Loading..
Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R.V.SAKARIA
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R.V.SAKARIA
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Appeal No. 752 of 2014 (Decided 04.07.2022)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 2010 filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Junagadh by Gandabhai Parbatbhai Mori (the complainant). The complainant alleged that he purchased eight bags (approximately 320 kg) of certified Lok-1 wheat seeds from Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh on 21.10.2009 and sowed them on 3, 4 and 5 November 2009 on about 7 bighas of land. Despite applying fertilizers and irrigation, he observed poor germination (reported as about 30–35% in a panchnama dated 20.11.2009). Samples were sent for laboratory tests.

The CDRF, Junagadh by order dated 29.11.2013 allowed the complaint and directed opponents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the complainant Rs. 80,000 as compensation with 9% interest from the date of complaint (17.09.2010) and costs of Rs. 5,000. Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. (the seed producer/seller) appealed to the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (this Court). The appeal (No. 752 of 2014) was heard and decided on 4 July 2022.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the seeds sold by the Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. were defective or the Corporation was guilty of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  2. Whether certification of the seeds by the Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency (under the Seeds Act, 1966) and subsequent laboratory test results absolve the seller/producer of liability.
  3. Whether the complainant proved the quantum of loss claimed and whether the CDRF's award of Rs. 80,000 was supported by evidence.
  4. Whether factors other than seed quality (storage, agronomic practices, irrigation/climatic conditions, sampling procedure) explain the poor field germination, and whether these factors preclude a finding of product defect or deficiency in service.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd.) Arguments

  • The seeds were certified by the Government-notified Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency under Section 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966 after following the procedure in Section 9; certification was neither cancelled nor revoked.
  • Laboratory test results (produced in appeal) showed germination well within standards (e.g., 86% from Gandhinagar laboratory and an earlier certification of 93% in July 2009), indicating no sub-standard seed was supplied.
  • The complainant stored the seeds on the "OTLA" (outside the house), covered with a coarse cloth, which indicated improper storage and a plausible cause for reduced germination.
  • Germination can be affected by agronomic and agro-climatic factors (temperature, watering, fertiliser use, sowing depth, etc.), and such factors may account for the observed failure.
  • The appellants contended the sampling at the Sangh was not drawn in their presence, making the sample/analysis potentially unreliable and not final under Section 16(2) of the Seeds Act.
  • The CDRF awarded a lump-sum compensation despite lack of cogent evidence on quantum; appellants relied on authorities (including a 2011 (2) CPR 8 (NC) decision) to argue poor germination need not be attributed to seed quality.

Respondent's (Complainant's) Contentions

  • The complainant maintained he purchased certified Lok-1 wheat seed on 21.10.2009, sowed it timely (early November 2009), used fertilizers/irrigation in proper proportions, and observed only about 30–35% germination as recorded in the panchnama dated 20.11.2009.
  • The complainant asserted the seed lot corresponded to the bag labels and requested compensation for inability to re-sow and for crop-loss; he claimed Rs. 1,25,000 including mental pain and costs (with a demand for Rs. 20,000 immediately so he could re-sow).
  • The CDRF relied on the panchnama and a laboratory report reflecting lower germination in support of the claim that the seeds did not possess standard germination power and that the Corporation showed deficiency in service.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu, AIR 2005 (SC) 2023 Germination of seeds depends on multiple factors (climatic conditions, soil, water, fertilisers); inability to show crop suffered due to poor seed germination weakens claim against the seed producer. The Court relied on this principle to note that a 60–70% complete failure in the field is difficult to ascribe to seed quality alone, given multiple other possible causes. This supported setting aside the CDRF's finding against the Corporation.
Prabhati Lal Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., IV (2015) CPJ 148 (NC) In absence of indication of adverse seasonal conditions or infestation, failure to produce seed testing reports may be viewed adversely against the seed supplier (as per that case). The Court observed that the reasoning in Prabhati Lal could not be applied to the present facts (there being no similar indication), and thus it did not support the complainant's case here.
Pratham Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayed Amir and Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 119 (NC) The report given by a seed committee (panchnama/inspection committee) cannot simply be brushed aside on the contention that seeds were not sent for testing. The Court indicated that the principle in this decision has been kept in mind when assessing the evidentiary weight of the panchnama/inspection report, though the Court ultimately evaluated all evidence (certificates, laboratory results, field conditions) together.
2011 (2) CPR 8 (NC) (decision cited by appellants) Authority for the proposition that "poor germination may not be attributed to quality of seeds." The appellants relied on this ratio. The Court considered the comparison but concluded that differences in sampling circumstances and the certification/lab-results evidence in this case led to a different conclusion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by applying the definitions in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Sections 2(f) and 2(g)) and by scrutinising the sequence of certification and testing of the seed lot alongside the field evidence.

