Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1148706
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided OnJan-23-2014
Case NumberAppeal No. FA/12 of 766 & 773
JudgeR.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
AppellantManaging Director, National Seeds Corporation Limited and Another
RespondentPradeep Kumar and Others
Excerpt:
(order) r.s. sharma, president: 1. this order will govern disposal of appeal no. fa/12/766 as well as appeal no. fa/12/773, which have been preferred respectively by o.p. no.1 and o.p.no.4 of the complaint case no.05/2011, decided by district consumer disputes redressal forum, kabirdham (kawardha) (c.g.) vide order dated 23.11.2012, directing thereby to both the appellants/(o.p.no.1 and o.p.no.4) to pay the complainants cost of 230.40 quintals of paddy as notified by the government of chhattisgarh for procurement of the aforesaid crop, within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 6% p.a., with further direction that in case of failure of payment of aforesaid amount, the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. it has also been directed that the aforesaid amount would first be payable by o.p.no.4 of the complaint case and in case of its failure, the aforesaid amount will be payable by o.p.no.1. litigation cost, rs.2,000/- has been quantified and the appellants./ (o.p.no.1 and o.p.no.4) have been directed to pay this amount to the complainants. for the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. the original of this order be retained in the file of appeal no. fa/12/766 and its copy be placed in the file of appeal no. fa/12/773. 2. it is undisputed that national seeds corporation ltd. had supplied paddy seeds to the seeds corporation of the state and in the relevant year krh-2 hybrid paddy seeds were supplied by the national seeds corporation ltd. to different states including the state of chhattisgarh. 3. case of the complainants before the district forum was that they were advised by the ops to use krh-2 paddy seeds in their fields for the purpose of sowing, as it is hybrid seed of paddy and it may give yield of 35 to 40 quintals per acre of quality paddy. having impressed with the advice given by the ops, the complainants purchased 72 kgs. of krh-2 paddy seeds @ rs.95/- per kg. from o.p.no.5 at the cost of rs.6,840/- for the purpose of sowing in their fields of 12 acres, which was in their possession. on 10.06.2010, as per instructions given by o.p.no.6 i.e. manager of co-operative society, pipariya, tehsil kabirdham (kawardha), a nursery of the seeds was developed by them and they spent sufficient amount for that purpose. plants were transplanted to their fields and crop operations were also performed from time to time. but ultimately, it was found that growth of the plants was not equal. some plants were growing fast, some plants were growing up to medium height and some could not grow to a reasonable height. then in the second week of september, 2010, they found that only 20% of the plants could have germinated properly and could provide some yield. remaining 80% plants could not grow and were not in a position to have paddy. the complainants made written application before deputy director, agriculture department, kabirdham (kawardha) (c.g) and the rural agriculture extension officer of the area, visited and inspected the field of the complainants in presence of the villagers and gave inspection report (document a-3), in which it is mentioned that there was excessive loss and the loss was to the extent of 81%. the complainants filed complaint before the district forum alleging that they have suffered loss of rs.3,96,000/- as 360 quintals of paddy crop could not grow and apart from it they were to spend rs.1,25,640/- in different crop operations and due to less yield they suffered loss of rs.1,00,000/- on that count. therefore, he claimed in all rs.4,96,000/- as compensation along with interest from ops. 4. o.p.no.1 in its reply has refuted the allegations of selling defective seeds. it has been averred in the written version that hybrid paddy seed was duly tested and certified as per standard under the seeds certification act, 1966 by the andhra pradesh state seed certification agency and officers of that agency as well as national seeds corporation ltd. minutely inspected the growth of seeds at different stages. they found that the growth was appropriate and as per the standards fixed by the certification agency and so, certificate was provided by that agency. the seed was giving full results as per the standards prescribed and thereafter, it was packed, which was sent for sell to different states. so, the allegation of selling defective seeds was baseless. in the said paddy seed guarantee was given for its physical purity. it has also been averred that the total yield depends upon the biological and geographical conditions of the area and performance of different crop operations in time. there is no material on the basis of which it can be said that crop operations were duly performed in time and geographical and biological condition of that area was suitable for the purpose of growing of that crop. it has also been averred that national seed corporation ltd. had never given any guarantee of specific yield and so no case of awarding compensation against o.p.no.1 is made out and o.p. no.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. 5. o.p.nos.2 and 3 in their separate reply have refuted all the allegations of the complainants and averred that the complainants were not their "consumers''. 6. o.p.no.4 averred in his written version that the o.p.no.4 was not having information that the complainants have sown which seeds in their field and from where they have purchased the seeds and sown it and they unnecessarily made o.p.no.4 party in the complaint. the o.p.no.4 is not liable for payment of any compensation, therefore, the complaint be dismissed. 7. none appeared for o.p. no.5 before the district forum and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. 