PRABHATI LAL vs NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS

This Revision Petition is filed by the Complainant Prabhati Lal against National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Kanchanganga Seeds Ltd. and two other private agencies dealing in

horticultural seeds. The order under challenge was passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 22.9.2009, common to two separate appeals filed, one by the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSC) and the other by Daga Farms and Agencies.

The appeal of National Seeds Corporation (No.1029/2006) has been allowed and the appeal of Daga Farms and Agencies (No.1022/2006) has been dismissed on the ground that it had become infructuous, due to setting aside of the order of the District Forum in the appeal of the National Seeds Corporation.

Both appeals had arisen from order of the District Forum, Jaipur in a single complaint filed against all 4 Opposite Parties. The District Forum came to a conclusion that cauliflower seed supplied by OP-2/NSC and tomato seed supplied by OPs-1, 3 and 4 were both of poor quality. The Complainant had suffered loss due to defective seed of both crops. Therefore, OPs were directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of crop, Rs.3000/- for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint.

The appeal of OP-2/National Seeds Corporation was allowed by the State Commission. It held that the report of 16.10.2001, given by Assistant Director Horticulture Dausa, had shown that the crop damage was due to excessive heat and dense plant population. The State Commission has observed that- "19. No specific finding has been given in the report dated 16.10.2001 of the Asstt. Director, Horticulture, Dausa which has been given in respect of seeds of tomato and cauliflower that the seeds were defective rather, created doubt and on the basis of doubt, it cannot be considered that the seeds of tomato and cauliflower sold by respondent No.2- opposite party No.1 to the complainant-respondent No.1 were defective. 20. It is also worthwhile to clear that the germination of the crop depends on various factors i.e. climate condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizer etc. as the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in its Judgment in "Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V/s. Sadhu & Another" Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 2005 (1) 533."

We have heard Mr. Jitender Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yashuvardhan, counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ashutosh K. Singh, counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have remained unrepresented. We have also perused the records of the Revision Petition.

The main ground urged on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant is that the crop was not affected by any pests or disease. Also, there was no deficiency of crop nutrients. The plant growth too was normal and the weather condition was favourable. In this background, the State Commission should have held that the seeds supplied were defective and cause for crop failure.

Another important ground is that Respondent No.1/National Seeds Corporation intentionally did not file any report of quality of seed, though samples of the seeds were taken by it and by Assistant Director Horticulture, Dausa. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner drew our attention to the report of Assistant Director Horticulture, which clearly states that- "The empty packets of the seeds and bills were got compared to verify the quantity, quality, lot number and batch number of the said seeds. Therefore, the department has

some doubt about the quality of the seeds, therefore, the officials of N.S.C. took the remaining seeds and one empty pouch along with them for investigation. The said cauliflower seed was of some synthetic quality, whose manufacturer and distributor company is N.S.C. The said seeds have been purchased according to details mentioned in the bill from Daga Farms & Agencies, Chomu House (Tabela) Jaipur. The crops have been sown in time according the type of this crop. Keeping in view the condition of the crops, you are advised to remove this crop from the fields and sow some other crop because there is no possibility of any produce in it due to buttoning. Learned counsel therefore, argued that it was incumbent upon OP-2 NSC, having collected sample of the cauliflower seed, to have got it tested. If the test showed that this seed was free from any defect, evidence of the same should have been led before the District Forum. Learned counsel for OP-2/NSC fairly conceded that there is nothing on record to show that the seed collected from the land of the Complainant was got tested to ascertain its actual quality.

Before the District Forum, NSC did not file any Written Statement, in reply to the Complaint. But, affidavit of Sri G. C. Batra, Manager, NSC was filed. He admits inspecting the crop of the complainant with Agriculture and Horticulture officers of Dausa. But , very strangely, his affidavit says that it could not be established that the complainant had sown the same seed which he had purchased from the NSC. If this was his finding, there was no need for him to record his opinion about reasons for crop failure.

We find it necessary to observe that the above affidavit of NSC maintains an inexplicable silence on the comment in the report of the Assistant Director, Horticulture that NSC representative had collected seed samples from the field of the complainant. In the background of absence of any indication of adverse seasonal condition or infestation by any insect or affliction by any crop disease, the failure to produce seed testing report deserves to be viewed adversely against OP-2/NSC. Learned counsel for OP-2 also claimed that the corporation is a high- performance ''mini-ratna''. In our view such a claim cannot explain failure to test and establish the quality of seed, despite having collected samples thereof. Further, the fact that Sri R K Sharma, another NSC officer has file a nearly identical affidavit, lends no additional credibility to the case of NSC.

In view of the details examined above, we are of the view that conclusion reached by the State Commission does not flow from the evidence on record. Reversal of the order of the District Forum in these appeals was therefore not warranted. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and order of the District Forum in Complaint No. 51 of 2002 is restored. No costs.