Super Agri Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs P. Ramachandra Reddy & Ors.

Delay condoned. 2. This bunch of 32 Revision Petitions has been preferred by M/s Super Agri Seeds Private Limited, a producer of Paddy seeds and M/s. Shree Balaji Fertilizers, the distributor of the said seeds. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the Original Complaints, questioning the correctness and legality of a common order, dated 19.11.2015, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal Nos. 188, 190-194, 207-209, 221-224, 353-356, 361-370, 195, 204-206 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Anantapur (for short "the District Forum") in relation to the inferior quality of seeds, has reduced the amount of compensation in each of the cases. 3. The subject matter of the Complaints as well as the afore noted Appeals being identical, all the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, in order to appreciate the controversy involved and the rival stands thereon, we shall advert to the facts leading to the filing of Revision Petition No. 1133 of 2016, as illustrative. 4. Sometime in the month of September, 2013, the Complainant, a farmer, purchased "Super Aman" and "Super Varun" brand paddy seeds manufactured by Petitioner No. 1, to raise paddy crop, with an expected yield of 70 to 80 bags per acre. However, noticing that there was no proper seed setting for almost three months of the sowing, he approached Petitioner No. 2 and informed it about the total loss of crop. Having failed to elicit any positive response, on 22.1.2014, he approached the Mandal Agricultural Officer. Similar representations were made by other farmers who had also cultivated paddy with same variety of seeds, purchased from Petitioner No. 2. The Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the fields in one of the villages along with the Seed Inspector and observed that there was no germination of the seeds. He noticed similar conditions in some other fields as well. The Mandal Agriculture Officer submitted his preliminary report to the Assistant Agricultural Officer, recommending a detailed inquiry by the experts. In furtherance of the said report, a Committee of Experts, comprising Principal Scientist (Pathology), Principal Scientist (Agronomy), Sr. Scientist (Entomology) and Scientist (Genious and PI Breeding) was appointed. The said Committee of Experts k submitted its report, opining that the loss of crop was on account of the following factors: (i) The period of sowing paddy was contrary to the recommended date of sowing, which neither comes under Kharif nor Rabi crop season; (ii) The flowering coincided with unusual minimum temperatures of 11-15°C, which might have led to partial sterility; and (iii) Dry and deep cracks were developed in the fields due to stoppage of irrigation, causing exposure of crop to moisture stress at critical stages from flowering to grain formation stage resulting in chaffiness. It was also stated in the report that cool temperature sensitivity at pollen formation time was believed to be more critical period in causing sterility which led to chaffy grains. Nevertheless, the Committee recommended that the said case may be treated as Natural calamity because the farmers were put to 100% loss due to climatic factors. 5. Being dissatisfied with the report of the g Committee, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Petitioners to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,33,600 with future interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization. 6. As expected, the Complaint was resisted h by the Petitioners. Written Version was filed on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, which was adopted by Petitioner No. 2. 7. On a meticulous analysis of the oral and documentary evidence in particular, the testimony of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (RW 2), the District Forum came to the conclusion that the report by the Experts (Ex. X2) being silent about the fact that the Committee collected samples for testing; based on physical survey of only a few fields and the problem in the fields was noticed with naked eye and not on any scientific analysis and therefore, it could not be relied upon. Observing that the temperature from Mandal to Mandal varied in the Anantapur District, the District Forum commented adversely on the observation of the Committee that reason for failure of the crop might be the unusual minimum temperature at 11-15° C. It was also observed that when it was reported to the Petitioners that there was 100% loss of the crop, they did not take any steps to find out the real problem by getting the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory to find out the real defect in the seeds. The District Forum finally held that the Complainants had suffered loss of paddy crop due to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in supplying inferior quality of paddy seeds, without indicating proper precautions to them. Consequently, accepting the Complaint, the District Forum directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant, jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 2,36,800 towards compensation for loss of paddy crop; Rs. 3,000 towards cost of paddy seeds; Rs. 2,000 towards fertilizers and cultivation expenses; Rs. 10,000 towards medical agony and Rs. 2,000 towards costs. Compensation was awarded in all the complaints on the same basis depending on the land holding of each of the Complainants. 8. Being aggrieved, the. Petitioners carried the matter in Appeals to the State Commission. As stated above, having failed to get full relief, the present Revision Petitions have been filed. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Respondent/Complainant in Revision Petition No. 1154 of 2016, is on caveat. 10. It is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, inasmuch as, while affirming the finding of the District Forum to the effect that the seeds in question were defective, the State Commission has taken into consideration certain aspects and documents, which were not before the District Forum. It is strenuously urged that the temperature parameters, applied by the State Commission, are not based on any scientific data. 11. