MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD. vs Parchuri Narayana

MAHARASHTR A Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. -petitioner (hereinafter referred to as petitioner'' for short), which is the producer of the seeds, has filed the present Revision Petition.

THE respondent -complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent'' for short) is an agriculturist. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short) against the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that on 11.12.1997, the respondent had purchased 36 kgs. of Hybrid Jowar seeds under the brand name of Mahyco Jowar MSH -51 model seeds produced and processed by the petitioner. That as per manual (Ex. B -2) supplied by the petitioner, the expected yield was 80 quintals per hectare whereas the actual yield produced was less than 5 quintals per hectare. It was alleged that the failure of crop was due to low yielding and defective seeds supplied by the petitioner. Respondent sought a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 towards loss of crop and another sum of Rs. 48,920 towards cost of seeds, agricultural expenses, legal expenses and interest.

PETITIONER contested the complaint and filed its written statement. It was pleaded that the seeds supplied were of high quality and the crop failed because complainant failed to adopt correct method of agricultural practice. The District Forum allowed the complaint by holding that the seeds supplied by the petitioner to the respondent herein were defective. District Forum came to this conclusion on the basis of following two reports: (i) Report of the Agricultural Officer, (T&V), Tadikonda -I (Ex. A. 22); and

(ii) Report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Forum.

ACCORDINGL Y , the District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 62,400 to the respondent -complainant towards compensation for loss of crop along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Rs. 2,000 was awarded towards costs. Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order. The State Commission has also relied on the report of the Agricultural Officer (T&V), Tadikonda -I (Ex. A.22) and report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Forum.

COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that neither the report of the Agricultural Officer nor of the Advocate Commissioner relying upon which the authorities below have allowed the complaint, proved that the low yield was due to defective seeds supplied to the respondent. That both the reports are silent as to the cause of low yield. It is submitted that the Foras below, without justifiable cause, ignored the test report dated 30.12.1997 carried out by the Assistant Director, Agriculture, Hyderabad showing 99.9% purity and 85% germination of the seeds. These tests were carried on the sample of seeds collected from the same lot and brand taken from the dealer who had sold the seeds to the respondent on 11.12.1997. It was submitted that the Foras below failed to properly appreciate the objections filed by the petitioner to the Report of the Advocate Commissioner which were to the following effects: (i) That the agricultural field was not adequately irrigated by the complainant -farmer and that the complainant has failed to explain the cracks in the field.

(ii) That there was no crop in the 3rd Schedule of the agricultural land which might have already been harvested by the complainant and, therefore, the case of low yield is not determinable.

(iii) That the Advocate Com -missioner has failed to assess and calculate actual yield of crop received by the complainant and also the actual loss he sustained from the crop.

(iv) That the Advocate Commissioner not being the competent person had failed to understand that the technical aspect of the case that the low yield of crop as alleged had occurred not due to defect in the seed but due to other reasons such as dry land not having irrigation facilities, poor crop management, incorrect doses of fertilizers/pesticides, etc.

(v) That the Advocate Commissioner had remained silent regarding the technical aspect of the case and had issued the report simply on the basis of spot observation and the information given by the complainant without verifying the actual reason for the damage of the crop or low yield.

RESPONDENT , in spite of repeated notices sent, has not put in appearance. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

WITH the help of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the record, the Orders passed by the Foras below as well as the documentary evidence.

THE report of the Agricultural Officer (Ex. A -22) on which the District Forum and the State Commission have placed reliance, which reads as under: "The Jowar plants are having only one ear head and there upto 25% (normal ear heads) remaining Jowar Plants are having more number of ear heads or spikelets i.e. 3 to 5 and colour of the seeds are Red and Blacks, and having unriped seed and husked seeds."

THE Advocate Commissioner inspected the crops on 23.4.1998. He found that there was practically no crop in the 3rd item of the schedule of the petitioner. Only few scattered Jowar crop plants were there. In item Nos. 1 and 2, there were unripe seed bunches which did not contain any seeds. The seeds were black in colour. The length of the crop was between 3 feet to 4 feet and the length of the bunches was 9 inches to 11 inches. The land was being irrigated from canal water.

THE Report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Agricultural Officer does not prove that the low yield, as alleged by the respondent, was due to the defective seeds supplied to the respondent. The reports of the Agricultural Officer as well as Advocate Commissioner are silent regarding technical aspect of the low yield as alleged by the respondent. As against this, the respondent has produced copy of the test results carried out by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Seed Testing), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Agriculture, Hyderabad showing 99.9% purity and 85% germination of the seeds. The samples were collected from the dealer out of the same batch and the brand which were supplied to the respondent.

THE petitioner is a ISO 9001 certified company for its quality system applicable to research and development, processing, production as well as for its quality control for hybrid seeds for cereals, fiber crops, oil crops, vegetables and microbial inoculants under the American National Standards Institute, i.e., the American Society for Quality. It is the dealer in seeds for the last 30 years and has been recognized as the Research Institution by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi. Question regarding quality of seeds produced by the petitioner ought to have been determined following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not on the basis of assumptions or presumptions as have been done by the authorities below. Without any basis, the State Commission and the District Forum had come to the conclusion that the respondent had prepared the land suitable for growing crops and took all steps and precautions in raising the crops. The State Commission as well as the District Forum have erred in rejecting the report submitted by the petitioner of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Seed Testing), Hyderabad. In our view, the report of the Agricultural Officer based on the inspection of the crops could not be relied upon in the face of the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer (T and V), Takidonda -I. Looking to the report prepared by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (T and V) produced by the petitioner which shows that there was 99% purity and 85% germination of seeds, it has to be held that the seeds supplied were not defective.

FOR the reasons stated above we accept this Revision Petition and set aside the Orders passed by the Foras below and dismiss the complaint. No costs. Revision Petition allowed.