Karnataka Agro Seeds vs Samadhan Sukhdeo Wagh

M /s. Karnataka Agro Seeds of Bijapur, Karnataka, OP -2 in Consumer Complaint before District Forum, has filed these Revision Petitions against concurrent orders of the fora below. The matter was first decided by the District Forum on 13.10.2006 but was remanded by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its order of 31.10.2007 for fresh consideration. On remand, the District Forum, Buldhana allowed the complaint on 17.11.2008. Appeals against the same have been dismissed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by a common order. The State Commission has dismissed 101 appeals filed by the present Petitioner.

THE Consumer disputes arose due to alleged failure of sesamum crop in Buldhana district in 2004 -05. The case of the Complainants was that the seed produced by RP/OP -2 was of poor quality for which complaints were made to the District authorities in September 2004. The crops were inspected by the District Level Enquiry Committee. Thereafter seeds samples, obtained through purchase from its dealers in open market were sent to the testing laboratory at Nagpur. The report of the laboratory showed, inter alia, that it was certified seed but its certification was valid until 6.12.2004 only.

IN the above background, District Forum examined Shri V.B. Tupkar, Agriculture Officer, Seed Inspection Office, Nagpur. In his opinion seed tested had hereditable purity of 99.6%. However, he also admitted during the examination before the District Forum that he was not present during testing of seed and that his evidence was based on the report of those who had tested it. It was also pointed out before the District Forum that for the purposes of seed testing laboratory, Nagpur, the manufacture/Karnataka Agro Seeds was required to supply samples of the foundation seed as well as the seed morphology. In its response of 8.10.2004, RP/OP -2 informed the District Forum that the same for the concerned seed variety, G -1 were not available and also that OP -2 was in the process of applying for renewal for licence for marketing of this seed in Maharashtra. While allowing the complaint and directing M/s. Karnataka Agro Seeds to pay compensation of Rs.5000/ - per packet to the farmers, District Forum observed that: "In all these complaints the report submitted by the committees formed as per the Government norms and the evidence had been laid down of the officer who has submitted this report which is actual inspection report and accordingly relying upon the said report this Forum having authority to decide the complaints and this Forum has not relied only on the contentions raised by the complainants. Due to the defective seeds of the opponent the complainant has suffered loss. The complainants are asking different amounts in want of compensation but there have not any produced any evidence for the same. But the seeds of G -1 of opponent party was sowing in the 1 Acer per kg. Agricultural Development Officer Shri Katkar has evidence that in the year 2004 the production of Sesame was 3 to 4 quintal per Acer having average rate of Rs.2000/ - per quintal and considering to this point the complainants may have got the yield of Rs.5000/ - to 6000/ - per Acer from the Sesame crops. Therefore as a compensation of Rs.5000/ - per packet is adequate to the complainants in want of compensation for not getting the proper yield."

IN appeal before the State Commission, it was contended that the seeds in question was duly certified by the Karnataka Seeds Certification Agency. It was also contended that no laboratory tests reports were filed by the Complainants to prove that the seeds were defective. Also, that the District Seeds Committee had inspected the crops before maturity. According to the Appellant/Revision Petitioner, the report of the Central Laboratory Nagpur had determined the genetic purity of the seeds and therefore, it could not be brushed aside. It was also argued that the District Forum, while awarding large compensation to the Complainants, did not consider the possibility of factors like climatic conditions, soil, temperatures, water and use of fertilizers having influenced the crop yields. The State Commission has categorically noted its agreement with the view taken by the District Forum on the reliability of the laboratory test report. In this behalf it has observed that "14. The Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Khamgaon had purchased seeds of G -1 variety of Lot No.64 having Code No.22907 -017 -2004 -2005 -S for Rs.90/ - from one of the dealer of the appellant, on 09.09.2004. He sent the same to the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur for report on 18.09.2004. The said laboratory initially demanded control seeds and their physical characteristics vide letter dtd. 23.09.2004. However, the appellant did not furnish the same though demanded from it by Agriculture Officer for aforesaid purpose and hence, the same were not sent to the said laboratory and accordingly, information was given to that laboratory on 28.10.2004. The said laboratory then subsequently demanded the specimen seeds on 05.03.2005. The Agriculture Officer sent its office sample to the said laboratory on 19.03.2005. The said laboratory lastly demanded varietal /morphological characteristics vide letter dtd. 06.08.2005. The same were also not furnished to the said laboratory. Lastly the said laboratory submitted report on 22.02.2006, stating that the genetic purity of seeds is of 98%.

