Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President;
Mrs. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
ASSISTANT MANAGER (ADMN.),
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.—Complainant
versus
S.V. BADAGOUDARA & OTHERS—Opp. Parties
Appeal Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 & 136 of 1992—Decided on 6.11.1993
The quality of seeds cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. The burden of proving the defective quality of seeds lies on the complainant.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SEEDS ACT - DEFECTIVE SEEDS - COMPENSATION - "CONSUMER" DEFINED - QUALITY OF SEEDS - ANALYSIS AND TESTING - FIELD TEST - BURDEN OF PROOF - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 2(1)(d), 5, 6, 13(1)C, 15 OF SEEDS ACT, 1966.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants, agriculturists, purchased water melon seeds from OP-1, stating to be of Arkamanik type, and sowed them in their lands. Despite proper care, the yield was poor, and the fruits were deformed and cracked. They filed complaints alleging that the seeds were spurious and defective, causing them loss. OP-1 admitted the sale but denied the defect. OP-2, the seed company, denied the sale and questioned the complainants' status as "consumers." The District Forum held the complainants as "consumers" and awarded compensation, finding the seeds defective based on an expert report.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission allowed the appeals, set aside the District Forum's order, and dismissed the complaints. It held that the complainants were "consumers" as they grew the watermelons in small portions of their lands, not for commercial purposes. However, it found that the complainants failed to prove the defective quality of the seeds. The expert report was based on observation without proper analysis or field test, and no samples were sent to the Seeds Inspector for analysis as required under the Seeds Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainants are "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether the complainants proved that the seeds purchased from OP-1 were sown by them in their lands and were of defective quality?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act includes any person who buys any goods for a consideration, which is used or likely to be used for personal use. The complainants, who grew watermelons in small portions of their lands, cannot be classified as engaged in commercial activity. Therefore, they are "consumers" under the Act. 2. The complainants failed to prove that the seeds purchased from OP-1 were of defective quality. The expert report was based on observation without proper analysis or field test, and no samples were sent to the Seeds Inspector for analysis as required under the Seeds Act. The quality of seeds cannot be determined without proper analysis or test.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the District Forum's order was set aside, and the complaints were dismissed.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:
1. The District Forum, Dharwad, clubbed all the five complaints i.e., complaint Nos. 38,39, 40, 41 and 42 of 1991-92 as common question of law and facts had arisen and the opposite party in all the complaints was one and the same, so disposed them off by a common order. The complainants are all agriculturists. They have their lands at Godachikonda village of Hirekerur Taluk, in Dharwad District.
2. The complainants purchased water melon seeds of opposite party No.2 MHYCO company from opposite party No. 1, Mahalakshmi Agro Centre of Hirekerur, sowed the said seeds in their lands, the complainants in Complaint Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 1991-92, to the extent of 2 acres each and complainant in Complaint No. 41 /9192, to the extent of 1 acre and complainant in Complaint No. 42/91-92, to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas. It is the further case of the complainants that, they properly manured and watered the seeds at proper time and took all necessary care and precaution for its proper growth. Though the seeds germinated and creepers grew well, but they could not get proper yield; the creepers did not bear sufficient number of fruits and the fruits were deformed and developed cracks.
3. It is the further case of the complainants that immediately thereafter, they made complaints to the office of the agricultural department authorities who along with agricultural University experts inspected the complainants’ lands and took samples of fruits grown. The experts on examination gave report stating that the yield was not proper because the seeds sowed were not of Arkamanik type and they were spurious.
4. The complainants averred that due to this spurious nature of seeds, sold by the opposite parties stating it to be of Arkamanik seeds of MHYCO company; the complainants suffered heavy loss and sought compensation from the opposite parties.
5. Opposite party No. 1, admitted the sale of Arkamanik seeds of MHYCO company and averred that the said seeds sold by him were not defective.
6. Opposite party No. 4, further averred that the complainants had not sowed Arkamanik seeds purchased from him in their lands. Opposite party No. 1, nextly averred that Arkamanik seeds were sold by him not only to complainants but to several other agriculturists but none of them made complaints about the inferior quality of seeds sold by him.
7. O.P. No. 2, MHYCO Company denied the sale of MHYCO company seeds to the complainants. It further urged that experts of Agricultural University had no authority to give the opinion regarding the quality of seeds. It was only the Seeds Inspector who was competent to do so.
8. It nextly urged that the complainants had not produced seeds and bags of seeds and the samples of which were not sent to the Laboratory for analysis as required under Section 13(1)C of the Act and so there was absolutely no material placed on record by the complainants to prove the quality of seeds.
9. It also urged that the complainants could not be classified as “consumers” under the provisions of the Act as they had grown the water melon crops for commercial purposes.
10. During enquiry all the complainants examined themselves. They also examined a Research Assistant of Agricultural College, Dharwad, Sri Vishwanath Patil as PW 2 and got Exs. P-1 to P-12 marked in evidence.
11. Exs. P-2 and P-8 are the xerox copy and office copy of the report of Professor Horticulture, Dharwad.
12. Opposite party No.1 examined himself as RW-1, O.P. No. 2 did not examine any witnesses.
13. The District Forum, Dharwad, on consideration of this material placed on record by the parties, held that the complainants were “consumers” under the provisions of the Act, that the complainants established that the complainants had sown the Arkamani seeds in their lands purchased by them from O.P. No. 1 and that, the said seeds were of defective quality. In that view the District Forum, Dharwad, awarded compensati