  1. Certification and laboratory test timeline: The Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency tested the lot in July 2009 and certified it with a P-germination figure of 93% (certificate dated 21.08.2009), valid for nine months. After the complaint, additional tests were conducted — Junagadh laboratory showed 72% germination for a sample taken from the Sangh (8.12.2009) and Gandhinagar laboratory reported 86% (tests carried out 5–9.12.2009, certificate dated 14.12.2009). The Court emphasised that these figures are at or above the stated standard (the opinion refers to an 85% standard).
  2. Legal definitions and consequence: Under the Consumer Protection Act definitions cited in the judgment, a "defect" or "deficiency" requires a demonstrable fault or shortcoming in quality or service. The Court concluded that when the seeds were sold after statutory certification and when post-complaint laboratory tests also showed germination within accepted limits, the goods could not be said to suffer from any defect or the seller to have rendered deficient service.
  3. Alternative explanations for poor field germination: The Court emphasised multiple agronomic and storage-related causes for reduced field germination — improper storage on the "OTLA", humidity, watering/irrigation practices (photographs showed cracks in the land), timing and other farm practices. The appellants' point that seed germination can be affected by such factors was accepted as a plausible alternative explanation.
  4. Weight of the panchnama and sampling issues: The Court noted the panchnama recording 30–35% germination in the field but also noted that the seed testing procedure, sampling location, and the absence of the appellants when the sample was drawn could affect the reliability of that sample. The Court balanced the panchnama against the statutory certification and subsequent laboratory results.
  5. Precedents and application: The Court relied on the Supreme Court authority in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu to underscore that germination depends on many factors and that it is difficult to infer a 60–70% inbuilt defect in the seed lot when certification and laboratory figures were within standards and there were no parallel complaints from other farmers. Other cited decisions (Pratham Biotech; Prabhati Lal and a 2011 National Commission decision) were considered; Pratham Biotech's principle (not to brush aside seed committee reports) was kept in mind, while Prabhati Lal was found inapplicable on the facts.
  6. Quantum and inability to re-sow: The Court found inadequate evidence to support the complainant's contention that he could not re-purchase seed/fertiliser and therefore suffered the claimed monetary loss. The Court observed the complainant could have re-sown the land and did not produce convincing evidence to show inability to do so because the opponents refused to pay.
  7. Conclusion of analysis: Considering certification, laboratory test results, lack of corroborative complaints from other farmers, photographic evidence of field cracks, and the many agronomic explanations, the Court found no defect/deficiency attributable to the Corporation and therefore concluded that the CDRF's order could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling:

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 of the CDRF, Junagadh in CC No. 188 of 2010 is dismissed.

Direct consequences and orders made by the Court (as recorded in the final order):

  • The appeal (No. 752 of 2014) is allowed and the CDRF judgment dated 29.11.2013 is set aside/dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • The Registry was directed to pay to the appellants their deposited amount with accrued interest (if paid by the bank) on proper verification by account payee cheque, to be handed to the appellants' advocate upon receipt.
  • The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the District Commission, Junagadh (by e-mail in PDF) for necessary action, and to provide copies of the judgment to the parties free of charge.

Broader implications: The opinion did not purport to create a novel legal principle; it applied existing statutory definitions and precedent to the facts and concluded that statutory certification and acceptable laboratory results, together with consideration of agronomic/storage factors, can weigh decisively against a finding of product defect or deficiency in service in seed-quality disputes.

Decision pronounced 4 July 2022. Coram: Shri S. N. Vakil (Judicial Member) and Ms. J. Y. Shukla (Member).

