NATH BIO - TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs DR. BAJRANGLAL SHRIKISAN MANTRI

Dr. Bajarang Lal Srikrishan Mantri, the complainant, in this case is doing agriculture operations and medical practice for earning his livelihood. He has got land measuring 7 acre 16 Gunthas in the State of Maharashtra. He approached Nath Bio-Technologies Ltd., the Opposite Party (OP) and purchased 1650 plants on 27.10.1998, 2000 plants on 18.10.1998, 1240 plats on 7.11.1998, 1270 plants on 17.11.1998 and 1000 plants on 27.11.1998 for cultivation of sugarcane banana. The cultivation of the above said plants was done after the testing of water and soil from the Government Laboratory. All in all, he had purchased 8000 plants from the OP. He was assured by the OP that within 12 months, each plant will bear 35 kg bananas.

Subsequently, it transpired that the plants were not of good quality and the OP was apprised of this fact. The complainant had asked for Shrimanti quality of Tissue culture of the banana but in fact he was supplied Basrai quality of plants. The said plants did not bear the bananas as expected. The same were adulterated plants.

The complainant approached the District Seeds Grievance Committee and on 15.03.2000, the Agricultural Development Officers of the Committee visited the field and submitted their report on 05.05.2000. The Committee reported that plants of banana were adulterated and 76.25% adulteration was found in the crop. They also reported that the said plants were not of Shrimanti quality and were of Basrai quality.

On the other hand, the case of the OP is as follows. It is contended that growth of plants and yield of plants is dependent on the cultivation, manures, pesticides, weather and other factors which are responsible for the same. The report of the Committee is not correct. The complainant is a Doctor and he had purchased the plants for commercial purpose and as such, the complainant is not a consumer.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay 5,03,593.28 within a month from the date of its order. It also awarded a sum of 2,000/- towards mental agony and 1,000/- as costs.

The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP and enhanced the compensation amount from 5,03,593.28 to 7,68,593/-.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards few documents. First one is the certificate issued by the petitioner itself, on 27.10.1998, which mentions, as under :- "This is to certify that these plants are produced in our laboratory by Tissue Culture and provided as per the existing practice healthy, good vigor, uniform and good size looking plants with no Off Types are being supplied".

Thereafter, he invited our attention towards the inspection report. Its relevant portion runs as follows :- "On the basis of inspection made by Dist. Inspection committee concluded that -76.25% off type plant were observed which is higher than the standard limit. Division of off-type plants- 76.25% is as below.

No.1: Abnormal shape and very small and less fruit -80% -244 plants.

Unfruitful plants 15% :- 46 Plants

Dwarf and unfruitful plants 3% - 9 Plants

Very tall and unfruitful plants 2% :- 6 Plants".

It further mentions, as under :-

"The applicant farmer applied for "Shrimanti" variety but M/s.Nath Biotechnologies Ltd. Aurangabad has supplied tissue culture plant of basrai variety. After this scientific classification of the plants observed district seed inspection committee found that out of total plant supplied 23.75% plants were of basrai variety.

Remaining 76.25% were of other off-type plants. This type of off-type is not possible in tissue culture plants. Therefore supply of planting material is defective/ adultered. Sd/-

Agriculture Development Officer

Zilla Parishad, Latur".

Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards para No.13 of the judgment of the State Commission which rather goes against the petitioner itself. The said para runs as follows :- " Firstly, we find that banana tissue culture of Shrimanti quality was demanded by the complainant but instead of Shrimanti, Basrai quality of tissue culture was supplied. The bills produced by the complainant on record also mentioned that Basrai quality is supplied, complainant immediately had informed the said fact to the appellant by letter dated 28.11.1998. After revealing the fact that crop is not as per expectation, complainant issued legal notice on 27.05.2000 and demanded compensation; said notice was also not responded by the company. Notice of inspection by Seeds Grievance Committee was also issued by the company but appellant did not appear at the time of inspection. The report of Seeds Grievance Committee is dated 05.05.2000 in the said report committee clearly mentioned that 70 to 76% plants are of adulterated quality. The committee consists of expert persons in the field of agriculture and horticulture, therefore, their report cannot be discarded. Company did not produce any report to counter the said report. Company did not produce any evidence to show the genuineness of the tissue culture plants which were supplied by them to the complainant. Seeds Grievance Committee consists of agriculture Development Officer from research centre, Professor in Horticulture from Agriculture College, Officer of Mahabeej. All these persons are experts in the field of horticulture, therefore, we believe the report of said Committee. Lastly, the issue of compensation, District Forum held that complainant suffered the loss for yield of one year and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.7,68,593.28. District Forum deducted the amount of expenses from the said compensation. When the complainant did not receive proper yield from the plants or seeds purchased, we think that price of plants and expenses borne by complainant plants should have been returned to the complainant. The complainant suffered the loss of yield of one year therefore; there is no need to deduct the amount of expenses from the compensation awarded. We, therefore, directing Nath Biotechnology to pay Rs.7,68,593.28 as compensation for loss of the yield. We also directing appellant to pay the price of plants which was received from the complainant by the appellant".

It is not understood how it supports the petitioner. Moreover, we see no reason to reject the report given by the Agricultural Committee. Presumption of truth is attached with it. The counsel for the petitioner rightly places reliance on two authorities of this Commission in Ankur Seeds Ltd. Vs. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors, reported in II (2008) CPJ 165 (NC) and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Singh, reported in II (2009) CPJ 395 (NC).

Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that it had not supplied the plants of the Shrimanti quality of tissue culture. It is surprising to note that on the one hand, the petitioner submits that no tissue culture plants were supplied but they have filed the certificate mentioned above, that only plants are produced in their Laboratory by tissue culture. The case of the petitioner itself is contradictory because in the order of the State Commission, in para No.7, it clearly mentions that the complainant did not take objection for the supply of other quality of tissue culture, immediately. The counsel for the OP argued that if he would have any objection, he would not have cultivated the same plants. He further argued that the complainant was not diligent and did not make any complaint about the supply of other quality of plants. In the result, we find that the revision petitions are lame of strength and, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.