8. o.p.no.6 filed his written version and averred that no encouragement is given by the o.p.no.6 to the farmers. the o.p. no.6 is a co-operative society, which works at local level in the interest of the farmers. the seeds which are demanded by the farmers are provided by the o.p.no.6 to them. o.p.no.6 is not encouraging the farmers to purchase any special seeds. in the matter the o.p.no.6 is not a necessary party, therefore, complaint against him be dismissed. 9 the complainant, pradeep kumar earlier filed complaint case no.05/2011 before the district forum, kabirdham (kawardha) (c.g.) and learned district forum allowed the complaint of the complainant vide order dated 24.12.2011. the branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam. ghotia, tahsil kawardha, district kabirdham (c.g.) (o.p.no.4) filed appeal no.fa/12/25 and managing director, national seeds corporation ltd. (o.p.no.1) filed appeal no.fa/12/27 before this commission and vide order dated 14.05.2012 the appeals of the appellants/(o.p.no.1 and o.p.no.4) were allowed and the case was remanded back to the district forum with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the complainant, the o.p.no.4 as well as o.p.no.1 to file necessary applications, documents and affidavits. if any party is added in the array of complainant or o.p., then that party be also provided proper opportunity of hearing. thereafter the matter be decided afresh on merits without being influenced by anything which has been held earlier by the district forum in its previous order. 10. leeladhar s/o neturam chandrawanshi, smt. umabai w/o shri neturam chandrawanshi and neturam chandrawanshi s/o ramanand chandrawanshi were added in the complaint case as complainants vide order dated 22.08.2012. the district forum provided sufficient opportunity to the parties, again passed order dated on 23.11.2012 and allowed the complaint of the complainants against o.p.nos.1 and 4 and awarded compensation, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 11. smt. shilpa pathak upadhyay, learned counsel for national seeds corporation ltd. (o.p.no.1/appellant of appeal no.fa/12/766) argued that the o.p.no.1 never assured the complainants that use of k.r.h.-2 seed, may give yield of 35 to 40 quintals per acre of quality paddy. learned district forum has not properly appreciated the affidavits and documents filed by o.p.no.1 and only admitting the oral averment of the complainants, passed the impugned order, which is erroneous. for want of details of what type of land was used and mode of irrigation, the actual loss was not estimated or calculated and the complainants utterly failed to prove the loss suffered by them. the seed, which was purchased by the complainants was tested and as per expert report it was of standard quality, there is mention of it in national seeds project, raipur dated 15.12.2010 no.2 lot no.a.p.r.1001.1066 (1) 26885 and according to hyderbad lot agency through lot no.k.r.h.-2 c.s.26885, 1066 “ p.k. was found proved and in these circumstances the allegation of the complainants that the seed was of inferior quality, is not acceptable, therefore, the order of the district forum is contrary to law and is liable to be dismissed. the appeal of the o.p.no.1 be allowed and complaint of the complainants be dismissed. 12. shri r.k. bhawnani, learned counsel for o.p.no.4, branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam ltd., ghotia (appellant of appeal no.fa/12/773 argued that the complainants have not filed any expert report in support of allegations made by them against the o.p.no.4, therefore it is not proved that k.r.h.-2 hybrid paddy was of inferior quality. for production of the crop, several conditions are responsible e.g. climate, quantity of water in land, pesticides, chemicals etc. and the district forum had determined the production without and fact and result. thus, the loss has been assessed, whereas the complaint of the complainants has not been mentioned. before use of this seed the complainants were obtaining how much crop in their files is not mentioned. the district forum has not considered the documents filed by the o.p.no.4 and passed the impugned order, which is contrary to law and is liable to be dismissed. 13. learned counsel for the complainants, shri laxmi naryan tiwari, argued that the complainants have fully proved their case before the district forum and learned district forum has passed the impugned order after considering all the facts carefully. the impugned order passed by the learned district forum, is not erroneous or illegal, therefore, the order passed by the district forum deserves to be affirmed and it does not call any interference by this commission. the appeals by the o.p.no.1 and o.p.no.4 be dismissed. 14. we have heard counsels for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the district forum minutely. 15. learned district forum in para 16 of the impugned order has observed that on the basis of general knowledge and other cases decided by the district forum, we hold that in normal condition yield of k.r.h.-2 paddy is near about 24 qtls. per acre and in para 17 the district forum further held that after calculating @ 24 qtls. per acre, the production for 12 acres of land come total 288 qtls. and has determined in para 17 that loss occurred to the crop at about 80% i.e. 230.40 qtls. 16. in the case of m/s national seeds corporation ltd. v. m. madhusudhan reddy, 2013 (3) cpr 589 (sc), honble supreme court has observed thus :- "37. in maharashtra hybrid seeds co. ltd. v. alavalapati chandra reddy, this court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of section 13(1)(c) of the consumer act, but approved the reasoning of the state commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. in that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. the complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. the district forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. the state commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. the national commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. in paragraph 4 of the judgment, this court extracted the finding recorded by the state commission for upholding the order of the district forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. the relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below : "thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the agricultural officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same agricultural officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. 