RAM CHANDER vs LAXMI BEEJ BHANDAR

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Jind dismissing the complaint preferred by him.

SINCE we are firmly inclined to uphold the order under challenge it suffices to notice the facts and merits with utmost brevity. The appellant had purchased 50 Kgs. of paddy-seed from M/s Laxmi Seed Bhandar, Jind on the 28th of May, 1992 for Rs. 1540/- only. After converting the seed into "Piyodhs" he later planted the same in eight acres of his land. The allegation was that the seed was not of good quality and as a consequence he could harvest only 50 quintals of paddy against his expectation of 100 quintals. Consequently a loss of Rs. 95,000/- was claimed. On notice being issued the respondents first denied the sale of any paddy seed to the appellant. However, in the alternative they took up a plea that the quantum of harvest is depending on variety of factor including the proper preparation of the land; proper application of fertilizer therein; adequate spraying and pest and disease control; proper irrigation of the crop at adequate intervals and lastly the vagaries of climate and seasonal purposes. It was also the firm stand that the ho sample of the seed was got analysed from the Seed-Analyst and consequently no inference of any adulteration or inferior quality could be raised. The District Forum on the basis of material before it held in favour of the appellant that he had actually purchased the paddy seed from the respondents but held against him on the crucial question whether it stood established that the seed was in any way defective.

Mr. S.S. Parter, the learned Counsel for the appellant had persistently urged that the report of the S.D.O. (Agriculture) Jind should have been held as conclusive on the point and the fact that no sample of the seed was produced nor was it got analysed in the appropriate laboratory was irrelevant.

WE are affraid that the primal submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no merit. What first meets the eye herein is the fact that it has not even been categorically alleged, far for being established, as to what was the particular variety of the seed which was purchased and the warranty and the claim of the seller with regard thereto. Once that primal foundational base is lacking the appellant has hardly a case in the consumer''s jurisdiction on the allegations that the seed was defective. Obviously this has to be viewed in the context of the definition of the defect in Clause (f) of Section 2(1) of the Act. The basic test therein is with regard to the standard which is required to be maintained by and under the law and what is expressly claimed by the trader. The learned Counsel for the appellant was wholly unable to show that there way any express standard or quality prescribed by the law for the seed. Equally on the other hand there is nothing on the record with regard to any warranty or claim by the trader in relation to the goods sold. The case of the complainant-appellant has thus to founder on this bed-rock alone. Altogether apart from the above the matter is equally concluded against him by the following observation in I (1992) CPJ 248, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. R.S. Bannimatti & Another. "They have drawn the inference that the seeds were defective only from their observation and that the release of pollens in the male ear head were inadequate. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the proper growth or crops depends not only on good seeds but also on other agricultural operations, namely, (1) proper preparation of the land (2) fertilization (3) pest and disease control (4) proper irrigation and (5) climate and seasonal conditions as admitted by PW-1. Merely because the crops are not good one cannot directly come to conclusion that the seeds are not good. In order to prove that the seeds supplied were defective, the Asstt. Director of Agriculture, who is the Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of Seeds Act of 1966 should have taken action in accordance with Section 15 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rule 23A of the Seeds (Amendment) Rules, 1974, by taking samples of the seeds either from complainants or from the suppliers, namely the appellants and got them analysed by the Seed Analyst. Having failed to do so, his inference based on the observation of inadequacy of pollens will not carry any conviction that the foundation seeds supplied to the complainants were defective. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot therefore be accepted. We, therefore, hold that the complainants have failed to prove that the foundation seeds supplied to them were defective and that they have suffered loss because of that."

It is plain that aforesaid observations conclude the matter against the appellant.

FOR the fore-going reasons this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellant-consumer with any costs. Appeal dismissed.