Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, Vinay Kumar, Member, Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Prabhati Lal —Petitioner
versus
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 351 of 2010
(Against the Order dated 22/09/2009 in Appeal No. 1029&1022/2006 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 12.5.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitender Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Yashuvardhan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Ashutosh K. Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to produce seed testing report deserves to be viewed adversely against NSC.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Agriculture—Seeds—Supply of poor quality seeds—Affidavit of NSC maintains an inexplicable silence on comment in the report of Assistant Director, Horticulture that NSC representative had collected seed samples from field of complainant—In background of absence of any indication of adverse seasonal condition or infestation by any insect or affliction by any crop disease, failure to produce seed testing report deserves to be viewed adversely against NSC—Conclusion reached by State Commission does not flow from evidence on record—Reversal of order of District Forum in these appeals was not warranted—Impugned order set aside and order of District Forum restored. (Paras 9 and 10)
This Revision Petition is filed by the Complainant Prabhati Lal against National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Kanchanganga Seeds Ltd. and two other private agencies dealing in horticultural seeds. The order under challenge was passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 22.9.2009, common to two separate appeals filed, one by the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (NSC) and the other by Daga Farms and Agencies.
2. The appeal of National Seeds Corporation (No.1029/2006) has been allowed and the appeal of Daga Farms and Agencies (No.1022/2006) has been dismissed on the ground that it had become infructuous, due to setting aside of the order of the District Forum in the appeal of the National Seeds Corporation.
3. Both appeals had arisen from order of the District Forum, Jaipur in a single complaint filed against all 4 Opposite Parties. The District Forum came to a conclusion that cauliflower seed supplied by OP-2/NSC and tomato seed supplied by OPs-1, 3 and 4 were both of poor quality. The Complainant had suffered loss due to defective seed of both crops. Therefore, OPs were directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of crop, Rs.3000/- for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint.
4. The appeal of OP-2/National Seeds Corporation was allowed by the State Commission. It held that the report of 16.10.2001, given by Assistant Director Horticulture Dausa, had shown that the crop damage was due to excessive heat and dense plant population. The State Commission has observed that—
“19. No specific finding has been given in the report dated 16.10.2001 of the Asstt. Director, Horticulture, Dausa which has been given in respect of seeds of tomato and cauliflower that the seeds were defective rather, created doubt and on the basis of doubt, it cannot be considered that the seeds of tomato and cauliflower sold by respondent No.2- opposite party No.1 to the complainant-respondent No.1 were defective.
20. It is also worthwhile to clear that the germination of the crop depends on various factors i.e. climate condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizer etc. as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in its Judgment in “Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V/s. Sadhu & Another” Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 2005 (1) 533.”
5. We have heard Mr. Jitender Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yashuvardhan, counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ashutosh K. Singh, counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have remained unrepresented. We have also perused the records of the Revision Petition.
6. The main ground urged on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant is that the crop was not affected by any pests or disease. Also, there was no deficiency of crop nutrients. The plant growth too was normal and the weather condition was favourable. In this background, the State Commission should have held that the seeds supplied were defective and cause for crop failure.
7. Another important ground is that Respondent No.1/National Seeds Corporation intentionally did not file any report of quality of seed, though samples of the seeds were taken by it and by Assistant Director Horticulture, Dausa. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner drew our attention to the report of Assistant Director Horticulture, which clearly states that—
“The empty packets of the seeds and bills were got compared to verify the quantity, quality, lot number and batch number of the said seeds. Therefore, the department has some doubt about the quality of the seeds, therefore, the officials of N.S.C. took the remaining seeds and one empty pouch along with them for investigation. The said cauliflower seed was of some synthetic quality, whose manufacturer and distributor company is N.S.C. The said seeds have been purchased according to details mentioned in the bill from Daga Farms & Agencies, Chomu House (Tabela) Jaipur. The crops have been sown in time according the type of this crop. Keepin
