National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs ABDUL AZIZ FAKIR MOHD. INAMDAR

NATIONAL Seeds Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for short), who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short), has filed the present Revision Petition. FACTS

ABDUL Aziz Fakir Mohammad Inamdar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for short) respondent no.1 herein is the original complainant. He had purchased four bags of 40 kgs. each wheat HD-2189 certified seed from Chairman, Satral Group Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit, at Satral, Post-Songaon, Taluka-Rahuri, District-Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.2 for short). The seeds were produced and marketed by the petitioner and were sown by the complainant in approximately 2 acres area owned by him in Gat No. 204 & 206 at Satral, i.e., 2 bags per acre. However, there was only 10 to 15 % germination of the seeds and, hence, he suffered loss in his 2 acres wheat crop in addition to the loss suffered for purchasing the defective seeds and expenses incurred on cultivating the same. Complainant lodged the complaint on 03.12.2001 with the Agricultural Officer, Zila Parishad, Ahmednagar whereupon the District Seeds Complaints Enquiry Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee for short) consisting of 11 Members including Shri C.S. Yadav, Area Manager of the petitioner visited the fields of the complainant on 19.12.2001 and reported that the seeds supplied were defective. The Committee consisted of 7 persons from Agricultural Department of the Government. On the basis of the report given by the Committee, the complainant lodged the complaint with the District Forum on 25.02.2002 demanding compensation for the loss of about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- due to defective seeds together with purchase money of defective seeds and cultivation charges. In the written statement by respondent no.2 who had sold the seeds to the complainant, preliminary objection was taken that the complainant was not a consumer. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable. That the seeds were sold by it after purchasing it from the authorized dealer and, since, the authorized dealer has not been made a party-respondent, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner filed its separate written statement. It was admitted that the germination capacity of the seeds supplied was low and the cost of seeds was also refunded to those farmers who had purchased the seeds from that lot. Similarly, the complainant was also to be refunded the cost of seeds but he refused to accept the same. That the petitioner is even now ready to refund the cost of seeds.

District Forum relying upon the report of the Committee, held that the seeds sold by the Society to the complainants were uncertified and were defective and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- with interest @12% w.e.f. 06.11.2001 till the date of its payment. Petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss in the production, expenses incurred on production and compensation for mental torture with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of final recovery. Rs. 1,000/- was imposed as costs. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) with a delay of 34 days. The State Commission was not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the same as barred by time. The State Commission did not go into the merits of the dispute. FINDINGS

AGAINST respondent no.2 (seller of the seeds), no relief has been granted by the District Forum or the State Commission. The petitioner (producer of the seeds) has filed the present Revision Petition. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, we are satisfied that the petitioner had explained delay in filing the appeal satisfactorily and the State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission is condoned. Sensing our reluctance to remand the case, requiring the State Commission to hear the appeal on merits, learned Counsels for the parties made their submissions on merits. We did not agree to remand the case to the State Commission as it would cause unnecessary delay and expense to the parties. Although, this is a Revision Petition, we shall deal with it as if we are deciding the First Appeal. District Seeds Complaints Enquiry Committee had taken the sample of wheat crop at the time of their visit to the fields of the complainant and other farmers and sent the same to a laboratory at Pune for analysis on 28.11.2001. As per its report at Ex.P.7, it has been found that the seeds sown were uncertified. As per true copies of the labels on the seed bags sold to the complainant at Ex.P8, the petitioner had assured that the said seeds were certified and the germination capacity is 85%. In other words, the case of the petitioner was that the seeds produced and marketed by it were certified which is factually incorrect. The petitioner has not produced any proof as to who had certified the said seeds. It is clear from the perusal of the report that the seeds were uncertified. This apart, Shri C.S. Yadav, who had gone as a Member of the Committee, at the time of inspection, agreed that the seeds sold to the complainant, i.e., lot No. 2453-72-II, in April, 2000 and lot No. 70-73 were having low germination capacity. The petitioner himself, in its written statement, admitted that the seeds had low germination capacity and that the petitioner was prepared to refund the purchase price of the seeds to all the farmers who had purchased the seeds from that lot but the complainant did not came forward to collect the amount of refund. It was also asserted that petitioner is still prepared to refund the purchase price of the seeds. From the written statement filed by the petitioner and the admission made by Shri C.S. Yadav, it becomes an undisputed fact that the seeds were defective as the germination capacity of the seeds was low. In view of the admission made by the petitioner coupled with the report of the Committee, we are of the opinion that the seeds supplied to the complainant were defective and a wrong representation had been made to the complainant that the seeds were certified and were having 85% germination capacity.

THE Central Government has enacted THE Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) with a broad objective to regulate the quality of certain seeds for sale and for matters connected therewith. Under the Act, the producers and sellers of the seeds are legally bound to get the seeds certified and tested from appropriate laboratories before they are put for sale in the market. Under Section 7 of the Act which reads as under, the producer and distributor company, such as the petitioner, could not sell the seeds unless the same were certified:- 7. Regulation or sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties.-No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless- (a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety; (b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6; (c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof specified under clause (b) of section 6; and (d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed.

In the present case, the seeds sown have been found to be uncertified by the Laboratory at Pune. THE Committee was right in observing, in its report, that the seeds were uncertified. It was not disputed before us that the complainant was a consumer. We found no infirmity in the Order passed by the District Forum rather we endorse the same. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same on merits. Parties to bear their own costs.