M/S. RASI SEEDS PVT. LTD vs M/S. DIWAN CHAND & ANR

By this order, we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions involving similar question of law and fact arising out of common order of the State Commission Punjab dated 29.06.2011 in Appeal Nos. 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268 & 1449 of 2011.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that respondents no.1 complainants pertaining to the above noted cases are agriculturists. They purchased the seeds developed and manufactured by Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. through their respective dealers. It is the case of the complainants in their respective complaints that on being persuaded and assured by the dealers of Rasi Seeds that the seeds were of good quality and would yield crop of about 10 quintals per acre and that the crop from the said seeds would be immune to "Leaf Curl Virus", other diseases and insects etc. The complainants purchased the seeds on payment for consideration. It is the case of the complainants that they sowed the seeds as per instructions and also sprayed the right quantity of pesticides and fertilizers. Despite that, growth of crop was not

proper. The crop gave very less fruit and it suffered from "Leaf Curl Virus". The complainants, thus, approached the respective dealers who allegedly admitted that there was less growth of crop and yield. Even the petitioner OP No.2 was approached but in vain. It is also the case of the complainants that they approached the concerned Agriculture Officer and the officials of the agriculture officers, after visiting and inspection of crops submitted their respective report. Despite that, opposite parties failed to redress the grievance of the complainants by compensating them. Thus, being aggrieved, the respective complainants approached the consumer forum and raised their respective consumer disputes.

Respective opposite parties in their written version admitted the sale of seeds to the complainants. It was, however, denied that any assurance as to yield was given. The Opposite Parties pleaded that infact yield of crop depends upon so many external and environment factors like agriculture practice, application of seed rate, climatic condition, water intervals, sowing of seeds in depth, attack of pests and diseases, fertilizers/pesticides doses, soil and water etc. It was further alleged that as per the report of the Agriculture Development Officer, plants were suffering from "Leaf Curl Virus", which is caused by white fly transmitted virus and it has nothing to do with the quality of seed.

The District Forum concerned vide respective orders allowed the complaints and awarded compensation to the respective respondents no.1 complainants. Being aggrieved of the orders of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission vide common impugned order dismissed all the appeals and concurred with the order of the District Forum. This had led to the filing of the revision petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Rasi Seeds has submitted that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable as the Fora below have proceeded on the assumption that the dealer while selling the seeds had given oral assurance to the respondents complainants that the use of the seeds would yield about 10 quintals of crop per acre and crop would be resistant to disease and virus etc. It is argued that there is no basis for the said assumption. The Fora below have failed to appreciate that the brochure upon which the complainants have based their claims nowhere guaranteed that use of seeds in question would yield 10 quintals of crop per acre or that the seeds were immune to "Leaf Curl Virus". However, on the contrary, brochure in the manual clearly gave ideal way of sowing to get maximum yield. It is argued that Fora below have failed to appreciate that damage to the crop by infestation of virus is a natural disaster for which the manufacturer or seller cannot be held responsible / liable. Learned counsel contended that report of Agriculture Officer / Committee could not have been relied upon because it was just an opinion, without any scientific basis and the report was prepared in absence of any test conducted on the seed by any Government or a private laboratory.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

Ex C1 is the report of Report of Agriculture Development Officer, translated copy of which is annexure "P" in the file of RP No. 23 of 2013, As per this report, a Committee comprising of Dr. Sandeep ADO (Dect. Cum), Dr. Ranvir Singh ADO (P.P.) and Dr. Bhupinder Kumar ADO (Karanpura/Khukhera) visited the fields of concerned farmers including the respondents complainants in the instant revision petitions and submitted the report as under:

Sr. No. Name Father''s Name Village Variety Area in Acre Estimated Yield/Qtl./Acre

Bheem Sen Shera Ram Jhumia Wali Om 333 1.5 1.5 Qtl.

Brij Lal Nathu Ram " J.B.T. 16 1.0

Ram Kumar Banwari Lal " J.B.T. (30% Bagh) 6 3.0

Baljeet Singh Banwari Lal " Rasi 134 4 2.5

Vaid Prakash Leelu Ram " Rasi 134 and (2) Rasi 134 B.T. 13 2.0

Ami Chand Pema Ram " Rasi 134 2 2.0

Subash Kheta Ram " " 1 2.20

Rameshwar Ganga Ram " J.B.T. 3 2.5

Daleep Money Ram " " 1.5 2.0

Raja Ram Money Ram " Rasi 134 B.T. 7 1.0

Om Prakash Sultan Ram " Rasi 134 B.T. 0.75 1.90

Purshotam Om Prakash " J.B.T. 4 2.0

Raguveer Mohan Dass " Ganga Kaveri 2 1.50

Ranjeet Ram Mohan Dass " Rasi 134 B.T. 1.5 2.0

Likhmi Chand Ranjeet Ram " M.R.G. 6304 1.0 2.5

Daya Chand Sh. Sukh Ram " Rasi 134 B.T. 6 2.5

Mohan Lal Pema Ram " Rasi 134 B.T. 2 2.5

Om Prakash Dharam Dass " Rasi 134 and (2) Rasi 134 B.T. 2 2.0

Diwan Chand Jass Ram " Rasi 134.2 1.5 2.0

Shiv Narayan Manphool Ram " Rasi 134.2 12 1.2

Imi Chand Prem Ram " Rasi 134 and (2) Shakti 9 9 1.5

Hari Kishan Lal Dilsukh Ram " J.B.T. 1 1.6

Sahab Ram Ganga Ram " Rasi 134 B.T. 2 2.2

24.

