Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. vs MAHAVIR SINGH

HEARD the learned Counsel for petitioner. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent decision of the lower Fora. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. According to him, he purchased 15 bags of seed of wheat PBW -343 from the petitioner on 19.11.2005 by paying Rs. 6,900. Each bag was containing 40 kgs. of seeds. He had sown seeds in 13 acres of land as per the norms and prescribed instructions of the petitioner. When the plants were grown, it was found that the plants were of different qualities including 323. On an application submitted by the respondent, the spot was inspected by the officials of the Agriculture Department who reported vide report dated 16. 3.2006 that the seed of wheat was of mixture in nature. Thus alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE matter was contested by petitioner -Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. stating that the seeds supplied were duly certified by the Haryana State Seeds Certification Agency and the crops depend on agro climate conditions and inputs provided. In support his claim, the complainant filed his own complaint, copy of cash memo, application for spot inspection, copy of forwarding letter, copy of inspection letter, copy of Jamabandi, copy of Khasra Girdawari, copy of application to Managing Director for compensation, etc. The petitioner had filed affidavit of its Regional Manager, copy of lists of farmers and other documents. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the basis of records and facts and gave a finding due to the mixed wheat crop, complainant suffered huge loss and accordingly awarded Rs. 44,800 towards loss of crop and with Rs. 3,000 towards compensation and Rs. 2,200 as cost.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by giving detailed reasons. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, this revision petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that before packing the seeds and selling they had obtained the certificate from the Seeds Agency and they were surprised to note that there was mixed crops. They contended that they had sold the same seeds to other farmers but they did not receive the complaint from those farmers. He further submitted that there is no record to show that the seeds sown by the farmer -complainant were the same which were sold by the petitioner and the issue involves complicated question of facts and therefore requires to be referred to Civil Court. In this case, there is already detailed finding on the facts by the Fora below which I do not want to disturb. The farmer has filed the cash memo and there is also copy of inspection report of the independent Agricultural Officer to the effect that crops grown were of mixed nature and did not give proper yield. It is not the case of the complainant that they have sold the seeds through any agency or a stockist. The seeds were sold directly. By any stretch of imagination we cannot hold that compensation is either exorbitant or unjust. There are no complicated questions of law or fact necessitating relegation of the matter to the Civil Court. We draw inspiration from the judgment of Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=(2002) 6 SCC 635. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.