Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -Operative Ltd vs Jagdish S/O Sh Raghunath

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 704/2013 Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -operative Ltd. Vs. Jagdish by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased 25 kgs. Guar seeds from OP/petitioner on 28.8.2012 on payment of Rs.10,000/ - and had sown seeds in his field. Seeds germinated, but as variety was not pure and it was mixed with seeds of low quality; so, some plants were of long height with one flowering fruit whereas, others were of low height without any fruit. Complainant approached OP, but with no response. Complainant moved application before Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa who constituted a team of agriculture experts who visited filed and submitted report on 16.10.2012 according to which, there was loss of 50 -60% of the crop. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant field complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that seeds sold were in sealed packet certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. It was further submitted that OP was not intimated for inspection and report of agriculture deptt. does not contain killa number or khasara number of inspected land. It was further submitted that there was no defect in the seeds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.75,000/ - as loss to the crop. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that sold seeds were certified by appropriate agency and no inspection was carried out in the presence of petitioner, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the inspection report khasra number / killa number of the land has not been given and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant''s filed was inspected. This argument is devoid of force because in the inspection report it has clearly been mentioned that Guar crop of complainant''s field was inspected. In such circumstances, merely by not mentioning khasra number or killa number of the filed it cannot be held that complainant''s field was not inspected.

PERUSAL of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of Agriculture Development Officer, B.A.O. and S.M.S. whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002 fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence. In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of Director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant. At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.

IN R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P. Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 4280 to 4282 of 2007 - Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors. in which it was observed as under: "Hon''ble Suprme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu and Anr., 2005 3 SCC 198as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant".

Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.

IN the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon in the light of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and learned District Forum committed error in holding deficiency and allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 704/2013 Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -Op. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned District Forum in Complaint No. 540/2012 Jagdish Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -Op. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.