- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. v. Ram Swaroop
Factual and Procedural Background
Complainant/respondent Ram Swaroop purchased 5 kgs. of guar seeds from the petitioner (Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Operative Ltd.) on 29.5.2012 for Rs.2,000/-. After sowing, the crop showed uneven growth; an inspection by a team of agriculture officers on 3.9.2012 reported a 40% loss. Complainant filed Complaint No. 212/2012 before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.42,000 (loss), Rs.5,000 (compensation) and Rs.550 (litigation expenses). The petitioner appealed to the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; the State Commission dismissed the appeal by order dated 20.1.2014, upholding the District Forum. The petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 1295 of 2014 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This NCDRC order is dated 26 Nov 2014.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an inspection report prepared without constituting the committee as per the Director of Agriculture's circular and without notice to the seller (OP) or presence of a scientist can be relied upon to establish deficiency/defect in certified seeds.
- Whether certificate of the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and absence of laboratory testing/report places the onus on the complainant and precludes finding of deficiency based solely on the departmental inspection report.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Seeds sold were in sealed packets certified by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency.
- Inspection was not carried out in the petitioner's presence, and the inspection report lacks khasra/killa number; therefore its validity is questionable.
- Inspection did not follow the constitution of the committee as per Director of Agriculture circular and was carried out without notice to OP or presence of a scientist; hence the report is unreliable.
- Relied on prior decisions (including R.P. No.2597/2012, R.P. No.1451/2011 and R.P. No.4280–4282/2007) to argue that departmental reports without proper procedure or laboratory proof are insufficient to establish defect.
Respondent's Arguments
- Respondent (in person) submitted that the order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law and the revision petition should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R.P. No. 2597 of 2012 - Shamsher Singh Vs. M/s. Bagri Beej Bhandar and M/s. Severn Seas Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. | That complainant had not got seeds tested from a laboratory and departmental report alone was insufficient to establish seed defect; report of single officer not conclusive. | Court relied on this to hold that the agriculture report without laboratory proof and without proper committee constitution did not establish defect. |
| R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 - Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P. Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies | Inspection without notice to the OP is against principles of natural justice and such inspection reports cannot be relied upon if not supplied to OP for response. | Court treated the lack of notice to the petitioner as rendering the inspection report unreliable. |
| R.P. No. 4280 to 4282 of 2007 - Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors | Authorities and higher courts have held that variation in crop condition need not be attributed to seed quality; onus to prove defect is on complainant. | Court applied the principle that mere variation in plant height/fruiting does not prove inferior seeds absent specific mention of inferior quality in report. |
| Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu & Anr., II (2005) SLT 569 = 11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC = (2005) 3 SCC 198 | Supreme Court holding that variation in crops need not necessarily be attributed to seed quality and that the onus to prove defect lies on the complainant. | Court cited this authority to reinforce that the complainant must prove defect; departmental observation without scientific substantiation is insufficient. |
| Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008 | Reinforces that variation in crop condition is not necessarily due to seed defect and complainant bears onus of proof. | Court relied on this principle to reject inference of seed defect from crop variation absent specific report of inferior seed quality. |
| Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop | This is the impugned appeal/order under consideration in the revision petition. | Court set aside the impugned order (State Commission decision) in this matter. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the inspection report and procedural compliance. It held that absence of khasra/killa number alone did not conclusively show non-inspection, but more critically the inspection did not follow the Director of Agriculture's circular: the prescribed committee (two Agriculture Department officers, a representative of the seed agency and a scientist of KVK/KGK) was not constituted, the scientist was not present and the petitioner was not given notice. For these reasons the inspection report could not be relied upon. The court noted the seeds bore certification from the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Relying on earlier decisions and Supreme Court authorities, the court observed that variation in crop condition is not necessarily attributable to seed quality and that the onus to prove defect (including by laboratory testing or reliable procedure-compliant inspection) rests on the complainant. Applying these principles, the court concluded that the District Forum erred in finding deficiency and that the State Commission erred in upholding that finding.
Holding and Implications
Revision petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.