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 circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory. * * * * * it is clear from the letter of agricultural officer that the opposite parties in-spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. the opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. in the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of september 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds." "38. reference can usefully be made to the orders of the national commission in n.s.c. ltd. v. guruswamy, e.i.d. parry (i) ltd. v. gaurishankar and india seed house v. ramjilal sharma (2008) 3 cpj 96. in these cases the national commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the district forum and state commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. in the first case, the national commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :- "there is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. but the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading public sector company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case whatever the respondent/complainant had, was sown. one could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of assistant seed officer of petitioner “ n.s.c. and sent for analysis. their failure is unexceptionable. in our view, it is the petitioner company which failed to comply with the provisions of section 13(c) of the act. by the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. if the petitioner company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the respondent/complainant, this situation might not have arisen. petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. the respondent/complainant led evidence of state's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. the onus passes on to the petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'sugar body' as alleged. he cannot take shelter under section 13(c) of the cp act. learned counsel's plea that respondent/complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading public sector seed company to expect this arrangement." 17. in the case of haryana seeds development corpn. ltd v sadhu and another, (2005) 3 supreme court cases 198, honble supreme court has observed thus :- "12. having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the district forum, confirmed by the state commission and the national commission deserve to be set aside. from the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an expert committee. the said committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. it conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. the committee observed that crop condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent". it further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seeds. the committee stated : hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand." 13. in the operative part, the committee concluded :- "it may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition." 18. in the case of mahyco seeds ltd. vs. g. venkata subba reddy and ors., iii (2011) cpj 99 (nc), honble national commission has observed thus :- "9. the report of the agricultural officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. as already pointed out by counsel for petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the joint director (agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. the report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so-called failure of the crops. in any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. we also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. respondent's action in not informing the petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. on the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a government of india recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the petitioner but on the respondent. this point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this commission as well as the order of the apex court in haryana seeds development corporation ltd. v. sadhu and anr., ii (2005) cpj 13 (sc)=ii (2005) slt 569." 19. in the case of mahyco seeds ltd. vs subhash shrihari devkore and ors., iii (2013) cpj 150, maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission, mumbai, has observed thus:- "17. these panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of jawar seeds. both panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. moreover these panchanamas reflect that as per the say of the complainants the jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth. panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray biozyme and d.a.p. pesticides. further panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by revenue circle inspector, petwadaj clearly reflects that jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. thus, on any count both the panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. on the contrary, both these panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. but it appears from the impugned judgment and order that district consumer forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. such erroneous findings cannot be sustained. 18. lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, mr. lavekar, learned counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the district consumer forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. according to him as per the government circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground complainants should not suffer. but for the forgoing reasons that panchanamas prepared by agriculture development officer and seeds quality control inspector as well as revenue circle inspector are not legal, submission of mr. lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. as far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of national commission in the case of j.k. agri-genetics and ors. v. siddula ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) cpr 42 (nc) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this commission in m/s nirmitee biotech v. shri anandrao namdev patil. but with due respect both these citations of national commission as well as these state commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. in the present cases, as sample of disputed jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. considering the facts of the present cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to district consumer forum. therefore, submission of mr. lavekar, learned counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered." 20. in the instant case, branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam (o.p.no.4) has argued that the seeds are sold to the farmers as per approved scheme and amount of consideration is transmitted to o.p.no.1 through chhattisgarh government and therefore there is no liability of o.p. no.4. above argument of o.p.no.4 is not acceptable. o.p.no.4 is agriculture development corporation. the farmers are purchasing seeds through the o.p.no.4 and it is working as a representative of the government. the o.p. no.4 is liable for payment of compensation for the loss suffered by the farmers, through which the seeds are purchased by the farmers and only on this basis that o.p.no.4 is an institution working under the government, o.p.no.4 cannot be released from its liability and learned district forum has passed an elaborate and well reasoned order, which does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. 21. in the instant case, the complainants filed document i.e. letter dated 30.11.2010 (annexure a-1) sent by the complainant no.1 pradeep kumar to deputy director, agriculture department, district kabirdham (c.g.), khad permit (document a-2), inspection report ¼fujh{k.k izfrosnu½ of rural agriculture extension officer (document a-3) and certificate given by member janpad panchayat, kawardha (document a-4). 22. the complainant no.1, pradeep kumar sent letter dated 30.11.2010 (document a-1) to the deputy director, agriculture department, district kabirdham (c.g.) and made complaint regarding low yield of crop. in the said application it is mentioned that œhindi" 23. document a-3 is inspection report. the agriculture extension officer visited the field of the neturam chandrawanshi, who is father of the complainant pradeep kumar and gave his report. in the report it is mentioned that:- œhindi? 24. the member of janpad panchayat, also gave a certificate regarding the loss of crop and less yield of the paddy crop. from bare perusal of the above document, it appears that the loss to the crop is 81% and inspection report has been prepared by the rural agriculture extension officer, center pipariya, block kawardha (c.g.), who is competent to visit the field and give his opinion regarding the crop and in document a-3, the inspection report it has been specifically mentioned that possibility of loss in the crop is about 81%. 25. though, national seeds corporation limited (o.p.no.1) has filed a report of andhra pradesh state seed certification agency in form ii and averred that there is no deficiency in calculation of the k.r.h.-2 paddy, which was sold and they succeeded in experiment and were found as per standard. 26. in the instant case a letter dated 24.10.2011 sent by dy. director, agriculture department, district kabirdham (kawardha) to the chief executive office, jila sahakari kendriya bank maryadit, rajnandgaon has been filed in which it has been mentioned that there was less production and it has been also mentioned to provide compensation to the concerned farmers and with this letter, list of farmers is also attached to whom (farmers) the amount of compensation is to be provided. there is mention of deficit in production in the inspection report which has been produced. the complainants have purchased said seed before 2010 and sown the same as per guideline and the said inspection report is of december, 2010 and on the basis of seeds certification and test report, it cannot be said that the seeds of the same lot were tested from which seeds were sold to the complainants. 27. in inspection report (annexure a-3), it is also mentioned regarding less and poor yield of seed. it is also mentioned in the inspection report that loss to the crop is to the extent of 81% and learned district forum assessed the production as 24 qtls. per acre, in which there is no error and in these circumstances learned district forum determined that the production of paddy will be 24 qtls. per acre and there is loss about 81%, and looking to it, the district forum has determined the loss of 230.40 qtls of paddy for 12 acres of land, which is according to law. 28. in view of aforesaid discussions, we come to this conclusion that the impugned order passed by learned district forum, is well reasoned order and also discussed categorical of its order as to what has been the deficiency on the part of o.p.nos.1 and 4. the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call any interference by this commission. 29. so far as liability is concerned, the complainants purchased the seeds from national seeds corporation ltd. (o.p.no.1) through branch manager beej evam krishi vikas nigam (o.p.no.4). in view of inspection report and letter dated 24.102.011, it appears that o.p.no.1/national seeds corporation ltd. is also equally responsible as is the o.p.no.4/branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam, therefore, o.p.no.4 and o.p.no.1 both are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants. therefore, we hold that managing director, national seeds corporation ltd. (o.p.no.1) and branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam (o.p.no.4) both are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants. 30. therefore, with above modification in the impugned order, the appeal no.fa/12/766, filed by o.p.no.1/managing director, national seeds corporation ltd. and appeal no.fa/12/773 filed by o.p.no.4, branch manager, beej evam krishi vikas nigam, being devoid of merit deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. the other part of the impugned order passed by the district forum, will remain unaltered. if any compensation has been received by the complainants, the same will be adjusted from the payable amount. no order as to the costs of these appeals.
Judgment:

(Order)

R.S. Sharma, President:

1. This order will govern disposal of appeal No. FA/12/766 as well as Appeal No. FA/12/773, which have been preferred respectively by O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.4 of the Complaint Case No.05/2011, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) vide order dated 23.11.2012, directing thereby to both the appellants/(O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4) to pay the complainants cost of 230.40 Quintals of paddy as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh for procurement of the aforesaid crop, within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 6% p.a., with further direction that in case of failure of payment of aforesaid amount, the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. It has also been directed that the aforesaid amount would first be payable by O.P.No.4 of the complaint case and in case of its failure, the aforesaid amount will be payable by O.P.No.1. Litigation cost, Rs.2,000/- has been quantified and the appellants./ (O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4) have been directed to pay this amount to the complainants. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/12/766 and its copy be placed in the file of Appeal No. FA/12/773.

2. It is undisputed that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. had supplied paddy seeds to the Seeds Corporation of the State and in the relevant year KRH-2 hybrid paddy seeds were supplied by the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. to different States including the State of Chhattisgarh.

3. Case of the complainants before the District Forum was that they were advised by the OPs to use KRH-2 paddy seeds in their fields for the purpose of sowing, as it is hybrid seed of paddy and it may give yield of 35 to 40 Quintals per acre of quality paddy. Having impressed with the advice given by the OPs, the complainants purchased 72 Kgs. of KRH-2 paddy seeds @ Rs.95/- per Kg. from O.P.No.5 at the cost of Rs.6,840/- for the purpose of sowing in their fields of 12 acres, which was in their possession. On 10.06.2010, as per instructions given by O.P.No.6 i.e. Manager of Co-operative Society, Pipariya, Tehsil Kabirdham (Kawardha), a nursery of the seeds was developed by them and they spent sufficient amount for that purpose. Plants were transplanted to their fields and crop operations were also performed from time to time. But ultimately, it was found that growth of the plants was not equal. Some plants were growing fast, some plants were growing up to medium height and some could not grow to a reasonable height. Then in the second week of September, 2010, they found that only 20% of the plants could have germinated properly and could provide some yield. Remaining 80% plants could not grow and were not in a position to have paddy. The complainants made written application before Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G) and the Rural Agriculture Extension Officer of the area, visited and inspected the field of the complainants in presence of the villagers and gave Inspection Report (document A-3), in which it is mentioned that there was excessive loss and the loss was to the extent of 81%. The complainants filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that they have suffered loss of Rs.3,96,000/- as 360 Quintals of paddy crop could not grow and apart from it they were to spend Rs.1,25,640/- in different crop operations and due to less yield they suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- on that count. Therefore, he claimed in all Rs.4,96,000/- as compensation along with interest from OPs.