Thus, the aforesaid three material demands made by the testing laboratory for testing were not fulfilled by the appellant. In the absence of the said materials for coming to proper conclusion, the report submitted by testing laboratory has become doubtful. The seeds which were initially purchased from the dealer of the appellant by Agricultural Officer were sent for testing, but same were not found sufficient for testing. The Agriculture Officer as noted above then sent its office sample of the seeds for testing. There is no evidence as to how, when and from where office sample was collected by Agricultural Officer which were sent for testing for second time. No explanation is given why the seeds were not again purchased directly from the dealer of the appellant by the Agriculture Officer for testing. No code number of the said office sample is brought on record. It is not shown that the seeds of the office sample sent subsequently to the laboratory were of the same variety and lot number and bearing the same code number, which were sold to complainants. Thus it is not proved that the sample of seeds sent second time by the Agriculture Officer was taken from the same lots sold to the complainants.

In our view, no proper procedure was followed for collecting the same seeds from the dealer of the appellant and for sending the seeds of same variety to the testing laboratory. There was no sufficient material made available to the testing laboratory for proper testing. In view of above discussed infirmities, we find that the report submitted by the said testing laboratory cannot be believed. Apart from this, it is seen from letter dated 08.10.2004 referred to in impugned orders that it was admitted by the appellant in its said letter that it has to submit its licence to Additional Director Agriculture for permission to market in Maharashtra and it was applying shortly for its renewal. It means that appellant had no valid licence to sell its seeds in this Maharashtra State."

WE have carefully perused the record as submitted by Revision Petitioner, M/s. Karnataka Agro Seeds and have heard its counsel at length. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Revision Petitions were filed on 15.7.2014, while the impugned order was pronounced on 31.10.2013. The law permits a limited period of 90 days for filing of a revision petition but the Petitioner has taken 257 days. As pointed out by the Registry, Revision Petitioner, Karnataka Agro Seeds claims to have taken 168 days to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. No explanation is forthcoming in this behalf because no application for condonation of delay is filed. In the absence of the same, we find no answers to the questions that would necessarily arise here viz., when was the ''free copy'' of the order received by the Petitioner? If free copy was not received, when was ''certified copy'' applied for? Without disclosure of the date of application for certified copy, it is not enough to claim that it was received on 17.4.2014. In this background, we are unable to hold that delay of 168 days in filing these Revision Petitions has an acceptable explanation, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in our view, the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed on account of limitation i.e. unexplained delay alone.

THE Petitioner has also filed an application seeking exemption for filing copies of the original pleadings i.e. the Consumer Complaints of the concerned farmers and written statements of the Petitioner before the District Forum. The sole ground for not filing the same is: "3. That the Consumer Complaint and the Written Statement which were filed in the original District forum are not traceable. Application for getting a certified copy the same is made by the Petitioner at the District forum, so I am not able to file the above document before this Hon''ble Commission."

We are of the view that this explanation betrays a complete lack of seriousness on the part of the Petitioner and therefore, decline to allow the application for exemption.

