S.I.V. INDUSTRIES LTD. vs M. RAJARATHINAM

ON the ground that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties did not germinate excepting for 10% of the seeds, the complainant has chosen to file this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as cost of ploughing and sowing charges, a sum of Rs. 6,849.50 p. towards the cost of seeds and Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation.

THE lower Forum, without proper appreciation of the materials, has granted the prayer to the extent of Rs. 6,849.50 p. being the cost of seeds, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of income. There are two main circumstances upon which the lower Forum has proceeded to uphold the complainant''s claim. One is, document Ex. C-6 Seed Testing Result from the Seed Testing Laboratory, Coimbatore, and the other one is the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. On the basis of these above materials, the Lower Forum has proceeded to confirm that there has been deficiency in service.

In the complaint, it is specifically alleged that the complainant purchased 70 kgs. of sunflower seeds from the 1st opposite party and sown the seeds in an extent of 25 acres of land and that the seeds did not germinate within 5 days and after 20 days only 10% of the seeds germinated. In his letter he has also stated that he purchased 70 kgs. of sunflower seeds and had sown the seeds in 25 acres. He has not stated anywhere that he had retained a portion of the seeds in his house. Therefore, a reading of the pleadings would show that whatever seeds he had purchased was sown by him in the 25 acres of land belonging to him. While it is so, it is not explained as to how certain seeds were available still with the complainant. For, the Commissioner has stated in Ex. C-1 that the complainant had two bags of hybrid Bhavani-3 seeds with him at his residence and he opened and took 400 gms. of the said hybrid Bhavani-3 seeds and sent the same for testing. There is nothing to show that the two bags of hybrid Bhavani-3 sunflower seeds which the complainant is alleged to have had in his house were purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties. Therefore, unless it is established that the two bags were part of the purchase from the opposite parties and out of them 400 gms. of seeds were taken, no reliance can be placed upon Ex. C-1. More so, when the complainant has not stated anywhere that he retained some bags and did not sow the entire quantity in his field. The Commissioner''s report has been relied upon by the lower Forum. The Commissioner went there accompanied by one Mr. K. Selvaraj, Agricultural Development Officer. The Agricultural Development Officer has given his report which is marked as Ex. C-8 which is the basis for the finding of the lower Forum. The report of the Agricultural Development Officer is not of any use in our opinion. For a successful agricultural operation the quality of seeds alone is not the only most important factor. The soil has to be good. There must be proper watering. There ought not have been any excess rain or want of rain. After sowing, proper care should be taken of the land and crops. The yield will vary from land to land and from farmer to farmer. It depends upon various factors. The seed treatment had to be done before sowing the seeds. No farmer can expect to have cent per cent yield the moment he sows the seeds. There must be proper ploughing of the land. The spacing between the furrows must be kept. Fertilizers have to be applied. Pesticides have to be sprayed. The soil must have enough moisture. Therefore, only if all these conditions are satisfied, in a given case, it can be asserted that the yield will be encouraging enough. Here in this case, we have no record nor any material submitted to show that all the necessary precautions were taken and the procedures were followed. We have no material to show whether the ploughing has been done properly. There is nothing to show the moisture content of the soil. Merely because there is a well, it does not mean that there was water in the well at that time and there was proper irrigation. The Commissioner has also noted that there were weeds grown all over the field. May be the poor yield is due to the growth of weed. If really there has been proper ploughing and sowing of the land and the precautions had been taken, there would not have been such weed growth. The fact that weed growth was there and no attempt was done to weed them out would show that as an agriculturist the complainant did not take all the necessary steps. The Agricultural Development Officer has written about the soil. It is not known whether he is qualified to test the soil and has given his report about the same. The soil has not been sent to any of the Soil Certification Department to have the soil tested for its reproductivity. The Agricultural Development Officer has stated that the cultivator had undertaken the cultivation according to the booklet issued by the Firm. If it was so, there would not have been any growth of weeds. Whatever that has been stated by the complainant to the Advocate Commissioner of the Agricultural Development Officer cannot be made the basis or accepted as infallible truth that all the steps were taken by the complainant and he did not overlook the necessary procedures for carrying out the irrigation. The Agricultural Development Officer has only stated that he is of the opinion that the other factors like water, soil, etc., have been highly favourable. Thus, it is only his opinion which is not supported by any other independent material. He only says that the seeds may be the reason for the total failure of the sunflower crop. It has to be established by the complainant that there was adequate water available and that adequate water was irrigated over the entire 25 acres of land. Merely because there was a well and a pumpset, it does not mean that in the well water was available and that enough water was pumped out and the said water was available for all the 24 hours. Therefore, in such circumstances, from the mere fact that the yield was low, one cannot jump to the conclusion that it was because the seeds were of a bad quality. The Indian Seeds Act provides enough safeguards. It provides for certification agencies. There are Central Seed Laboratory and the State Seed Laboratories under the Act. It has powers to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sown for the purpose of agriculture and it further provides that- "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."

Therefore, in the face of these important aspects, merely because there has been a failure of crop, it will not be possible to jump to the conclusion that it must be attributable to the inferior quality of seeds and not otherwise. Agriculture in India is considered as a gamble in monsoon. When it is so, how can the complainant or the opposite parties or for that matter anyone can assure that all the seeds sowed by him would bear fruit and yield 100% or 80% outcome. The complainant has not pleaded or stated that he has followed all the directions issued by the Agriculture Department with regard to cultivation of crops such as sunflower seeds. Whether he followed the guidelines scrupulously or not, one does not know. It is necessary for him to show as to what are the guidelines that have been prescribed by the Department and how he followed scrupulously. The cultivation of crops, its maintenance and the ultimate harvest are purely left to the cultivator. There are many slips between the cup and the lip. No farmer can be assured that whatever he sows he will be able to reap ultimately. It is not established that the opposite party took the responsibility in the event of crop failure. There is nothing to show that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. On the other hand, the fact that the complainant had allowed growth of weeds would show that he has not taken proper and necessary precautions. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the lower Forum. Consequently, we reverse the order of the lower Forum.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of Rs. 250/-. The order of the Lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed with cost. Time for compliance 2 months. Appeal allowed.