Ram Kumar Sahi Ram " Tulsi 45 BC-2 3 2.0

Jeet Ram Udmi Ram " Om 333 2 2.5

Ram Kumar Kassi Ram " Rasi 314 (Moti) 3 2.0

Mala Ram Ram Sukh " Rasi 134.2 8. 3.0

Het Ram Lasso Ram " " 4 2.5

Prabhu Dayal Gori Lal " J.B.T. 1 3.25

Krishan Kumar Munsukh Ram " J.B.T. Tulsi 5 2.75

Hajinder Kumar Sahi Ram " Rasi 134 (2) I.T. 905 B.T. 2 4.0

Jora Ram Ganpat Ram " Rasi 134 and (2) J.B.T. 2 4.0

Devi Lal Ganga Ram " Rasi 134 5

Ramanand Bhagwan Dass " I.T. 905 B.T. 3

"According to the above details after conducting the inspection of the fields of the farms, it transpired that the fields which have been shown by the farmers of B.T. (Ankur) the height of the same are quit less (1-3 feet) the number of grounds is very less (0-36) the attack of leaf curl ailment (70 to 95%) is at a very high side. The number of grounds 90-42) and height is also very less (1 to 31/2 feet) were found. Out of the above in some fields of the farms, where apart from these varieties other varieties wiz. J.K. 1547, Bioseed-6488 and 6588 etc. were sown, the height of the same were found 6 to 8 feet, ailment of leaf curl is very less and the yield of the same is expected to be around 10 Quintals. Similarly other varieties which were shown by the farmers the report of the same was found similar to as mentioned herein above. Similarly the average yield of the cotton crop, due to less according to above mentioned list, loss is suffer per acre."

On reading of the above, it is clear that as per the report, estimated average yield of crop pertaining to the respondents was much less than the normal yield and the crop was affected by "Leaf Curl Virus". The report does not mention that the quality of the seed supplied to the respective complainants was inferior. Thus, it is obvious that crop of the complainants was affected by "Leaf Curl Virus" which is a disease having no correlation the quality of seed sold.

The stand of the complainants is that they were lured by the dealer respondent no.1 to purchase the seeds manufactured by respondent no.2 by misrepresenting that sowing of seeds would yield approximately 10 quintal of crop per acre and the crop would be immune to "Leaf Curl Virus". OP No.2 has specifically denied having given such assurance. The oral evidence of the complainants regarding assurance cannot be relied upon as it is word of the complainants against the word of dealer of the seeds.

We have gone through the brochure of OP No.2 placed on record. The brochure states that OP No.2 has established its name in northern India because it has the following features:

"1. Best ability for every kind of soil and environmental conditions.

Less hoeing cost for prevention of weed.

Lesser need of irrigation

Production of good quality and good cost in the market.

Best ability for cotton and wheat crop cycle

Easy to keep"

It also assures that seeds Rasi 134 are choice of million of farmers because it has :

"1. Good height and dispersion

Effective prevention from grasshopper boll weevil

(Pied, American boll weevil, Pink boll weevil)

Maximum yielding power

Continuous appearance of Flower, Stalk."

The brochure also give helpful advice for increase of production of rasi boldguard hybrid cotton varieties with regard to inspection of soil and water prior to sowing, preparation of bed of seed, the distance to be maintained, use of fertilizer. It also contains an advice regarding the pesticides to be used for jassid control, white fly control, spodoptra control and for wilt and tirak. Nowhere in the brochure, do we find any mention that seeds were resistant to whitefly infestation and the resultant "Leaf Curl Virus" or any guarantee of minimum yield

Cotton Leaf Curl Virus disease is caused by a single stranded circular Gemini virus and is an important problem of northern cotton growing region of India mainly in the states of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan during the last 1 1/2 decade. It was noticed that most commonly grown cotton varieties in northern states at that time were highly susceptible to this disease. The hitherto known resistant varieties also showed susceptible reaction at hot spot areas. The incident of disease is increasing and this has become a threat to cotton cultivation in the region. The only known prevention and controlled methods are:

"1. Use of resistant or tolerant cultivars.

Protecting seedlings from whiteflies

Use of only good seeds and healthy transplants

Control of whiteflies

Immediately removal of infected looking plants and bury them

Control of weeds

Avoiding planting cotton near tomato and other crops susceptible to whiteflies

Use of pesticide to prevent whiteflies

Practice crop rotation by planting crops that are not susceptible to whitefly".

There is no cogent evidence on record to show that the complainants took preventive steps to protect the crop from white flies which are the causes of Leaf Curl Virus disease, which obviously was the cause for less yield of the crop. The Fora below have ignored the above aspect of the case and have relied primarily on oral evidence of the respondents/complainants instead of the documents on record. The Fora below have relied primarily on the oral evidence of the respondent complainants instead of documents on record to conclude that the seeds manufactured by OP2 were defective and more susceptible to "Leaf Curl Virus" in comparison to other varieties of seeds. The brochure of OP-2 nowhere states that the seeds are resistant to "Leaf Curl Virus" and the complainants had the choice to purchase other variety of seeds if they were aware that they were resistant to this disease.. Hence, we allow the revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the complaints.