This summary is strictly derived from the provided court opinion text and does not add information beyond what appears in that document.

Show full summary ...

    GUJARAT STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. v. GANDABHAI PARBATBHAI MORI AND OTHERS

    Details DD MM YY
    Date of Judgment 04 07 2022
    Date of filling 13 01 2014

    Duration 22 05 08

    BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

    GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.

    Court-3

    APPEAL NO. 752 of 2014 Dt: 04.07.2022

    1. The Chairman Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.

    2. The Vice-Chairman Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Opp. Sardar Baug,

    Junagadh. …Appellants

    Vs.

    1. Gandabhai Parbatbhai Mori Dodasa, Tal: Kodinar, Dist: Junagadh.

    2. The Manager The Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh Kodinar, Dist: Junagadh.

    3. Director of Agriculture Krushi and Sahakar Bhavan, Sector10A, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.

    4. District Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Department, Jilla Panchayat, Junagadh. ...Respondents Appearance: Mr. Anil I. Surti, Ld. Advocate for the appellants Mr. R. V. Sakariya, Ld. Advocate for the respondents Coram: (Shri S. N. Vakil, Judicial Member)

    (Ms. J. Y. Shukla, Member)

    Order by Shri S. N. Vakil, Judicial Member

    1. This appeal is by the Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd.

    1

    2. The Complaiannt - Gandabhai Parbatbhai Mori, the respondent hereof, filed Consumer No. 188 of 2010 with CDRF, Junagadh is that he purchased 8 bags of certified Lokvan wheat seeds, weighing about 320 Kg of Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. from the Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh, Kodinar. On 21.10.2009 to saw in his land bearing survey No. 648, 735, 744/2, 744/2/P-2, 745/2/P-1 to 3. After ploughing his land, they were sawn by hand- disperse on 3.11.2009, 4.11.2009 and 5.11.2004, necessary chemical fertilizers were also used in proper proportion and thereafter it was aptly irrigated. It was irrigated after dispersing DAP, Potas, Ammonium Sulphate and fertilizers. Despite one weak i.e. by 12.11.2009 it did not germinated properly therefore he informed the opponents in writing to visit the land and to do Panchnama. Responsible officers of opponent No. 4, 5 -director of Agriculture and District agriculture officer, Junagadh visited his fields on 20.11.2009, carried out panchnama in presence of other farmers of village, the report was prepared wherein it clearly mentioned that only 30-35% has germinated. The report was sent to Deputy Director, Junagadh on 17.11.2009 with a request to take sample from Kodinar Taluka Sangh and carry out germination and genetic tests thereof. The complainant does not know the outcome of the tests. The opponents were immediately informed and asked to pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- without which the complainant being not able to saw again and the land of 7 Bighas remained un-sown whereby he has to suffer loss of yield to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh.

    2

    Despite advocate notice dated 10.02.2010 Gujarat State Seeds Corporation did not pay any amount though also recommended by the Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh to pay. For this deficiency he claims Rs. 1,25,000/- including mental pain and costs with interest from one month after 12.11.2009.

    3. The written version of Kodinar Taluka Kharid Vechan Sangh is that the complainant purchased certified Lokvan wheat seeds in sealed bag on 21.10.2009. The purchase was of 8 bags weighing about

    320 KG. The complainant complaint about non proposed germination therefore they and other responsible officers of Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. and District Agricultural Department, and Punch from Godhasa village visited complainant"s field on 20.11.2009. It was opined by District Agricultural Department that only 30% of the wheat were germinated. If it was allowed to stand there would be damage of 70%. They sold only seeds supplied by the Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. in sealed bags. Therefore the seeds having been produced by the Corporation only it would be liable to pay the compensation and not the opponent.