Direct effect: The NCDRC set aside the State Commission order dated 20.1.2014 and the District Forum order dated 24.10.2013 in Complaint No. 212/2012, and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The opinion does not assert any broader precedent beyond applying existing authorities; the decision's immediate consequence is dismissal of the complainant's claim in this matter.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2014
(Against the Order dated 20/01/2014 in Appeal No. 882/2013 of the State Commission Haryana)
WITH
IA/1476/2014
1. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OPERATIVE
LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REP, IFFCO SADAN, C-1,
DISTRICT : CENTRE, SAKET PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110017 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAM SWAROOP
S/O SH.MAM RAM, R/O VILLAGE-ANANDGARH
DISTRICT : SIRSA
HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Mr. Mishal Vij & Mr. Motish K. Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent : In person
Dated : 26 Nov 2014
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 882/2013 - Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased 5 kgs. Guar seeds from OP/petitioner on 29.5.2012 on payment of Rs.2,000/- and had sown seeds in his field. Seeds germinated, but as variety was not pure and it was mixed with seeds of low quality; so, some plants were of long height with one flowering fruit whereas, others were of low height without any fruit. Complainant approached OP, but with no response. Complainant moved application before Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa who constituted a team of agriculture experts who visited filed and submitted report on 3.9.2012 according to which, there was loss of 40% of the crop. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant field complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that seeds sold were in sealed packet certified by
1
Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. It was further submitted that OP was not intimated for inspection and report of agriculture deptt. Does not contain killa number or khasara number of inspected land. It was further submitted that there was no defect in the seeds and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.42,000/- as loss to the crop, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.550/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that sold seeds were certified by appropriate agency and no inspection was carried out in the presence of petitioner, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the inspection report khasra number / killa number of the land has not been given and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant's filed was inspected. This argument is devoid of force because in the inspection report it has clearly been mentioned that Guar crop of complainant's field was inspected. In such circumstances, merely by not mentioning khasra number or killa number of the filed it cannot be held that complainant's field was not inspected.
6. Perusal of inspection report clearly reveals that inspection was made by a team of Agriculture Development Officer, Divisional Agriculture Officer and Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer whereas, as per circular of Director of Agriculture, Haryana dated 3.1.2002 fields were to be inspected by a Committee comprising of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientist of KGK/KVK. Admittedly, inspection was not carried out after due notice to representative of OP and Scientist was not called and admittedly, not in their presence. In such circumstances, inspection report made by some officers of Agriculture Department cannot be acted upon and on the basis of this report, it cannot be inferred that seeds were not of standard quality, particularly, when these seeds were certified by Haryana State Seed Certification Agency. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission wrongly observed that non formation of team as per circular of Director of Agriculture was not fault of the complainant. At the time of inspection, complainant should have asked the inspecting team to intimate OP as well Scientist for carrying out inspection and as inspection has not been done by the duly constituted Committee, no reliance can be placed on this inspection report and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of petitioner.
2
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of my Bench in R.P. No. 2597 of 2012 - Shamsher Singh Vs. M/s. Bagri Beej Bhandar and M/s. Severn Seas Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. decided on 11.9.2013 in which it was observed as under:
"3. A perusal of the order passé by the State Commission reveals that the State Commission observed in their order that the complainant had not got the seeds, in question, tested from a Laboratory as required under sect on 13 (1) © of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also never moved an application before the concerned authority for getting the seeds tested from some laboratory. The report of the Dy. Director (Agriculture) revealed that there was mixture of other poor quality of paddy plants, but the same was not substantiated by report of any laboratory.
4. The State Commission has also observed that as per the report by the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency, the said seeds had been certified to be of prescribed standard. The State Commission has also given reference to some Government Instructions, in which it has been laid down that when there is a complaint by farmers regarding quality of seeds, an inspection committee has to be constituted, comprising two officials of Agricultural Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra. The said instructions had not been followed by the Agricultural Department while giving their report.
5. The facts narrated above lead to the conclusion that the factum of the complainant having suffered a loss due to the poor quality seeds has not been established by any scientific or other evidence. Based on the report of one officer of the Agricultural Department, it cannot be stated that the version of the complainant is true. Based on the above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission which may require interference at the revisional stage. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and order passed by the State Commission is upheld with no order as to costs".
8. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 1451 of 2011 - Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah, P. Sreenivasulu and Sai Agro Agencies in which it was observed that inspection without notice to OP is against principles of natural justice and no reliance was placed on inspection report as it was not supplied to the OP to present his view on the report. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 4280 to 4282 of 2007- Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Sreenivasa Reddy & Ors. in which it was
3
observed as under:
"Hon'ble Suprme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu & Anr., II (2005) SLT 569 = 11 (2005) CPJ 13 SC = (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. V. Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2428/2008, has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant".
Report of Agriculture Department in case in hand does not mention about inferior quality of seeds and merely because some of the plants were of low height without any fruit, it cannot be presumed that seeds were mixed with low quality of seeds.
9. In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that report obtained by the complainant without notice to OP cannot be relied upon in the light of certificate of Haryana State Seed Certification Agency and learned District Forum committed error in holding deficiency and allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is liable to be allowed.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 882/2013 - Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. Vs. Ram Swaroop and order dated 24.10.2013 of District Forum in Complaint No. 212/2012 - Ram Sawroop Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
4
Alert