Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 2(1)(g), 13(c), 14(1)(d), 15 - seeds act, 1966 - rules 14, 21 - cases referred: 1. maharashtra hybrid seeds company ltd. v. alavalapati chandra reddy, iii (1998) cpj 8 (sc)=viii (1998) slt 317. (relied) [para 10] 2. h.n. shankara sastry v. assistant director of agriculture, karnataka, ii (2004) cpj 37 (sc)=iii (2004) slt 766. (relied) [para 11] 3. lucknow development authority v. m.k. gupta, iii (1993) cpj 7 (sc). (relied) [para 11] comparative citations: 2011 (2) cpj 476, 2012 (1) cpr 55d. appa rao, president: oral: 1. this is an appeal preferred by the manufacturer of the seeds op2 against the order of the dist. forum directing it to payrs. 72,000 towards compensation along with its dealer together with interest, compensation and costs. 2. the case of the complainant in brief is that he owns ac. 4.50 cents of agricultural land in s. nos. 76 and 77 in nallaballi village. while so he purchased sunflower seeds viz., sunbred- 275 variety on 29.11.2003 manufactured by r2 from its dealer r1 when it assured that it would give yield of 10 to 12 quintals per acre on payment of its price. right from the beginning the growth was not proper. when he complained to r1 at the time of flowering he did not heed. when he complained, the agricultural officer inspected the land and informed that due to defect in the seed the crop was failed. he spent about rs. 4,500 per acre towards agricultural expenses. he sustained a loss of rs. 72,000, and therefore he claimed the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a., together with compensation of rs. 20,000 towards mental agony and costs of rs. 3,000. 3. r1 dealer resisted the case. it disputed the sale of sunflower seeds to the complainant. the document filed by him was only a quotation and not a cash bill. he was not aware whether the mandal agricultural officer visited his land, and opined that failure of the crop was due todefect in the seeds. the yield of crop depends on various factors. the quality or defect of the seeds could be decided only in the laboratory test by a competent authority, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. the manufacturer, appellant herein equally resisted the case. while putting the complainant to proof that he purchased the sunflower seeds from r1 on assurance that the seeds would yield about 10 to 12 quintals per acre, however, it admitted that it had manufactured the sunbred-275 variety of sunflower seeds but did not supply either to r1 or the complainant. it was not aware that the mandal agricultural officer visited the lands and opined that there was defect in the seeds. in fact one prabhakar agro enterprises was its distributor. the document filed by him was only a quotation and not a cash bill. the yield of crop depends on several factors viz., climatic conditions, water, pests, disease, virus attack, agricultural practices, etc. the quality or defect of the seeds could be decided only in the laboratory test by a competent authority. it has a scientific and research wing recognized by government of india. there was no complaint from any of the cultivators till now, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 5. the complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got exs. a1 to 11 marked while the opposite parties did not choose to file affidavit evidence and got ex. b1 to b5 marked. 6. the dist. forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the sunflower seeds that were manufactured by the appellant were defective and ex. a9 stands un-controverted and therefore directed them to payrs. 72,000 with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with compensation ofrs.1,000 towards mental agony andrs. 500 towards costs. 7. aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred the appeal contending that the dist. forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. the complainant could not establish that r1 was its dealer and that he purchased the seeds from him. equally the dist. forum ought to have relied ex. b1. the dist. forum did not consider any of the defences raised by it, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 8. the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the dist. forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law? 9. it is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased sun flower seeds from dealer r1 on 29.11.2003 after paying costs of seeds. he owns ac. 4.50 cents in s.nos. 76 and 77 at nallaballi village. in order to prove that the seeds that were sown by him did not germinate filed ex. a4 photographs along with ex. a6 seed bags, and also complained to the agricultural officer. the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the shell life of the seeds was expired and therefore they had lost the opportunity to send it to an expert. if that were to be so, it could have filed test analysis reports taken under the provisions of seed act before releasing it to the market. simple denial of facts would not throw burden of proof on other side. when the complainant had stated this fact in his complaint, the appellant did not try to send it to analysis in order to show that the seeds were not defective. 10. it may be stated herein that the appellant did not file the packet containing the specifications or label as mandated under rule 14 of the seeds act. undoubtedly the appellant must have the samples of seeds analysed in a laboratory as ordained under rule 21 of the seeds act. it could have filed reports of various specifications in order to find out as to the exact analysis made by the seeds analyst. the contention that the complainant did not invoke section 13(c) of the c.p. act for sending it to a laboratory is no longer available in the light of decision of honble supreme court in m/s. maharashtra hybrid seeds company ltd. v. alavalapati chandra reddy, reported in iii (1998) cpj 8 (sc)=viii (1998) slt 317, upheld the report of the agricultural officer when he held that the seeds were defective. they approved the opinion of the agricultural officer by stating: “in view of the letter written by the agricultural officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. in view of the aforesaid letter of the agricultural officer, the district forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the district forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. but the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. in these circumstances, the order of the district forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory......” 11. subsequently in h.n. shankara sastry v. assistant director of agriculture, karnataka, reported in ii (2004) cpj 37 (sc)=iii (2004) slt 766, the supreme court upheld the order of the dist. forum when it directed the manufacturer to refund the price of paddy seeds besides damages and costs. quoting with approval the law laid down in lucknow development authority v. m.k. gupta, iii (1993) cpj 7 (sc), it was held: “the importance of the act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. it attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets or a society in which, producers have secured power to ‘rob the rest and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. the malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. the enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silverlining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.” 12. the material available on record show that no effort was made by the seeds company to prove that seeds were in conformity with all standards by filing a certificate obtained from a competent authority before releasing the seeds to the market as per the seeds act. when the appellant could not file any document in order to refute the evidence of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the dist. forum was right in awarding compensation. we do not see any misappreciation of fact or law by the dist. forum in this regard. we do not see any merits in the appeal. 13. in the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at rs. 3,000. time for compliance four weeks. appeal dismissed.