4. O.P.No.1 in its reply has refuted the allegations of selling defective seeds. It has been averred in the written version that hybrid paddy seed was duly tested and certified as per standard under the Seeds Certification Act, 1966 by the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency and Officers of that Agency as well as National Seeds Corporation Ltd. minutely inspected the growth of seeds at different stages. They found that the growth was appropriate and as per the standards fixed by the Certification Agency and so, certificate was provided by that Agency. The seed was giving full results as per the standards prescribed and thereafter, it was packed, which was sent for sell to different States. So, the allegation of selling defective seeds was baseless. In the said paddy seed guarantee was given for its physical purity. It has also been averred that the total yield depends upon the biological and geographical conditions of the area and performance of different crop operations in time. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that crop operations were duly performed in time and geographical and biological condition of that area was suitable for the purpose of growing of that crop. It has also been averred that National Seed Corporation Ltd. had never given any guarantee of specific yield and so no case of awarding compensation against O.P.No.1 is made out and O.P. No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service.

5. O.P.Nos.2 and 3 in their separate reply have refuted all the allegations of the complainants and averred that the complainants were not their "consumers''.

6. O.P.No.4 averred in his written version that the O.P.No.4 was not having information that the complainants have sown which seeds in their field and from where they have purchased the seeds and sown it and they unnecessarily made O.P.No.4 party in the complaint. The O.P.No.4 is not liable for payment of any compensation, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

7. None appeared for O.P. No.5 before the District Forum and the case proceeded ex-parte against him.

8. O.P.No.6 filed his written version and averred that no encouragement is given by the O.P.No.6 to the farmers. The O.P. No.6 is a Co-operative Society, which works at local level in the interest of the farmers. The seeds which are demanded by the farmers are provided by the O.P.No.6 to them. O.P.NO.6 is not encouraging the farmers to purchase any special seeds. In the matter the O.P.No.6 is not a necessary party, therefore, complaint against him be dismissed.

9 The complainant, Pradeep Kumar earlier filed Complaint Case No.05/2011 before the District Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) and learned District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant vide order dated 24.12.2011. The Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam. Ghotia, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (O.P.No.4) filed appeal No.FA/12/25 and Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (O.P.No.1) filed appeal No.FA/12/27 before this Commission and vide order dated 14.05.2012 the appeals of the appellants/(O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4) were allowed and the case was remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the complainant, the O.P.No.4 as well as O.P.No.1 to file necessary applications, documents and affidavits. If any party is added in the array of complainant or O.P., then that party be also provided proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter the matter be decided afresh on merits without being influenced by anything which has been held earlier by the District Forum in its previous order.

10. Leeladhar S/o Neturam Chandrawanshi, Smt. Umabai W/o Shri Neturam Chandrawanshi and Neturam Chandrawanshi S/o Ramanand Chandrawanshi were added in the complaint case as complainants vide order dated 22.08.2012. The District Forum provided sufficient opportunity to the parties, again passed order dated on 23.11.2012 and allowed the complaint of the complainants against O.P.Nos.1 and 4 and awarded compensation, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

11. Smt. Shilpa Pathak Upadhyay, learned counsel for National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (O.P.No.1/Appellant of appeal No.FA/12/766) argued that the O.P.No.1 never assured the complainants that use of K.R.H.-2 seed, may give yield of 35 to 40 Quintals per acre of quality paddy. Learned District Forum has not properly appreciated the affidavits and documents filed by O.P.No.1 and only admitting the oral averment of the complainants, passed the impugned order, which is erroneous. For want of details of what type of land was used and mode of irrigation, the actual loss was not estimated or calculated and the complainants utterly failed to prove the loss suffered by them. The seed, which was purchased by the complainants was tested and as per expert report it was of standard quality, there is mention of it in National Seeds Project, Raipur dated 15.12.2010 No.2 Lot No.A.P.R.1001.1066 (1) 26885 and according to Hyderbad Lot Agency through Lot No.K.R.H.-2 C.S.26885, 1066 “ P.K. was found proved and in these circumstances the allegation of the complainants that the seed was of inferior quality, is not acceptable, therefore, the order of the District Forum is contrary to law and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal of the O.P.No.1 be allowed and complaint of the complainants be dismissed.

12. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for O.P.No.4, Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ghotia (Appellant of Appeal No.FA/12/773 argued that the complainants have not filed any expert report in support of allegations made by them against the O.P.No.4, therefore it is not proved that K.R.H.-2 Hybrid Paddy was of inferior quality. For production of the crop, several conditions are responsible e.g. climate, quantity of water in land, pesticides, chemicals etc. and the District Forum had determined the production without and fact and result. Thus, the loss has been assessed, whereas the complaint of the complainants has not been mentioned. Before use of this seed the complainants were obtaining how much crop in their files is not mentioned. The District Forum has not considered the documents filed by the O.P.No.4 and passed the impugned order, which is contrary to law and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Learned counsel for the complainants, Shri Laxmi Naryan Tiwari, argued that the complainants have fully proved their case before the District Forum and learned District Forum has passed the impugned order after considering all the facts carefully. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is not erroneous or illegal, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum deserves to be affirmed and it does not call any interference by this Commission. The appeals by the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4 be dismissed.

14. We have heard counsels for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum minutely.

15. Learned District Forum in para 16 of the impugned order has observed that on the basis of general knowledge and other cases decided by the District Forum, we hold that in normal condition yield of K.R.H.-2 Paddy is near about 24 qtls. per acre and in para 17 the District Forum further held that after calculating @ 24 qtls. per acre, the production for 12 acres of land come total 288 qtls. and has determined in para 17 that loss occurred to the crop at about 80% i.e. 230.40 qtls.

16. In the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, 2013 (3) CPR 589 (SC), Honble Supreme Court has observed thus :-

"37. In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below :

"Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. 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 circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.

* * * * *

It is clear from the letter of Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in-spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds."

"38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gaurishankar and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :-

"There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner “ N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. By the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Body' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13(c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement."

17. In the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v Sadhu and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198, Honble Supreme Court has observed thus :-

"12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission deserve to be set aside. From the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an Expert Committee. The said Committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. It conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent". It further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seeds. The Committee stated :

Hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand."

13. In the operative part, the Committee concluded :-

"It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."

18. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), Honble National Commission has observed thus :-

"9. The Report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by Counsel for Petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so-called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. Respondent's action in not informing the Petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569."

19. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. vs Subhash Shrihari Devkore and Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, has observed thus:-

"17. These Panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of Jawar seeds. Both Panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. Moreover these Panchanamas reflect that as per the say of the complainants the Jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth. Panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray Biozyme and D.A.P. pesticides. Further Panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by Revenue Circle Inspector, Petwadaj clearly reflects that Jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. Thus, on any count both the Panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. On the contrary, both these Panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that Jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.

18. Lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the District Consumer Forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. According to him as per the Government Circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the Guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground complainants should not suffer. But for the forgoing reasons that Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal, submission of Mr. Lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. As far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of National Commission in the case of J.K. Agri-Genetics and Ors. V. Siddula Ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) CPR 42 (NC) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this Commission in M/s Nirmitee Biotech v. Shri Anandrao Namdev Patil. But with due respect both these citations of National Commission as well as these State Commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. In the present cases, as sample of disputed Jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. Considering the facts of the present cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to District Consumer Forum. Therefore, submission of Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered."

