Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Petitioner(S) v. Ankur Seeds Private Limited And Another (S).

ORDER

"It is the widespread adverse effects on farmer consumers at large noted because of unfair trade practice of promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved seeds. It is necessary to make it a priority to have a framework regarding the accountability and improvisation in seed quality in future."

1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 04.02.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission' whereby the Appeal filed by seeds co. was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

2. In the instant case the petitioner is complainant and the respondent no. 1 is the Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (OP-5) and the respondent no. 2, Amravati Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Samtee Ltd. is OP-3 and the OP-1 is President, OP-2 is Secretary and OP-4 is Administrator of OP-3 Samtee.

3. Brief facts are that the petitioner / complainant purchased 12 bags and 8 bags of cotton seeds of Ankur 651 lot No. 173 (5273 CS) and lot No. 171 (7213 CS) respectively on 15.06.1998 and 02.07.1998 from Amravati Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi / OP-3 and paid Rs.300/- for each bag ( total Rs.6000/-). The seeds were manufactured by Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. / OP-5. The packets of seeds were giving assurance of 65 % germination of seedlings. But after sowing in 8 acres of irrigated land only 20 % to 30 % seeds had germinated. The complainant further alleged that the lots printed on the bag were not as per the bill issued to him. Therefore he made a complaint to the Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 15/07/1998 who visited his field and carried of the inspection and found that the germination of seeds was less than 25% to 30%. The OPs did not heed any concern to the complainant's requests, thus being aggrieved the consumer complaint was filed in the District Forum, Amravati.

4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties vide Order dated 07.03.2007 partly allowed the complaint. It directed the Seed Co. to pay Rs. 15,000/- per Acre for 8.5 Acres of land towards compensation along with interest @ 8 % p.a on the total amount from 17.08.1998 and Rs. 2,000/- as cost. The OP -1, being the Samiti dealing with sale and purchase of seeds was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 towards fine for not complying the order dated 13.07.2001 & 28.07.2003. No order was passed against the remaining OPs i.e office bearers of the OP- 1.

The District Forum observed as:

4.7 The opposite party No.1 to 3 have falsely alleged that they have taken their seeds back given earlier to complainant and handed him over other seeds. However, since beginning, opposite party has failed to prove before this Forum as to which goods / Seeds are taken by company back and which goods/seeds are given to complainant in place of earlier seeds and, therefore, it is not just, proper, legal to held the opposite party's allegations that lot number has changed due to exchange of seeds/ goods and it caused difference.

2

4.8. On 17.07.1998, Agriculture Officer and Seeds Inspector Panchayat Samiti, Amravati personally visited and inspected the Farm of the complainant and accordingly prepared their report dated/ -20.07.1998 and submitted to Agriculture Officer Zilla Parishad, Amravati. The Copy of the said report is filed on record. On perusal of the said report, it reveals that concerned Officers have mentioned in report that on inspector, there is 50 % germination in 6 Acres of Field/ Gut No. 68/1 of the complainant and there is 27 % germination in 2 Acres of Gut No. 18/2. There is 80 % germination in neighbour's foelds. Farmers have sown on 6^thand 7^thJuly and on 5^th6^thand 10^thJuly rain was recorded and at this juncture, it is submitted that it is clear that opposite party has provided Lot No. 5277 in place of 5238 and made changes while preparing the bill. It is just ,proper and legal to held that complainant has sustained heavy financial loss due to less production took place because of non germination of cotton seeds sown by the complainant, which were of let of inferior in quality and rate. There is sign and seal of the Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati on the said report. The opposite party No. 1 to 3 and 5 has not challenged the said report, since beginning and it was necessary and proper to prove by substantial evidence that the said report was false, wrong, mis- directed and one sided but it is just, legal and proper to held that the said report filed on record is proper and admissible as nobody has actually challenged the report. The opposite party can not say that cotton seeds are not germinated due to natural calamities or can not take recourse of such statement and hence order passed.

(from para 4.7 and 4.8 the District Forum's Order -the translated )

5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the Seeds Co. - OP-5 appealed to the State Commission. The appeal was partly allowed vide Order dated 04.02.2015 and set aside the order of the District Forum. The State Commission made observations as below:

15. We perused the order passed by the Forum. We find that the Forum has not given proper reasoning as to the evidence brought on record and erred in treating report of the agricultural officer to be conclusive proof of inspection and sub standardness of the seeds. The Forum appears to have based its observations on the presumptions based on the reply given to notices by the appellant. They cannot be a ground to consider the seeds to be substandard. We also find that the Forum has granted unreasonable relief and hence, the order being not on sound reasoning deserves setting aside. Hence, we are inclined to set it aside. (para 15 from the State Commission's Order)

6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the complainant approached this Commission.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the both the sides and perused material on record.

8. Admittedly, the seeds purchased by the Complainant were developed and promoted by the Seed Co. which claimed and propagated that its minimum germination would be 65 %. However, the seeds were of very small in dimension, dried and some seeds had minor holes in them, in it prima facie evident that the seeds were of inferior quality. The seeds in question were also sent to the Government Seeds Laboratory. The reported on 24.06.1998 as below:

---

3

REPORT

Our laboratory has done seeds experiment. It is found as under Good seeds1.

Satisfied seeds but less germinating capacity2. Proper for sale but requires purification as majority of seeds are of (Tanache) seeds3.

Type of seeds on the label seems false4. Very little sample for correct analysis5. Very sick6.

Very decayed7.

Unsatisfied seed hence improper for use8. Proper for sale but needs purification due to excess garbage9. Reported after re- checking

(emphasis supplied)

10.

Less germinating capacity is a negative factor for a seed to transform into a full-fledged crop. Apart from this pertinent to note that the OP-1 provided Lot No. 5277 instead of 5238 and the bill was manipulated. It amounts to unfair trade practice. In the instant case, promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved seeds, when nothing was known of its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction, and which failed to yield the claimed and propagated produce, when, in the adjoining fields, at the same time, gave good / higher yield, was decidedly unfair and deceptive within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r).

9. The State Commission held that the inspection report filed by the complainant was not a regular inspection report of the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra but was a letter written to Agricultural Development Officer by the Agricultural Officer, in which he has requested for the inspection of the field. Also there was no supportive evidence of any one to support the opinion given in that report. In my view the State Commission erred that the onus was on the manufacturer to prove the quality of seeds. I would like to rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in National Seeds Cooperation Ltd. v M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506 and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 738, to state that the onus to prove that the seeds manufactured are of good quality lies on the manufacturer as the farmers are not expected to store some of the seeds for future testing. Moreover, as per the Seeds Act, 1966 manufacturer is required to keep a small sample of each batch of seeds for a minimum period of time depending upon the nature of the seeds. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner to not have sent the seeds to a laboratory for testing as per Section 13(1)(c) of the

4

Consumer Protection Act.

10. Thus, it is clear that both, 'deficiency in service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) and (o) and 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Act, are well and truly evinced against the Seed Co.

11. The Consumer Protection Act,1986 is for "better protection of the interests of consumers", in recognizably a fight amongst unequals. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons speaks of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes". Considering that the failure of the crop took place in 1998 and its revision is being decided now in 2020 i.e. almost after two decades.

12. Based on forgoing discussion the impugned order is set aside and the Order of the District Forum is affirmed and sustained.

13. In addition, I deem it just and appropriate that Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the Seed Co. to the farmer/ Complainant towards cost of litigation in the revisional proceedings before this Commission (which took about 5 years).

14. Towards this end, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the District Forum within seven days of its pronouncement.

15. The present Revision Petition is allowed.

......................

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR

PRESIDING MEMBER

5