    4. The defence of opponents No. 2 and 3 Gujarat State Seeds Nigam Ltd. vide written version is of denial. They are governed by the State of Gujarat and hence the State of Gujarat is a necessary party. It is a leading seeds producer in the State of Gujarat known for its goods quality seeds. The seeds were purchased for commercial crops and earning profits and hence is not a consumer. The compliant does not bear details of lot number/batch No. of seeds utilized by him. It

    3

    is denied that he has utilized the same seeds alleged to have been purchased. The complaint is vague and vexatious. The case involves several complicated questions of fact hence it be relegated to ordinary Civil Jurisdiction. The complaint has not pleaded that he raised the crops for self-consumption. The aspect of non- germination of seeds requires technical and voluminous evidence as detailed in the Gujarat Seeds Act and Rules. Hence also it should be relegated to Civil Court. The complaint is malafide to create pressure on the opponents. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has sown the same seeds as alleged to have been purchased as also to have applied fertilizer as alleged. It denied that he applied DAP, Potash and Ammonium Sulphate and fertilizers in required quality, and of non-germination even after a week of sowing as the same seeds produced by the opponent No.2 has been utilized by so many other farmers and till date there is not a single complaint regarding germination from any other farmer except the present one. The alleged report is carried out in absence of opponent No. 2 and 3 and therefore will be treated as ex-parte and thus will not be binding to the opponent No. 2 and 3. Even otherwise the report does not speak anything about quality of the seeds nor anything can be revealed fom the panchnama that the said problem was because of defect in seeds. Diminish in germination power is a natural process and Vis major which is beyond the control of these opponents. Seeds being live stock, if not stored properly would definitely result in diminishing in

    4

    germination power. Hence these are some of the factors beyond the control of opponent No 2 and 3, which are responsible for diminishing in germination power. It is denied that there was germination of only 30-35% and thus the expenditure made towards labor, fertilizer etc. could not be realized. The seeds produced and marketed by opponent No.2 are duly certified by Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency established under Section 8 of The Seeds Act, 1966. The said agency after prescribed procedure as depicted under Section 9 of The Seeds Act, 1966 and only after obtaining result as per the Standards Specified under Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, the seeds are put in market. Hence the seeds produced by Opponent No.2 are absolutely good quality seeds and therefore the Opponent No.2 and 3 were not liable to make any compensation of Rs.20,000/-. It is denied that for non-payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/-, the complainant was unable to take any other crop as alleged. The calculation as to loss of yield and its estimated market price of Rs.1,00,000/- is totally based on assumption and presumption without any cogent evidence. The seeds produced and marketed by them are absolutely good quality seeds and therefore any deficiency in service is strongly refuted. The allegations as to inferior quality of seeds are per se false as there are so many other farmers who have utilized the said seeds and till date there is not a single complaint from any other farmer except the complainant. The sample was not drawn in presence of Opponent No.2 and 3 and hence the result is not

    5

    binding. It is probable that there is some mistake committed in drawing sample or Inspector has not complied with the same procedure as prescribed under law as the sample was not drawn in the presence of them. The result is not final as per Section - 16 (2) of The Seeds Act. The complainants have not disclosed as to what kind of agronomic practices have been adopted by them. If the complainant could not take crop then that may be due to their in action, negligence or due to improper agronomic practices adopted by him. The complainant has not stated as to when and what quantity of fertilizers and insecticides were sprayed and at what interval water was given and thereby what agronomic practices were adopted by him. There are many agronomic factors responsible for low yield such as adverse climatic conditions, fertility of land, temperature, manure, watering, kind of fertilizers and insecticides and its proportion as also precautions to be taken from sowing to harvesting stage of the crop . Hence the quality of seeds cannot be blamed and therefore there does not arise any question for awarding damages or compensation to the complainant.

    5. The CDRF, Junagadh by its judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 allowed the complaint ordered the opponents No. 1 to 3 to pay the complainant Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint 17.09.2010 till realization and costs of Rs. 5,000/-. It is on the ground that he did not agree with the argument that when Certification Authority has certified

    6

    the seeds, it cannot be believed to be of inferior quality. For the reason that there is no proof that facility of irrigation was not proper or there was no use of pesticides and fertilizers and that the land was not fertile. In inspection report of the committee there was germination of 30-35% whereas the other seeds did not germinate. The seeds were sent in laboratory, the report wherof shows that it had germination power of 72%. It did not agree with the argument that lesser germination may be for other agronomic factors, and cannot be held responsible for lesser germination. He did not agree with the argument that when the seeds are certified by Certification Authority there not be any responsibility of the producer or the dealer. For the same reason that reports of inspection and of laboratory are supportive of each other and there is lab report of 72% of germination. It agreed with the argument for the complainant that the seeds did not possess standard germination power and for that only other than 30-35% did not germinate and thus 65-70% yield failed. It agreed with the complainant"s argument that the Corporation sold seeds of inferior quality and have thereby shown deficiency in service and that therefore the complainant is entitled to compensation from opponents No. 1 to 3. There is no proof that the loss by failure was to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 20,000/- by fertilizer and watering but it can be held to be at Rs. 80,000/- considering the failure of 65% yield from 7 bighas of land. It did not held opponents No. 4 and 5 liable.