20. In the instant case, Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam (O.P.No.4) has argued that the seeds are sold to the farmers as per approved scheme and amount of consideration is transmitted to O.P.No.1 through Chhattisgarh Government and therefore there is no liability of O.P. No.4. Above argument of O.P.No.4 is not acceptable. O.P.No.4 is Agriculture Development Corporation. The farmers are purchasing seeds through the O.P.No.4 and it is working as a representative of the Government. The O.P. No.4 is liable for payment of compensation for the loss suffered by the farmers, through which the seeds are purchased by the farmers and only on this basis that O.P.No.4 is an institution working under the Government, O.P.No.4 cannot be released from its liability and learned District Forum has passed an elaborate and well reasoned order, which does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.

21. In the instant case, the complainants filed document i.e. letter dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure A-1) sent by the complainant No.1 Pradeep Kumar to Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Khad Permit (document A-2), inspection report ¼fujh{k.k izfrosnu½ of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer (document A-3) and certificate given by Member Janpad Panchayat, Kawardha (document A-4).

22. The complainant no.1, Pradeep Kumar sent letter dated 30.11.2010 (document A-1) to the Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, District Kabirdham (C.G.) and made complaint regarding low yield of crop. In the said application it is mentioned that œHINDI"

23. Document A-3 is Inspection Report. The Agriculture Extension Officer visited the field of the Neturam Chandrawanshi, who is father of the complainant Pradeep Kumar and gave his report. In the report it is mentioned that:-

œHINDI?

24. The Member of Janpad Panchayat, also gave a Certificate regarding the loss of crop and less yield of the paddy crop. From bare perusal of the above document, it appears that the loss to the crop is 81% and Inspection Report has been prepared by the Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Center Pipariya, Block Kawardha (C.G.), who is competent to visit the field and give his opinion regarding the crop and in document A-3, the Inspection Report it has been specifically mentioned that possibility of loss in the crop is about 81%.

25. Though, National Seeds Corporation Limited (O.P.No.1) has filed a report of Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency in Form II and averred that there is no deficiency in calculation of the K.R.H.-2 paddy, which was sold and they succeeded in experiment and were found as per standard.

26. In the instant case a letter dated 24.10.2011 sent by Dy. Director, Agriculture Department, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) to the Chief Executive Office, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon has been filed in which it has been mentioned that there was less production and it has been also mentioned to provide compensation to the concerned farmers and with this letter, list of farmers is also attached to whom (farmers) the amount of compensation is to be provided. There is mention of deficit in production in the inspection report which has been produced. The complainants have purchased said seed before 2010 and sown the same as per guideline and the said inspection report is of December, 2010 and on the basis of Seeds Certification and Test Report, it cannot be said that the seeds of the same lot were tested from which seeds were sold to the complainants.

27. In Inspection Report (Annexure A-3), it is also mentioned regarding less and poor yield of seed. It is also mentioned in the Inspection Report that loss to the crop is to the extent of 81% and learned District Forum assessed the production as 24 qtls. per acre, in which there is no error and in these circumstances learned District Forum determined that the production of paddy will be 24 qtls. per acre and there is loss about 81%, and looking to it, the District Forum has determined the loss of 230.40 qtls of paddy for 12 acres of land, which is according to law.

28. In view of aforesaid discussions, we come to this conclusion that the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, is well reasoned order and also discussed categorical of its order as to what has been the deficiency on the part of O.P.Nos.1 and 4. The impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call any interference by this Commission.

29. So far as liability is concerned, the complainants purchased the seeds from National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (O.P.No.1) through Branch Manager Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam (O.P.No.4). In view of Inspection Report and letter dated 24.102.011, it appears that O.P.No.1/National Seeds Corporation Ltd. is also equally responsible as is the O.P.No.4/Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam, therefore, O.P.No.4 and O.P.No.1 both are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants. Therefore, we hold that Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (O.P.No.1) and Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam (O.P.No.4) both are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainants.

30. Therefore, with above modification in the impugned order, the appeal No.FA/12/766, filed by O.P.No.1/Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and Appeal No.FA/12/773 filed by O.P.No.4, Branch Manager, Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam, being devoid of merit deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. The other part of the impugned order passed by the District Forum, will remain unaltered. If any compensation has been received by the complainants, the same will be adjusted from the payable amount. No order as to the costs of these appeals.