ORDER
1. These Revision Petitions arise out of almost similar judgments/orders passed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Telengana at Hyedrabad (for short the State Commission) have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). All these Revision Petitions deal with identical issues of law and facts and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of
253
convenience, RP/722/2024 VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jillela Ramesh & Anr. is being taken as a lead case.
2. Vide impugned judgments/orders the learned State Commission has allowed the appeals preferred by the Revisionists/Appellants/Opposite Parties, in part and modified the orders passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Warangal (for short the District Forum), reducing the amount of compensation towards the crop loss by almost 50%, setting aside the interest awarded and also the amount to be paid towards expenditure incurred by the complainant, including costs of seeds. The learned State Commission put the liability only on the appellants absolving the dealer (s) / respondent no.2/opposite party. The learned State Commission directed the
revisionists/appellants/opposite parties to pay the reduced amount along with Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation. The interest awarded has also been set aside.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as under:
(i) The respondents / complainants / farmers having sufficient irrigation facilities, and vast experience in agriculture and in cultivating chilli crop had purchased the VNR-145 Chilli seeds from the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties by paying the price of the seeds. In the month of January and February, 2017, the revisionists / opposite parties and field officers of opposite parties came to the villages of respondents/complainants/farmers and gave wide publicity to VNR 145 green chilli seeds through pamphlets, brochures, television and newspapers. They also assured the farmers of the villages that the VNR 145 chilli seeds yield
per-acre would be 100 to 150 quintals. Believing the words and assurances of the revisionists/opposite parties, the complainants / farmers purchased VNR-145 chilli seeds and sowed the same in their fields in the month of March/April, 2017. Heavy expenditure was incurred in sowing the seeds but no proper germination occurred and whatever germinated when transplanted did not grew properly. The fields were irrigated periodically and proper fertilizers and pesticides were also applied but the growth of the plants were not proper, no flowering, no fruiting and budding were there. Generally, after forty days the green chilli crop would be ready for the first picking in the fields but even after sixty days, some plants were in small flowering, no flowering, no budding and in some plants there were no balls and the plants were looking barren. This all occurred due to defective seeds sold by the revisionists / appellants / opposite parties. The complainants/farmers approached the revisionists/appellants/dealers of the seeds company several times and requested them to inspect the fields but they did not turn up. Therefore, the complainants / farmers went to raise their grievance before the District Collector, Warangal Urban & Rural and finally went to the District Agriculture Officer, Warangal Urban & Rural and also District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer, Warangal Urban & Rural and informed them about the poor results of the sowing VNR 145 chilli seeds. The Joint Director, Agriculture Warangal formed the District Level Committee, consisting of five members. The said Committee inspected the fields and observed in its report about the poor performance of the VNR 145 chilli seeds. The Committee also observed that in a nearby field where another variety of chilli seeds i.e. Sonali of Raasi Seeds Company Pvt. Limited was used found in good condition with good flowering and fruit formation. A Genetic Purity Test was also
254
conducted wherein the sample of seeds were provided by the Seeds Company. In that test the samples were found 'Misbranded'. The allegation of the complainants/farmers is that due to the defect in seeds they suffered a heavy crop loss. They have incurred expenses for sowing/growing of the crop but for no avail. They suffered mental agony also.
4. The revisionists/appellants/opposite parties denied the allegations of the farmers and submitted that the VNR 145 chilli seeds were of standard quality. The germination test is good i.e. 96% before packing and the test duly conducted with regard to genetic purity and that was found 99.95%. The farmers have taken very good crop of VNR-145 chilli seeds and not a single complaint has been received. The allegation levelled in the complaints of farmers are concocted, fabricated and are specifically denied.
5. After taking evidence and hearing, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaints and passed the following order (in the lead case), which reads as under:
"30. In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to deposit in this Forum a sum of Rs.2,02,500/- (Rupees Two lakhs two thousand five hundred only) towards crop loss for Ac 1.20 guntas of land with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 05.02.2018 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) per acre towards expenditure incurred by the complainant including costs of seed and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony, legal expenditure including costs within one month from the date of receipt of the order."
6. Being aggrieved by the judgments/orders of the learned District Forum the Revisionists/appellants/opposite parties preferred the appeals before the learned Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad. Learned State Commission in appeals did not interfere with the findings given by the learned District Forum as regards to the defects in the VNR-145 chilli seeds but interfered with the amount awarded towards crop loss, expenses incurred, compensation for mental agony etc. and partly allowed the appeals.