    7

    6. Being aggrieved by the same Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Wheat Seeds produced and marketed by the Appellants herein have been duly Certified by Government Notified Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency notified under Section 8 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and the said Agency Certifies only those seeds which are confirming to the parameters of Standards prescribed under law and after the following the entire procedure detailed under Section 9 of the Seeds Act, 1966. After following the aforesaid detailed procedure as laid down under the Seeds Act, 1966, the Certification Agency grants a Certificate for those seeds that are found upto required standards as prescribed under The Indian Minimum Seeds Certification Standards. Hence there is no possibility of sub - standard or inferior quality of seeds as alleged by the Respondent. Further it may kindly be appreciated that the Certificate issued by the Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency has neither been cancelled nor revoked under Section 10 of the Seeds Act, 1966. The entire Order of The Hon'ble State Commission is silent on this vital aspect with regards to Certification of Seeds and for what reasons such credible evidence of Certificate issued by Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency established under Statute has not been considered and brushed aside despite the fact the said Certificate remains unchallenged and undisputed. It failed to consider that the complainant had purchased the seeds on 21/10/2009 which have been sown after a substantial time of 12-15 days. The Appellants

    8

    had raised specific question in the questionnaire at Exh-18 dated 07/04/2011 as to in what manner the seeds were preserved till they were sown, to which the Respondent No.1 had replied stating that the seeds were stored in the house on 'OTLA'. Hence it is crystal clear that the seeds were not stored properly which has direct nexus with reduction in germination power. It is worthy fact that seeds being live stock, reduction in germination power is a natural process and „vis majure" which is beyond the control of Appellants which have not been appreciated. It had committed grave error by not considering the Judgment relied upon by the Appellants cited at 2011 (2) CPR 8 (NC) wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi that "poor germination may not be attributed to quality of seeds" which was/is squarely applicable to the instant case. It failed to appreciate that even in the case before Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, the alleged Rojkam/Panchnama reflected 5% germination whereas the analysis report of laboratory reflected 54% germination which is the same in the instant case, as the alleged reflects Rojkam/Panchnama 30% -35% germination whereas the analysis report of laboratory reflects 72% germination. Even in the case before National Commission, the seeds were Certified by Government Notified Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency and even in the instant case, the seeds have been certified by Government notified Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency. It had mistaken by considering the analysis report for the underneath

    9

    reasons: Firstly the said sample is not drawn in presence of Appellants, Secondly it is very probable that there is some mistake committed in drawing the sample or the Inspector has not complied with the sampling procedure as prescribed under the law as the sample is not drawn in the presence of Appellants, the result of analysis depends on various factors which have been specifically noted in the said result which is translated from Gujarati into English and recapulated herein under that "The result reflected in this analysis report depends on the sample sent to this laboratory".

    It failed to appreciate that germination depends on so many agro- climate factors and agronomic practices adopted by the farmer like temperature, watering, depth of sowing, manure, quality and quantity of insecticides, quality and quantity of fertilizers, weedicides, etc. which has no nexus with the quality of seeds. As to the quantum part is concerned, it has been rightly observed by the Learned Forum that no evidence has been produced by the Respondent No.1 for the demand raised by him but even then the Learned Forum has granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs.80,000/- which is against the ratio laid down by Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in many landmark judgments.

    7. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri. Anil I. Surti, for the appellants - Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd., and Shri R. V. Sakariya, for the Complainant - Gandabhai Parbatbhai Mori.

