MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEED CO. LTD. vs ANNAPUREDDY VIJENDER REDDY

THESE two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner having been aggrieved by the order of the State Commission who dismissed their appeal filed by them against the order of District Forum allowing the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants.

BRIEF facts of the case are the complainants had purchased Hybrid Chilli Seed produced by the petitioner for growing chillies in their field. When after growing the seed, the complainants/farmers did not get the proper yield, they reported the matter to the local authorities. The local Agriculture Officer blamed this on poor quality seed. Thus alleging deficiency in service rendered by the petitioner, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, who are hearing the parties allowed the complaint and awarded in all, compensation of Rs. 31,000/- (R.P. 1784/2002) and Rs. 36,500/- (R.P. 1785/2002) under different heads. Appeals filed by the petitioner before the State Commission were dismissed, hence this petition. The only point raised before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure laid in Consumer Protection Act Section 13(1) was not followed, nor the procedure laid down in Section 23-A of the Seeds Rules, 1968 followed, in the absence of which both the lower Consumer Forums erred in passing the orders it did, which are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as law on the subject was not followed. We see that Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.A. reads as under : "where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory makes an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of fifty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum."

In the instant case, the facts are different. All the seed purchased was used up - hence there was nothing available from the farmer which could be sent for analysis. Section 23-A of the Seed Rules, 1968 read as under : "23A. Action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him-(1) If farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels, the seed containers and and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the Competent Authority. (2) In case, the Seed Inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop is due to the quality of seeds supplied to the farmer being less than the minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch proceedings against the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act or these rules."

SAME is the case here - There were no unused seeds available for being sent to any Seed Testing Laboratory. They are high value seeds and nothing is kept back by the farmer - There is no provision to this effect. We also see that same variety or groups of seed, which must have been with the petitioner - he did not get it tested. To pass on the blame/responsibility to this effect on the consumer/poor farmer, shall be a travesty of facts and law. Both the lower Forums have based their findings on the report of Agriculture Officer who is a qualified person. Nothing more could have been done in the facts and circumstance of the case. We see no merit in the argument of the petitioner. These revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petitions dismissed.