MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHI SEEDS LTD. & ANR vs SUBRAMANYA & ANR

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in appeal No.1405 of 2010 whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the OPs including OP No.3 against the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the District Forum, Hassan in complaint No.238 of 2009.

Brief facts of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that on 21.05.2009 respondent No. 1, who is the original complainant, being an agriculturist purchased the hybrid corn seeds from OP No.3/respondent No.2 who is the authorized dealer for selling seeds produced by OP Nos.1 & 2/ petitioners. As per the allegation, the OPs promised good yield to the extent of 40 quintals per acre. The crop of corn is of 4 months. The hybrid seeds in question were sown by the complainant by providing manure, pesticides, water as contemplated. In spite of all this, he could not get the expected yield. The actual yield was only 10 quintals as against the 40 quintals promised. Thus, for no fault of the complainant/respondent No.1, he was made to suffer loss of 180 quintals of corn hybrid seeds. During the relevant period, the cost was Rs.900/- per quintal. So, in all, the complainant suffered loss of more than Rs.2 lakhs. He approached the OPs requesting for compensation for the loss suffered by him but there was no favourable response to his repeated requests and demands in this regard. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant/respondent No.1 knocked the doors of the Consumer Fora by filing the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum in respect of the agricultural loss suffered by him and praying for relief. On appearance, the OPs filed their version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. According to the OPs, they had promised 30 quintals of yield per acre and not 40 quintals as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that there was no proof that the seeds supplied by the OPs were of sub-standard quality. According to the OPs, it was because of carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainant that he could not get proper yield. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The litigating parties led evidence and produced the documents in support of their contentions. After hearing their arguments, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 9.3.2010 and granted the following relief:- " 1. Complaint is eligible to get the compensation.

The respondents shall pay compensation on supply quality less corn seeds which causes a loss of Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.50,000 loss being occurred due to seeds maintenance growing expenses, and pesticides and other material and labour expenses and Rs.2,000/- for the legal expenses incurred to maintain the said case and pay such amount of compensation along with 10% compounding interest thereon to the farmer and get receipt."

Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the District Forum, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the State Commission which, as stated above, was partly allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 and the order of the District Forum was modified as under:- "OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- together with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of purchase of seeds till realization and also pay litigation costs of Rs.2,000/-.

This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this Order."

Not satisfied with the partial relief given by the State Commission vide its impugned order, the manufacturing company, i.e., OP Nos. 1 & 2 have filed the present revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission.

We have heard learned counsel Shri Aditya Narain and Shri Shanshank Bhushan, Advocates for the petitioners and Shri Shekhar G. Devasa, Advocate for respondent No.1. None has appeared for the OP dealer/respondent No.2 and hence he has been proceeded ex parte.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission contains errors of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Commission inasmuch as the State Commission has failed to consider the issues of fact and law raised by the petitioners. He contended that the fora below failed to take note of the fact that the hybrid seeds were of a "notified kind or variety" in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and consequently, the question of alleged defects cannot and does not arise. He further pointed out that the fora below also ignored and overlooked the fact that the complaint in question did not make any allegation of defect in the quality, purity or standard of seeds in terms of the Seeds Act. According to him, the Seeds Act, 1966 and rules framed thereunder being a complete code, remedies to an aggrieved party are provided thereunder and as such the complaint itself is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Besides reiterating the main grounds mentioned in the revision petition particularly in respect of the complainant not being a consumer as per section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act because he had purchased the hybrid corn seeds for commercial purpose and that the purchase and sale of hybrid seeds cannot be regarded as "service" within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, learned counsel drew our attention to the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of the authorised representative of the petitioners in which it has been specifically stated on oath that the survey was conducted by a group of scientists, wherein the condition of the crop in survey No.194/P7 was reported to be good. It was the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that while accepting the complaint of the respondent, the District Forum has not referred to any expert opinion to support the allegations of complainant regarding low yield on account of defective quality of the seeds. According to him, the alleged problem of low yield was not on account of the quality of the seeds but due to lack of timely care of the crop, application of fertilizers, nutrients, irrigation and spraying of pesticides and insecticides. Since both the fora below miserably failed to consider all these relevant aspects while returning their finding regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law on account of the jurisdictional error on their part. Thus, there is a good case for interference by this Commission by setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the revision petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that the District Forum while returning its finding of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners has passed a detailed order after carefully considering the report of the Agriculture Department. He submitted that the allegation of deficiency in service has been upheld by both the fora below and yet, the State Commission has already granted some relief to the petitioners by reducing the amount of compensation and as such there is no case for grant of further relief considering the findings of the fora below. Summing up his arguments in support of the impugned orders, learned counsel has relied on the recent judgement of Hon''ble Supreme

Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. [(2012 2 SCC 506], which clearly shows that the objections raised by the petitioners in their revision petition are baseless. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order be maintained and the revision petition be dismissed.

Having considered the contentions raised by the parties before us and perused the record, we find that the recent judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. The State Commission while upholding the finding of the District Forum regarding deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners and granting some relief regarding the quantum of compensation which could be justified in the facts and circumstances of this case, has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:- "9. The contention of the complainant that he got only 10 quintals of yield is not otherwise denied by the OP. Under the circumstances, complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though the complainant has invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investments. Merely because there is no expert evidence to speak about the quality of the said seeds, it will not be fatal to the claim made by the complainant.

Complainant has successfully established that he has sown the said seeds and carried on agricultural operation as expected. When that is so, at least he would have got 30 quintals of yield per acre. Unfortunately, he did not get the said yield. The loss of yield speaks to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The District Forum has thoroughly considered all these facts & circumstances and rightly come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

The concerned Agricultural Director on receipt of the complaint, visited the land of the complainant and confirmed that the yield is not as per expectation. That part of the evidence is remained unchallenged. Under the circumstances, we have no other go but to hold that the said seeds supplied by the OP are not upto the mark. Of course, complainant has not stored few seeds so as to send them for examination of the expert. That cannot be a ground to deny the genuine claim of the complainant. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that there is a merit in the complaint filed by the complainant.

Now coming to the question of loss suffered by the complainant. According to the complainant, OP promised yield of 40 quintals per acre. For this, there is no basis. On the other hand, OP has contended that their promise was hardly 30 quintals per acre. So, bearing in mind the claim and the counter claim of the litigating parties, justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the said claim on the basis of the loss of the yield at rate of 20 quintals per acre. Of course, rate of Rs.900/- per quintal at the prevailing year is not at dispute. Under the circumstances, we find that the District Forum conclusion that the complainant ought to have got 40 quintals of yield appear arbitrary. In addition to that awarding of separate compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards labour charges, manure etc. also

appears to be arbitrary. This part of the order of the District Forum calls for the interference and the order of the District Forum deserves to be modified in view of the reasons assigned above."

Thus, we find that in spite of concurrent finding of the fora below in respect of the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, the State Commission has already granted whatever relief could be considered as fair and just through its impugned order. Since the impugned order is in line with the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (Supra) , we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the circumstances, we dismiss the revision petition and confirm the order of the State Commission but with no order as to costs.