NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION LTD. vs MEERA & ORS.

This group of 28 Revision Petitions, by a Public Sector Undertaking, namely, National Seed Corporation Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, is directed against a common order dated 28.05.2016, passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 680 to 707 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming several orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Tikamgarh (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 102/2012, 29/2011, 99/2012, 100/2012, 14/2013, 83/2012, 13/2013, 77/2012, 91/2012, 103/2012, 89/2012, 33/2012, 7/2012, 32/2012, 28/2011, 104/2012, 84/2012, 23/2012, 80/2012, 82/2012, 75/2012, 36/2013, 12/2013, 81/2012, 90/2012, 78/2012, 76/2012 and 79/2012, on merits, has exonerated the State Government, Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 in the Complaint, from its liability to pay the compensation as directed by the District Forum. By the said orders, the District Forum, while accepting the Complaints filed by the farmers, alleging deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in supplying mixed seeds of gram (Urad) - PU 31 and PU-40, had directed the Petitioner herein and the functionaries of the State Government to jointly or severally refund the cost of the seeds to each of the Complainants along with compensation, ranging between 43,848/- to 78,731/- (only in two case), along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of institution of the Complaints and costs quantified at 3,500/-.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner for some time and perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that all the Revision Petitions are without any substance.

It is evident from a bare reading of the orders passed by the Fora below that a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the Urad seeds of PU-31 and PU-40 supplied to Complainants were mixed with an inferior quality of seeds and therefore, there was no probability of flowering and fruiting, has been arrived at on the basis of two reports dated 01.09.2010 and 11.02.2011, submitted by the Committees of experts, one constituted by the State Government and the other by Petitioner.

In light of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of the Petitioner itself, i.e. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., (2012) 2 SCC 506 , the submission made by learned Counsel that the onus to prove that the seeds were of inferior quality was on the Complainants, is stated to be rejected. The Report dated 01.09.2010 records that the inspection of the fields revealed mixing of different varieties of seeds and report dated 11.02.2011, by a team of Experts appointed by the Petitioner itself clearly observed that "in the inspection carried out during the cultivation period, it was found that seeds of Gram (Urad) under the above project, did not sprout flowers and beans within the ordinary period of 45-50 days. In this way, non-sprouting of seeds of Gram (Urad) in ordinary period of sowing is found to be proved". Based on the said inspection, the Committee had opined that the farmers were eligible for relief under the amended provision 6(4) of Revenue Book Notification. It is significant to note that neither the Petitioner nor the State Government had filed any objections to the said reports.

As regards the plea of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the State Commission was not justified in exonerating the State Government from its liability as the seeds were supplied by it to the farmers, out of the small quantity of the seeds purchased from the Petitioner, it would suffice to observe that if the Petitioner Corporation has any grievance on that score against the State Government, it will be open to it seek redressal by taking up the matter with the concerned Authorities or any legal action, as may be available to it in accordance with law.

In view of the above, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the limited Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.

We direct that the amount deposited by the Petitioner with the District Forum, in terms of the orders passed by the State Commission, shall be released to the Complainants forthwith. We clarify that if the Petitioner had made any Statutory Deposit at the time of filing of the Appeals in addition to the said deposit, it will be open to it to withdraw the same. The balance amount due in terms of the orders passed by the Fora below shall be remitted directly to the Complainants within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Before parting with the case, we expect and hope that some day the Public Sector Undertakings, taking note of the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 781, would start accepting at least the concurring orders of the Fora below and avoid wastage of public money and judicial time, more so when the case involves nominal relief as a succour to a poor farmer.