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the material on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The affirmation of the afore noted findings returned by the District Forum by the State Commission is not only based on elaborate re-appraisal of the entire material on record, it also finds support from the report submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner (Annexure C-l) and the photographs of the fields. The State Commission has also rejected the report submitted by the Committee of Experts observing thus: "13. In the normal course, opinion of experts may have to be given due weight and it is not advisable for the Courts to substitute their own opinion since the Courts do not have the necessary expertise, but at the same time opinion should withstand the test of scrutiny when it is challenged as baseless and arbitrary and is not reliable in a given set of circumstances. It is a well settled principle of law that even in a case of subjective satisfaction, decision must be based on some relevant material (though sufficiency of material is not relevant) and in the case of objective satisfaction there should be enough material to support the decision, as otherwise the decision would be arbitrary. The case on hand is unequivocally not a case of subjective satisfaction of the Scientists. The Scientists art supposed to evaluate the reasons for failure of crop adopting objective criteria by testing the seeds in a laboratory or by subjecting the chaffy grains to laboratory tests and on the basis of the results, give their opinion in a conclusive manner. Unfortunately, the Scientists did not follow the said procedure, instead gave their opinion only on the basis of their casual observation at the field." (Emphasis supplied by us) 12. As regards the contention that temperature parameters, adopted by the State Commission are without foundation, it would suffice to note that the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that there has been steady increase in the temperature in Anantapur District, where the fields of the Complainants were situated, reliance has been placed on the elaborate date recorded by the India Metrological Department. Highlighting other fallacies in the report of the Experts'' Committee, the State Commission has observed thus: "15. It is true that as observed by the Scientists sowing and transplantation was conducted in the non season, not being Kharif or Rabi. But what is important is that at the relevant time of seed formation, there should be adequate temperature. The evidence of the Assistant Director, Agriculture, who was examined on behalf of the opposite parties as R.W.2 cannot be lost sight of on this issue. His testimony shows that apart from the complainant, who had issued Super Aman variety seeds, there were other farmers who raised Paddy got sufficient yield upto 40 to 50 bags per acre. If really there was low temperature as observed by the Scientists in their sweeping report, no explanation is forthcoming as to how the crop raised by other farmers yielded the required result. There is yet another reason why the Ex.X.3 report of the Scientists cannot be taken into consideration. The farmers were spread over in as many as five villages namely, Nagasamudram. Medapuram, Muthyalacheruvu, Chinnampalli, Ramagiri which are situated in four different Mandals namely, Chennekothapally, Kadlri, Bukkarayasamudram and Ramagiri. The team admittedly inspected only one village i.e. Medapuram Village, which is situated in only one Mandal i.e. Chennekothaoalli Mandal. Similarly when there are so many farmers including those who filed complaints more than 30 in number, the team inspected the fields of only four farmers, but gave their sweeping observations both with regard to the climate and the nature of the fields as also irrigation facilities. The team was not aware whether there are borewells and whether there is water facility in the fields of these affected farmers since they did not even visit the fields. On the other hand, the Advocate-Commissioner who visited all the fields of the affected farmers including the complainant found that there was sufficient water source through borewells and the land is red soil. As already noted, even the preliminary report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer revealed that cultivation was made by observing necessary agricultural management methods. Further more, there is an admission of R.W.2 himself that there is sufficient water source in the concerned Mandals." (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is thus, evident from the afore-extracted paragraphs that both the Forums below have rejected the report of the Committee of Experts for cogent reasons. We are surprised as to why a Committee of Experts/Scientists did not consider it necessary to collect the samples of the seeds from the manufacturer or the dealer, the Petitioners herein or from the fields and have these tested from a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination. When the Petitioners were attempting to use the said report as conclusive, it was imperative for them to explain this aspect, which they failed to do. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora to the effect that the seeds produced by Petitioner No. 1 and sold by Petitioner No. 2 were defective, resulting in 100% loss of crop, is equally based on relevant factors. We are in complete agreement with the Fora below that sowing and transplanting the paddy seed between the period 13.9.2013 and 10.10.2013, instead of during the period July-August and November-January was not the sole reason for failure of the crop. The plea that the impugned order is vitiated because the State Commission has relied upon some additional material which was not before the District Forum is stated to be rejected. The temperature record of the Meteorology Department is in public domain and has justifiably been relied upon. In that view of the matter, we do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order warranting our interference in limited Revisional Jurisdiction. 14. Resultantly, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. Revision Petitions Dismissed.