7. In the lead case the learned State Commission has passed the following order:
"57. ……..Having given our thoughtful consideration to the yield and price referred to in the impugned order, we find it proper to conclude that since no farmer/complainant has submitted his data record with regard to yield and neither has the Agricultural Officer referred to this, to meet the ends of justice in view of the aforesaid discussions, the yield is calculated at 75% of 30 quintals which is equal to 22.5 quintals and so also the price of each quintal is calculated at Rss.3000/-. Therefore, the yield is estimated as follows:
Yield for Ac 1.00 guntas = 22.5 quintals.
The complainant cultivated to an extent of Ac.1.10 Guntas and loss of
255
yield is 28.125 quintals. Therefore, his loss is estimated as under:
28.125 quintals x Rs.3000 = Rs.84,375/- Since we have calculated his loss to be about 28.125 quintals, he needs to be compensated only for the crop loss which would include the price of the seed and the expenses incurred for fertilizers and other ancillary expenses. The complainant has not filed any bills for the expenses incurred and we find that granting the amount towards crop loss will cover these aspects also. The impugned order granted interest over and above the loss of yield and costs, which is not justifiable.
58. We consider only the Appellants/Opposite Parties responsible to compensate the Complainant/Respondent No.1. The impugned order needlessly placed liability on the dealer/s which we find unfair and not properly reasoned. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order.
59. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Commission is modified as under:
The Appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.84,375/- to the Respondent No.1/Complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation. Time for compliance is eight weeks."
8. Being aggrieved by the judgments/orders of the learned State Commission the Revisionists/opposite parties as well as the complainants/farmers have come before this Commission by filing these revision petitions.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available records. The learned counsel for the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties/VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. have submitted that the learned State Commission failed to give a definite finding with respect to the issue raised by the Expert Committee. The impugned order is erroneous as the learned State Commission took one case as a yardstick to decide all other cases. There were various dealers but the liability was just placed on the revisionist (manufacturer of the seeds). The learned State Commission also erred in quantifying the loss and have mentioned in the order that since no data was provided the estimate of loss is subjective. No bills have been filed by the respondents/complainants/farmers for the expenses incurred in cultivating the crops. The respondent/complainant has failed to prove that there was any defect in the seeds and burden lies heavily on the respondents/complainants/farmers to prove the defect. It was also argued that the report of the District Level Committee was based on visual investigation and learned State Commission has committed error by relying on it. It has further been submitted that the learned State Commission did not take into
256
account the fact that the learned District Forum has not considered the weather report given by the Principal Scientist who reported that due to heavy heat sucking pest affected the crops. The learned State Commission did not take into consideration the fact that crop can also be affected by multiple other factors like fertilizers, inadequate rainfall and irrigation etc. The following case laws were referred by the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties:
(1) Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 198, (2) Mahyco Vegetables Seeds Ltd. V. Ishwarbhai & Ors. (2016) SCC Online NCDRC 49, (3) Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op Ltd. V.Shri Ram Swaroop (2014) SCC Online NCDRC 765, (4) Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Anr. V. Vijayakumar Shankarao & Anr. 2 (2007) CPJ 148 (NC), (5) VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd. V. Balu, decided on February 26, 2021 (6) Syngenta India V. P. Chowdaiah 2013 (3) CPR 386.
10. The respondents/complainants/farmers in their cross revision petitions and revision petitions have mainly submitted that the judgments/orders of the learned State Commission are bad, improper and liable to be set aside for the reasons that the reduction of compensation for loss of crop is without any scientific basis and the orders passed is wrong on facts, contrary to evidence on record and suffers very serious infirmities and misconception of law. The learned State Commission did not take into account the field inspection report of affected chilli fields that VNR-145 chilli is highly susceptible to sucking pests and virus and has held that the crop damage was around 60% to 65%. The genetic purity test report has indicated that there is a variation in the field molecular profile from the filed sample molecular profile and the sample was declared as 'misbranded'. The field inspection report and the DNA report were given by the Government Officials/Scientists and have yet not been challenged by the respondents / appellants/opposite parties (Seeds Company). It has further been submitted that the learned State Commission has erred in recording the fact that fresh green chilli yield is 30-40 quintals per acre only. The learned State Commission did not take note of the fact that the chilli crop raised by the farmers using 'Sonali Raasi Seeds', produced good yield as compared to the chilli crop where VNR -145 chilli seeds were used. The learned counsel for the complainants / farmers referred to following case laws:
(1) M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors. 1998 6 SCC 738, (2) M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 44, (3) H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka 2004 4 Supreme SCC 234, (4) Mohan Seeds Company through its Proprietor Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Anr., 2022 4 CPR (NC) 361, (5) Revision Petition No. 457 of 2018, Medaram Venu & Ors. Vs. Penthala Mahendar decided on 16.02.2018, (6) RP/1029/2011 M/s. Shiv Narayan Periwal & Sons Vs. Bharat Kumar & Ors. 2020 2 CPR (NC) 382, (7) RP/22/2015 Ms/. Avon Beej Company Vs. Anoop Singh & Ors. 2021 I CPR (NC) 102, (8) RP 1478 of 2016 Western Agri Seeds Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote & Anr. 2016 4
257
CPR (NC) 218.