ON merits, one of the grounds urged in the Revision Petitions is that permission for testing of the seed, in terms of the provision in Section 13 (1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, was sought but not given. This appears to be a mechanical reiteration of the ground raised by the Revision Petitioner when the matter had first come in appeal before the State Commission. As a matter of fact, it was precisely on this ground that the State Commission had, in its order of 16.10.2006, remanded the matter to the District Forum. The present revisions are against subsequent order of 31.10.2013 passed by the State Commission.

LEARNED counsel also argued that the laboratory test report submitted on behalf of the Petitioner has not been properly considered by the fora below. Earlier in this order, we have referred to the observations of the State Commission in this behalf. Sample of the concerned seed (G -1 variety, plot 64) was procured from one of the dealers of RP/OP -2 and was sent to the Central Testing Laboratory, Nagpur. What the Revision Petitions do not disclose is the fact (specifically commented upon in the impugned order) that the Central Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur had also sought control seed, specimen seed and morphological characteristics of the seed, which were not furnished on behalf of the RP/OP -2. At this stage, we cannot accept the argument advanced in the Revision Petitions that these three requisites were available with the Testing Laboratory. There is nothing on record to show that any evidence in support of this claim was led before the fora below.

THE Revision Petitions also raise a vague and feeble contention that the report of the Agriculture Department relied upon by the fora below is based on the assessment of the crop at about 60 to 70 days i.e. before its maturity which would have been reached from 90 to 120 days. In the absence of any supporting evidence no value can be attached to such an assertion. It was not the case of the Petitioner before the fora below that the crop had subsequently revived. Neither the Revision Petitioner nor counsel for the Petitioner could point to any evidence of recovery of crop or of actual yield on alleged maturity. On the contrary, the District Forum has relied on evidence of the Agriculture Development Officer to arrive at average yield of 3 to 4 quintals per acre and has determined the quantum of compensation on that basis.

LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Commission in RP No. 381 of 2012, Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Motilal and Ors, pronounced on 17.10.2014. In this case National Commission has observed: "16. In the present case, as noted above, noticing that cucumber fruit was deformed and the yield was less than the expected, the Complainant lodged complaint with the Senior Agriculture Development Officer. The said officer found that fruits (cucumber) was irregular in shape; less than the standard claimed by the Company; flowering was less; the fruit was not greener and the agriculturists were getting less yield. In my view, even if the report does not comment on the quality of the seeds, it did raise a strong presumption in favour of the Complainant that defective seeds were the cause for low yield and deformed cucumber crop. As observed by the Supreme Court, it was not expected that the Complainant/farmer should have retained a sample of the seeds, so that in the event of less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he could have got it tested in a laboratory to prove that it was defective or of inferior quality. On the contrary, after the filing of the complaint for compensation, nothing prevented the Petitioners, from tracing out the samples from the batch of the seeds and getting it tested for its quality on their own accord or move an application before the District Forum for sending the sample of the seeds, which ought to have been available with them, for analysis by an appropriate laboratory. Having failed to do so, the Petitioners cannot be heard to say that from the report of the Agriculture Officer no adverse inference regarding quality of the seeds could be drawn on the ground that the Complainant had failed to send the sample of seeds to a laboratory for testing. In my opinion, by placing on record the report of the Agriculture Officer, the Complainant had discharged the initial onus to prove that the seeds in question were sub -standard or defective. In light of the said report, onus shifted on to the Petitioners to prove that the seeds were not defective, as alleged."

This decision in fact strengthens the case of the Respondents/Complainants. In our view, it offers no support to the case of the Petitioner.

BEFORE parting with the matter, we would like to place it on record that the revision petitions having been filed against concurrent orders of the fora below, we have deemed it appropriate to fully consider the material placed before us and to hear learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner in extenso, without issue of notices to the other side. After such consideration, notice to all concerned farmers/respondents has not been considered necessary. Due to adoption of this approach further inconvenience to a large number of farmers, hailing from the State of Maharashtra has been avoided.

IN view of the consideration of the matter, as detailed above, we hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petitions are consequently dismissed for want of merit as well as for unexplained delay.