National Seeds Co Ltd vs Shiv Shankar Venkati Mahajan

THIS Revision Petition by the Opposite Party, viz. National Seeds Company Limited, is directed against order, dated 27.03.2002 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal no.69 of 2001, whereby the Petitioner''s Appeal against the order, dated 14.12.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded in Case no.26 of 2000 has been affirmed. Accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in supplying defective seeds, the District Forum had awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/ - in favour of the Respondent/Complainant.

WHEN the Revision Petition came up for hearing on 18th May 2005, one of the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioner was that in view of the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966, Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. It was stated that the said issue was pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the case was adjourned from time to time to await the decision of the Supreme Court.

THE issue has now been set at rest by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy And Another, 2012 2 SCC 506, wherein it has been held as follows: "57. It can thus be said that in the context of farmers/growers and other consumer of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special legislation insofar as the provisions contained therein ensure that those engaged in agriculture and horticulture get quality seeds and any person who violates the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules is brought before the law and punished. However, there is no provision in that Act and the Rules framed thereunder for compensating the farmers etc. who may suffer adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell the seeds. That apart, there is nothing in the Seeds Act and the Rules which may give an indication that the provisions of the Consumer Act are not available to the farmers who are otherwise covered by the wide definition of ''consumer'' under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Act. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from the ambit of the Consumer Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination and there is no reason why the provisions of the Consumer Act should be so interpreted."

In light of the said authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the objection on the maintainability of the Complaint is rejected.

INSOFAR as the merits of the case are concerned, having perused the orders passed by the lower Fora, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit. In forming the opinion that the seeds supplied to the Respondent were of sub -standard, the District Forum had relied on the Inspection Report prepared by the Secretary, District Complaint Committee, Z. P. Nanded and also the Chairman, District Complaint Committee, wherein it was opined that after inspection, the Committee had observed that the curd formation was less. The Agriculture Development Officer, in his report dated 22.06.1999 had found that the plants were abnormal inasmuch as in almost 100% plants there was no curd formation. In light of the said reports, we are unable to hold that concurrent findings with regard to the quality of the seeds, as recorded by both the lower Fora, suffer from any infirmity, warranting our interference in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

IT is pointed out that the amount of compensation awarded is lying deposited in a Fixed Deposit Receipt. If that be so, the Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be got encashed forthwith and the proceeds shall be remitted to the Respondent no.1/Complainant by means of a demand draft.