11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the record as well as the referred case laws. The main contention of the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties (Seeds company) is that the learned State Commission did not consider that the complainants/farmers had not produced any evidence to prove the fact that seeds were defective. The burden to prove the defect in seeds heavily lies on the farmers/complainants. To support their arguments they relied upon the case laws Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V. Sadhu & Anr. (supra) and Mahyco Vegetables Seeds Ltd. V. Ishwarbhai & Ors. (supra). Gone through the cited case laws. These case laws are of no help to the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties for the reason that in
Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. case the Committee formed for investigation has observed that:
"12……..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."
Similarly, in Mahyco Vegetables Seeds Ltd., (supra) the District Seed Committee report does not mention about the defects in seeds. Para-7 of the judgment reads as under:
"7. Except evidence of District Seeds Committee report, there is no other report to suggest that seeds were defective. Aforesaid report concluded that 90% of the plants were found to be sterile, 30% of the plants were affected by disease (Haladya) but this report has nowhere mentioned that sterility of plants was due to defective seeds or seeds were defective in any manner. Learned Counsel for petitioner has drawn my attention towards brochure which required soil for the Bhindi-10 variety is "fairly light" and "well drained" but as per complainant, complainant's soil was heavily black and
258
complainant had taken crop of cotton in previous two seasons. As per brochure, plants affected by disease of "yellow Vein Mosaic" were required to be removed to protect other plants from aforesaid disease but as per District Seeds Committee report, aforesaid plants were not removed. Learned State Commission rightly observed that District Seeds Committee report has not given clear findings in respect of defectiveness of seeds and in the absence of such report and without any other evidence, suggesting defectiveness of seeds, compensation should not have been awarded on account of defective seeds." Contrary to it, in the matters in hand, the Committee formed for the purpose has reported inter-alia as under:
"Observations pertaining to the above four fields:
1…. 2…..
6. Going by the extent of damage it appears that the variety VNR- 145 of chilli is highly susceptible to sucking pests and viruses. Further there are very less chances of crop recovery at this stage, even with control measures recommendation also."
7. Based upon the temperature data (5 years viz., 2013-2017) provided by Associate Director of Research (ADR), Warangal, temperatures during the months from April to June are quite normal and recorded the more or less same temperature. Hence, we cannot say that higher temperatures affected the chilli crop growth."
This Committee further recommended inter-alia for the genetic purity test. In that genetic purity test the sample of seeds supplied by the seed company itself, was found 'misbranded'.
12. A perusal of the judgments/orders of both the foras below show that both the foras have found sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the seeds were defective. It has been discussed by the learned District Forum as well as by the learned State Commission that the respondents / complainants / farmers raised complaints about the defective seeds, alleging that normally after forty days the green chilli crop would be ready for first pricking but due to defective seeds even after sixty days the plants were barren. The farmers claimed in their pleadings that they first went to the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties and requested them to visit the fields but the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties did not respond.
259
Therefore, the complainants/farmers went to the concerned District Collector and District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer. A direction was issued for joint inspection of the fields. A joint inspection was conducted by Mandal Agriculture Officer and Horticulture and Sericulture Officer. They submitted their report A-10 (as mentioned in the judgments/orders). In the report it was reported that:-
"(a) Crop is at the stage of flowering to fruiting stage having upward curling with low flowering and fruiting;
(b) Plants not shows uniformity, some plants at the stage of pre-flowering, some plants at the stage of flowering to fruiting stage and some plants severely attacked by viral disease."
