Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -Operative Ltd vs Sunder Lal S/O Prem Singh

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.04.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 87/2014 Sunder Lal Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -operative Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and compensation was awarded.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased 15 Kgs Guar Seed of HG -563 variety on 30.05.2012 for Rs.600/ - from OP/petitioner. He had sown seed in four acres of land and irrigated the same as per the instructions of OP. When the crop was at vegetative stage, it was found that the seed supplied to him was defective having been mixed with some other variety. Complainant approached the Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer who along with his team inspected on 11.10.2012 and Committee observed that some of the plants were having length of 5 feet, but there was no beans on the plant. Some of the plants were of 6 -7 feet, but there were some beans on some plants and on other plants there were less beans on the plants. Alleging deficiency on the part of O P, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that inspection report is no report in the eyes of law as it neither contains Khasra Number, nor area. It was further submitted that variation in the condition of the crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed, but other factors also play major role and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed 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 as no inspection was carried out in the presence of petitioner, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel of the respondent submitted that as there was no fault on the part of respondent in constituting Committee for inspection of his field, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of Special Specialties and Sub -Divisional Agriculture Officer 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 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.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment delivered by me in R.P. No. 1295 of 2014 = Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -operative Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop in which in similar circumstances complaint was dismissed. In R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P. Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies in which 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 & Anr., 2005 3 SCC 198as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Basappa Channappa Mooki & 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 complainant without notice to the OP and against the Circular dated 3.1.2002, no reliance can be placed on inspection report dated 11.10.2012 and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal as well as complaint and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 1.4.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 87/2014 Sunder Lal Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -operative Ltd. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 2.1.2014 in Complaint No. 181/2012 Sunder Lal Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co -operative Ltd. is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.