    10

    8. Kodinar Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. (respondent No.

    2) purchased from Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. (Appellant)

    (1) 100 bags each containing 40 kg. of Lok-1 certified 05-5971, (2) 100 bags each containing 40 kg. of GW 273 certified 11-6943, and

    (3) 50 bags each containing 40 Kg of GW 366 05-7974 foundation, GJ-11 U-9790, each containing 40 Kg on 7.10.2009. From these the complainant purchased 8 bags of Lok-1 certified 05.5971 for Rs. 6,560/- (page-39) on 21.10.2009. The Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency carried out seed testing for (Sr. No. 21) lot No. Solanki B.D. Mar-09-06-0001-05-05955, village Gotana, Malia, Junagadh on wheat on July, 2009 and certified that it had off type 1.8%, laboratory physical purity 99.50%, physical impurity 0.50%, result P-germination percentage 93, Certificate No. 05-05971. It certified on top that the sample of lot of wheat crop submitted for seed testing are found standard, the certificate was issued on 21.08.2009 (page No. 96, 97). The composite sample is divided into 3 equal parts, and one is sent for analysis to a notified seed testing laboratory, the second part to the seed produced and retain the third as a guard sample. (General Seed Certification Standards, Para-21). The certificate is valid for 9 months. Wheat is required to be sold in stitched and sealed bag, the said certificate also should be stitched on the bag along with the stitches, [Sec. 17 (iv)].

    9. The complainant put this 8 bags purchased on 21.10.2009 on his otta and covered it with Bugan and a long sheet of coarse cloth and then sowed it in his field on 3.11.209, 4.11.2009, 5.11.2002

    11

    bearing survey No. 735, 744/2/P-2, 745/2/P-3 admeasuring about

    7 Bighas.

    10. The complainant complained with the Kordinar Taluka Sangh that it germinated 30-40% only and has not all germinated to the extent of 60-70%, by the letter dated 12.11.2009 which inter alia mentioned that he informed the Sangh and Junagadh Bij Nigam on 11.11.2009 and requested to come to draw panchnama immediately as he has to sow wheat in the same land. It is submitted for the complainant that seeds could be sown by 15th November and in ideal season would germinate about 7 days and would fully grow up by 120 days.

    11. The register of complaint (page-52) as to Lok-1 certified seeds of Gujarat State Seeds Corporation Ltd. bearing lot No. 0001-05597 was certified on July 2009 and the last date as Mar 2010. It was purchased on 21.10.2009 and sown on 3.11.2009, 5.11.2009 and 4.11.2009 and it was water once. There is 30% germination in 54 Gunthas, 30% and 50% in Sr. No. 744/2/P2, and 32% in survey No. 74512/P3, they were all raising. It contains signature of members of the committee and also complainant. Punchnama was carried out on 20.11.2009.

    12. The Agricultural Officer took sample from Sangh of Lok-1 certified wheat, Lot No. MAR-09-06-001-05-5971 same lot No. as certified on Mar 2009 and valid up to Mar 2010. It was tested on 8.12.2009 by seed testing laboratory Junagadh. It found that physical purity was according to standard but percentage of germination power was

    12

    found not according to standard and hence sample has failed. It found germination power at 72%. Its certificate (page-65) shows that testing would be valid for six months.

    13. The Corporation also sent sample of Mar-09-06-001-05-5971 of lok-1 wheat for laboratory test by seeds testing laboratory Gandhinagar. The laboratory carried out tests on 5.12.2009 to 9.12.2009 and found physical purity at 99.7% and percentage of physical germination power at 86% and gave certificate dated 14.12.2009 (page 132). This certificate has been allowed to be produced in appeal, with objection to remand kept open if need be.

    14. Photographs on page 45, 46 and 47 show that the land show cracks. The complainant has denied suggestion that it was for insufficient watering. (question 9 and Answer 15, page-101).