A five-members committee was also formed for investigation of failure of chilli crops consisting of following members:
(i) Dr. T. Suresh Kumar, Scientist (Hort.) & Head, HRS K. Mallepally Nalgonda Dist.
(ii) Dr. B. Ramprasad, Scientist (Entomology) R.A.R.S. Warangal
(iii) Smt. P. Sunitha, District Horticulture & Sericulture Officer, Warangal Urban & Rural District
(iv) Sri V. Vidyasagar, A.D.A. Parkal,
(v) Sri. N. Thirupathi, Horticulture, Horticultural Officer, Parkal. These Members visited the four of the fields and reported as follows:
"Observations pertaining to the above four fields
Severe stunted vegetative growth1. Sparse branching2.
Sparse flowering3.
Not more than 4-5 flowers per plant4. Crop has been affected by severe thrips incidence during initial crop growing stage due to prevalence of high temperatures. Subsequently, it has got affected by viral diseases like pea nut bud necrosis virus (PBNV) and Cucumber Mosaic virus (CMV)
5.
Going by the extent of damage it appears that the variety VNR-145 of chilli is highly susceptible to sucking pests and viruses. Further, there are very less chances of crop
6.
260
recovery at this stage, even with control measures recommendation also. Based upon the temperature data (5 years viz., 2013-2017) provided by Associate Director of Research (ADR), Warangal, temperatures during the months from April to June are quite normal and recorded the more or less same temperature. Hence, we cannot say that higher temperatures affected the chilli crop growth.
7.
2.
Variety Name: Raasi Seeds - Sonali (as per the evidence provided by farmer through Bill and is enclosed to this report)
Transplanting in Main Field: First week of May, 2017 Age of the Field visited: 66 days old crop (35 days saplings transplanted first of May, 2017)
Area - 2 acres ○
Good vegetative growth with branching1. 30-40 flowers per plant2.
Plant is having 20 - 30 fruits."3.
13. On the recommendation of this Committee, a genetic purity test was also conducted after collecting leaves from the field and VNR-145 Hybrid standard type sample submitted by the seed company. A genetic purity test was conducted in Telangana DNA Fingerprinting & Transgenic Crop Monitoring Lab, Hyderabad. The conclusion of the genetic purity test is "As per field sample molecular profile is different from the standard molecular profile, the sample is declared as MISBRANDED."
14. This report has been referred by both the foras below as Exhibit A-11. Both the foras below have discussed the evidence submitted and report of the Government Officers/Scientists in detail. There is nothing on record to show that the revisionists/appellants/opposite parties/seed company etc. Have filed any evidence/report in rebuttal to disprove what has been stated in the reports referred above. Hence, in our considered opinion the finding given by both the foras below on this point (defects of the seeds) is in accordance with law and needs no interference by this Commission.
15. Now comes another point whether learned State Commission is justified in reducing the amount i.e. towards crop loss etc. what was awarded by the learned District Forum. The complainants/farmers have submitted that the learned State Commission has reduced the amount without any logic or cogent reasons. The reason given that no farmer / complainant has submitted his data record to yield and no bills of expenses incurred by them have been filed, is not justifiable as generally farmers do not keep data of the yield and the bills of expenses incurred.
261
16. In our considered opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants/farmers has force. It is the fact that generally farmers do not maintain the data of yield and they do not preserve the bills of expenses incurred on their farming. Furthermore, generally family members also work in the fields for doing works like ploughing, sowing, weeding, irrigation etc., hence to expect the data of yields and bills of expenses is not justifiable. The District Forum while calculating the crop loss has taken into consideration the 'market value verification certificate' at the relevant point of time. The calculation of crop loss made by the learned District Forum, in our considered opinion, is justified. The order of payment of interest is also justified. The amount awarded as expenditure incurred and for the mental agony is also reasonable. Hence, we find it proper and just to modify the judgment and order passed by the learned State Commission partly to the extent of modification of amount awarded under different heads and uphold the order passed by the learned District Forum, that is to say that the relief provided by the learned District Forum is upheld and to that extent the judgments/orders passed by the learned State Commission are set aside. All these revision petitions are decided accordingly. All the interim applications pending also stand disposed of.
............................
BINOY KUMAR
PRESIDING MEMBER
............................J
SAROJ YADAV
MEMBER
262