Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHIVAPUTRAPPA VITHALTADAS - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1833 of 2015 (Against the Order dated 26.9.2014 in Appeal No. 445 of 2012 of the State Commission Karnataka) with IA/4688 of 2015, IA/4689 of 2015
Decided on : 09-02-2016
Mr. Arunav Pattnaik and Ms. Kanika Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant; Nemo, for the Respondent
The judgment emphasized the responsibility of seed suppliers to adhere to testing procedures and provide compensation for defective seeds, as established in the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., (2012) 2 SCC 506.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Agricultural Dispute - Section 21B - 1966 Seeds Act, 1986 Consumer Protection Act - 1986 Consumer Protection Act - 1966 Seeds Act
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an agriculturist, purchased potato seeds based on the assurance of the District Horticulture Producers, Marketing and Processing Association Ltd. However, the seeds did not sprout, resulting in crop loss. The complainant sought damages and compensation from the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum partly allowed the complaints and directed the opposite parties to pay damages to the complainants. The State Commission concurred with the finding of deficiency of service and dismissed the appeals of the opposite parties.
Issues: The main issue was the deficiency of service in supplying defective potato seeds, leading to crop loss for the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the report of a scientist, which indicated that the potato yield from the seeds was not good. The court also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., (2012) 2 SCC 506, which emphasized the responsibility of seed suppliers to adhere to testing procedures and provide compensation for defective seeds.
Final Decision: The Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the liability was fastened jointly and severally on the petitioner and the third opposite party.
ORDER
Mrs. M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the common order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in a batch of Appeals preferred by both the farmers/complainants and the opposite parties/respondents (for short "the OP").
2. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned 12 Revision Petitions, as the facts and the law point involved is the same. For convenience, facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.1833/2015, treating it to be the lead case.
3. The complainant is an agriculturist owning 3 acres and 01 guntas of land in Survey No. 417 in Navalura village, District Dharwad. It is averred in the Complaint that it was only on the assurance of OP-2, i.e., the District Horticulture Producers, Marketing and Processing Association Ltd., that he had purchased 20 quintals of potato seeds on 16.6.2010 @ Rs. 1010/- per quintal and Receipt No.1883 was issued to him. The complainant pleaded that he had sown the subject seeds in 2 acres and 20 guntas of land and even after 15-30 days the seeds did not sprout and the complainant started digging the land and found that 60-70% of the seeds had rotted. The complainant averred that he had administered proper fertilizers and pesticides, did proper weeding and took care and caution to see that the plants were not affected by any disease. The complainant reported the loss to OP-2 and on 6.7.2010, Smt. Namitha Rahutha, Agricultrue Expert and Sh. M.J. Thotegera, Expert from the Agriculture University, Dharwad, inspected the plants and promised that suitable action would be taken but there was no response.
4. The complainant pleaded that he had made several representations on 23.7.2010, 30.8.2010, 1.9.2010 and 8.10.2010 but received no reply. Thereafter, scientist Sh. K.Ramachandra Naik, A.I. C.R.P. on Potato Zonal Horticulture Research and Extension Centre, Kumbhapur, Dharwad Karnataka University of Horticulture Sciences, Bangalkote expressed his opinion after inspecting the crop three times. There was a difference in yield of up to 70%. Subsequently, after several representations were made, OP-1 had sent notice to OP-5 on 6.1.2011 and 14.1.2011 but again no action was taken. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs. 2,11,636/- towards crop loss, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.
5. In their written version, OPs 1 and 2 contended that the potato seeds distributed to Navlur farmers of Dharwad District were supplied by OP-6, i.e. National Seeds Corporation, the petitioner herein, and were stored at Shreejee Cold Storage, Hubli, wherein the seeds were tested for fungal infection and the seeds were said to be free from any infestation. The reports of Dr. B.C. Patil and Dr. K. Ramachandra Naik do not specifically state that the reason for low germination was not because of defective seeds but in fact it was due to deep planting, heavy rains and not treating the seed tubers with suitable fungicide. Before distribution of seeds a meeting was held on 30.10.2009 under the Chairmanship of Secretary Horticulture and it was decided that National Seeds Corporation would supply 7000 quintals of certified potato tubers to the State of Karnataka out of which 778.5 quintals were distributed to the farmers of Dharwad District and the balance to the farmers of other Districts. It is contended that there is not a single complaint from farmers of Belgaum District and OPs 2 and 3 submit that there is no deficiency of service on their part.
6. In its written version, OP-3 contended that their responsibility is to supply certified seeds to the farmers and that they would never act against the interest of the farmers. It is pleaded that the same seeds had been supplied to Belgaum District but there were no