    15. Now, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (f) provides that "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression "defective" shall be construed accordingly; Section 2 (g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise

    13

    in relation to any service and includes (i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer. "product liability" means the responsibility of a product manufacturer product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency services relating thereto. Now, the Gujarat State Seeds Certification Agency has certified that the seed submitted for testing are found standard with germination power at 93% when tested in July 2009, the certificate is valid for 9 months from the date of testing. After the complaint, the Corporation sought laboratory testing again, which when tested by seed testing laboratory, Gandhinagar on 5.12.2009 to 9.12.209 it found it with germination power at 86%. The complainant purchased the seeds on 21.10.2009, it was therefore above the standard of germination power at 85% as set out by Gujarat State Seeds Standardization Agency. There was no fault in perfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, purity or standard [Section 2 (f)] nor any fault in the perfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature in manner of perfection required to be maintained nor any act of negligence, omission or commission or deliberate withholding of relevant information by the commission [Section 2 (9)]. Therefore, the goods can not be said to suffer from any defect or deficiency in services. Thus no defect in any goods or deficiency in services, no damage could be said to

    14

    have occurred by defective product or deficiency in services as required for any product liability. When the seeds were sold after certification from the authority under the Seeds Act, it is clear that the case of unfair trade practices is also not made out. Therefore no findings can be returned against the corporation as deficiency in services for defective goods. The case is not required to be remanded therefore, on account of appellant"s production of certificate of germination also tested post complaint.

    16. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sadhu, AIR 2005 (SC) 2023 is to the effect that germination of seeds would depend upon several other factors such as climate condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizers etc. In that case the complainant could not show that the crop suffered due to poor germination of seeds. In the present case also when there was germination in 30% and above in the fields with failure of 60-70% there was no poor germination of seeds but 60-70% failure in germination. It is difficult to believe that there would be 60-70% dead seeds in the lot purchased by the complainant. There are no complaints by other farmers. The photographs dated 15.11.2009 show cracks in the field. The complainant has denied that it was for lack of watering. If wheat is grown under irrigated conditions 4-6 irrigations are required. The failure to germinate altogether may be for lack of watering as may be inferred from the cracks in land or the bags of seeds were stored on otta of the house, covered with Bugan i.e. a long sheet of coarse cloth. Humidity in Kodinar may be

    15

    high or for any other reasons. But we are not concerned with why the seeds fail to germinate in 60-70%, or with why the sample taken from Kodinar Sangh Showed germination power at 72%. We are concerned with only deficiency of the seller-the Corporation-the appellant. Its germination power was 93% when tested in July, 2009 and 86% in December, 2009 well within the standard. There are no complaints from other farmers. For all these, Prabhati lal Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., IV (2015) CPJ 148 (NC), to the effect that in absence of any indication of adverse seasonal condition or infestation by any insect of affliction by any crop disease, failure to produce seeds testing report deserve to be viewed adversely against NSC cannot be applied. There are no allegations against the Sangh about selling for its seeds.

    17. The seeds were purchased on 21.10.2009 and sown on 3.11.2009, 4.11.2009 and 5.11.2009, it could be sown by 15thNovember, the complainant observed the failure of germination by 11thNovember. Therefore he could very well have sown in the land when the seeds did not germinate. There is no complaint to any of the opponents to pay the amount showing his inability to repurchase the seeds and fertilizers etc. Therefore his pleading that for non-payment by opponents, he could not re-sow wheat in the land and thereby suffered loss of crops to the extent of Rs. 80,000/-, cannot be held to have been proved at all.

    18. Principles of Pratham Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sayed Javed Sayed Amir and Anr., IV (2008) CPJ 119 (NC), that report given by seeds

    16

    committee cannot be brushed aside on contention that seeds were not sent for testing, have been kept in mind.

    19. Therefore, for the season stated order of the Learned Forum cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside, for which following final order is passed.

    FINAL ORDER

    i) Appeal No. 752 of 2014 is allowed.

    ii) The judgment and order passed by the CDRF, Junagadh on 29.11.2013 in CC No. 188 of 2010 is dismissed.

    iii) No order as to costs.

    iv) Registry is directed to pay the appellants their deposited amount, with accrued interest, if paid by the bank, on proper verification to the appellant by account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.

    v) Registry is directed to send a copy this order to the District Commission Junagadh, through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.

    vi) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge. Pronounced in the open Court today on 4thday of July, 2022. (J. Y. Shukla) (S. N. Vakil)

    Member Judicial Member

    17

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    GUJARAT STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. v. GANDABHAI PARBATBHAI MORI AND OTHERS
    (Jul 4, 2022)