Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 286
2005(2) Supreme 169
Supreme Court of India
(From National Consumers Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Sadhu and Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1308 of 2005
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24449 of 2003)
Decided on 18-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D.P. Singh and Sanjay Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents ; K.S. Rana, Dr. V.P. Appan, N. Raja Raman and F.S. Chauhan, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Wheat seeds purchased by complainant from appellant had poor germination—Circle Agriculture Officer and Agriculture Development Officer issued certificate that germination of seeds was found to be poor and seeds were of sub-standard quality—Compensation claim under various heads and Distt. Forum allowed, complaint—State Commission and National Commission upheld the order—Appeal —Appellant had constituted an Expert Committee and committed took inspection of seeds sold to farmers—Committee observed that crop condition varied from “satisfactory to excellent” and that variation was other than the quality of seeds—National Commission was not right in observing that report was ambiguous—Report was clear, definite and specific in findings that variation in condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors—In light of report of Expert Committee complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Held : 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.”
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 irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition.”
What was contended before the National Commission was that the word “not” was not found in the report of the Expert Committee but it was inserted unauthorisedly. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the word “not” was very much there in the report and in the certified copy also, it was present. Hence, it could not be said that it was inserted subsequently. But even otherwise, looking to the report as a whole, we are satisfied that there was no unauthorised insertion of the word “not” in the report. Reading the report in its entirety, it is clear that the Expert Committee was satisfied that variation in the condition of crop was not and could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. Even the earlier part referred to by us makes the position clear. Hence, the contention that the word “not” was inserted either to favour the Corporation or to cause prejudice to farmers cannot be accepted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the National Commission was not right in observing that at the most, the report could be said to be ambiguous. In our view, it was neither ambiguous nor vague but was clear, definite and specific. In no uncertain terms, it stated that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. In the light of the report of Expert Committee, the complaint was liable to be dismissed and the Commissions committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in allowing it. (Paras 12 to 14)
Judgment
Thakker, J.—Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed by the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. (‘Corporation’ for short) against the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kaithal, confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, and also confirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
3. The facts of the case in which a complaint was filed by Sadhu Singh S/o Kehar Singh may briefly be stated. The said complaint was filed by Sadhu Singh resident of village Dhundwa against Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & Service Society and also against the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation (appellant herein) before the District Forum Kaithal inter alia alleging that he had purchased seeds of wheat from Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & Service Society and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. He had sown them in his field. After about 15 days, he noticed that germination of seeds was not up to standard but was “very much poor”. He, therefore, made complaints to D.C. and D.D.A., Kaithal whereupon a certificate was issued by Circle Agriculture Officer, and Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat on 6th December, 2001, stating therein that germination of seeds was found to be poor and the seeds were of sub-standard quality. According to the complainant, he suffered a loss of price of seeds, labour charges for preparation of land, of sowing seeds, irrigation costs, loss of crop and also mental torture. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay compensation. Similar was the case of other complainants.
4. Notices were issued to the respondents pursuant to which they appeared and filed their replies. Respondent No.1 Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & Service Society, in its reply stated that the complaint was not maintainable against it. According to the said respondent, it purchased the seeds from the Corporation. It was contended that the complainant had purchased seeds for selling wheat in Grain Market and thus the purchase was for commercial purpose. He, therefore, could not be said to be ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It was also alleged that loss said to have been caused to the complainant was shown to be excessive. The complaint was, therefore, false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
5. The Corporation also filed a reply contending that the complainant had no locus standi as he had no cause of action to file such complaint. He also could not be said to be ‘consumer’ as seeds were purchased for commercial purposes. According to the Corporation, disputed and complicated questions of fact and law were involved which could not be decided in a summary manner in the Consumer Forum and the complainant should approach a civil court. On merits, it was contended that germination of seed would depend upon several other factors such as, climate - condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizer, etc. The complainant could not show that the crop had suffered due to poor germination of seeds. According to the Corporation, seeds were duly certified by the Haryana State Seeds Agency, a Government undertaking which objectively decided that seeds were in confirmity with prescribed standard. The complainant had, therefore, no cause and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
6. The District Forum accepted the claim of the complainant and held the appellant liable. It relied upon the report of the Civil Agriculture Officer and Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat and observed that it was “crystal clear that the germination of the seeds was very poor”. According to the District Forum, due to low yield of crop, the complainant suffered financial loss as well as physical harassment. He was, therefore, entitled to compensation as mentioned in the order. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the appellant herein was directed to pay compensa
