National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs GRAHAK SURAKSHA MANDAL

THE Revision Petitioner here (National Seeds Corporation Limited) was the Opposite Party in the complaint before the District Forum and Appellant before the State Commission of Gujarat. THE Respondents here and the complainants before the District Forum are Surendranagar Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Dhirendra Vasant lal Shah, who actually purchased the seeds and the Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency, Jaipur which had certified the seeds sold by its Branch Office at Rajkot.

THE respondent complainant No. 2 had purchased 120 Kgs. of superior quality of wheat seeds from the Revision Petitioner. He, however, found that the yield was 50% less than the ordinary seeds, where as he expected it to be twice thereof and that the seeds were of substandard quality. THE District Forum took note of the fact that no laboratory test report on the quality of seeds was furnished by the respondent/ complainant, that according to the Revision Petitioner, these seeds were certified as of standard merchantable quality and that the complainant had mixed inferior seeds with the seeds supplied by the Revision Petitioner and that the same seeds had been sold by the Revision Petitioner to many other farmers in the State of Gujarat and outside the State and no other complaints had been received. But the District Forum as well as the State Commission on the basis of the admission said to have been made by the Revision Petitioner, that the seeds supplied were of substandard quality and that there was unwanted ad-mixture to the extent of 12 to 15% found against the Revision Petitioner. We find that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission treated the statement made by the Revision Petitioner in his Written Statement before the said Forum as admission. We, there fore, wanted to refer to the Report of the Area Manager made on the basis of the actual inspection of the seeds and the crops of the fields where the said seeds had been used and also the total quantity of seeds supplied to other parties out of the lot from which 120 Kgs. had been sold to the complainant.

The Revision Petitioner was allowed to submit the necessary documents after the hearing. These have been received on 31.3.1992 and taken on record.

ON reference to the Report of the Area Manager after local inspection, it is seen that it contains no admission that the seeds supplied by the Revision Petitioner had 12 to 15% ad-mixture. In his report of 7.3.1990, he had stated that the empty bags of the particular type of wheat (Lok-I)lot No. 89-20- 30-42 had been duly certified by the certifying agency, the Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation, but the tags of the bags were not available with the grower complainant. He also further observed that there was 12 to 15% mixture in the standing crop; tall wheat varieties and Duram type wheat variety. Further, in all only 120 Kgs. Of wheat had been sold to this particular complainant where as according to the data furnished by the Revision Petitioner, 1,094 quintals had been sold by them from this particular lot to various parties including the respondent complainant. The quantum of the seeds purchased by the respondent complainant was only 120 Kgs. whereas the quantity sold from the common lot to other farmers was much more, but no reports or complaints about poor crop yield had been received from the other purchasers. It is evident from the report of the Area Manager that there was no admission that the seeds supplied by the Revision Petitioner were substandard or suffered from admixture. There was also no clear admission in the Written Statement.

THE significant point in favour of the Revision Petitioner that only very small amount viz. 120 Kgs. of seed was sold whereas much larger quantity was sold to other farmers, and no complaint was received from other farmers appears to have been overlooked. We, therefore, feel that there has been serious erroneous appreciation of facts and the finding is based on an admission which in fact does not exist. The Order of the State Commission is, therefore, set aside. The case is remitted back to the State Commission for rehearing and adjudication on merits. There is no order as to costs. Before we part with this Order, we are constrained to observe that the presentation of the case by the counsel of the Revision Petitioner left much to be deserved. Case remitted.