particular article commodity is either defective or spurious or is staled or is not fit for human consumption or anything of that sort, the same has to be proved by way of a laboratory test for which adequate provisions have been made in the Consumer Protection Act. Law is well-settled that anybody who wants to prove this could apply for test of the sample thereof. The finding that the onus was on the appellant to prove the sample is certainly something which is not permissible under law. The complainant should have been careful to keep some amount of seeds for the purpose of testing if necessity arose. Such a normal precaution is always taken to guard against any spurious seeds, etc. If we ask the supplier, i.e., the present appellant, to send the sample for laboratory test, he could always avoid to send this by saying that the exact seeds is not available. The District Forum totally became oblivious of the fact that the appellant would be still having in his possession the particular defective variety of seeds for laboratory test. It may be, he might be in possession of the same variety of paddy seeds. But that does not necessarily mean that the same variety of paddy would also be defective in the same way it was alleged about the seeds which were supplied to the complainant. This is wrong throwing of onus on the appellant to prove his case.

That apart, we find that there is not an iota of material available on record to show in what manner the complainant sowed the paddy and what preparation did he make for the land. He could have as well examined one or two persons of the locality or adjacent tenants even by producing affidavits that in fact the seeds were sown in the entire 10 acres of land and that the seeds did not germinate at all. In the absence of any material whatsoever it is difficult to accept the bald assertion that the seeds were defective. A laboratory test was a must to prove the case of the complainant which having not been done, we allow the appeal and dismiss the complaint petition. No cost. Appeal allowed.