The admissibility of expert reports as evidence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the liability of the seed company for defective seeds.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shriram Fertilisers and Chemicals against the order dated 13.12.2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No. 1947 of 2008.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.6.2006, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents namely late Mr. Badri Prasad (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Prasad") had purchased 12 packets of Hybrid Millet Seeds 8510 for a sum of Rs. 2,700 from the respondent No. 2. It has been alleged that Mr. Prasad sowed the said seeds purchased from the respondent No. 2 in the land measuring 19.5 Bighas. Moreover, it has been further alleged that the crops which had germinated out of the said seeds after attaining the heights of 2-3 feet started falling towards the land and the leaves started falling and in place of strands, balls cropped up and the entire crop of 19.5 Bighas were spoiled due to the defective seeds produced and sold by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 respectively. Thereafter on 2.8.2006 Mr. Prasad moved an application before the Agriculture Superintendent, Village and Post Bhajenda and the field of Mr. Prasad was got inspected by him as he had directed the Assistant Agriculture Officer Sh. Brijwasi Meena to inspect the field. On 4.8.2006, said Sh. Brijwasi Meena inspected the fields and has prepared the report and it was inter alia reported that the crops had been damaged by 90% which was due to defective seeds. Mr. Prasad filed a Complaint No. 5 of 2007 before the District Consumer Forum, Karauli, (in short 'the District Forum') under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 5.3.2008, the Petitioner filed its written statement and denied the averments made by Mr. Prasad in his Complaint. It has been clearly submitted that the Hybrid Seed 8510 is a good quality seed and till date no complaint has been received apropos to the said variety of hybrid seed.

3. The District Forum, allowed the complaint No. 5/07 vide its order dated 22.9.2008 as under :

"Hence complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby ordered to pay Rs. 85,500 as the loss of the crop, Rs. 15,000 for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint to the complainant and compensation of Rs. 10 lacs under Section 14 HB of C.P. Act for unknown consumers which on being paid be deposited in Consumer Welfare fund, Jaipur."

4. Aggrieved with the order dated 22.9.2008 of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was partly allowed vide its order dated 13.12.2010 as follows:

"Consequently the appeal is hereby allowed partly. The order of learned District Forum, Karauli is upheld upto the extent of giving of Rs. 85,500 as loss of crop, Rs. 15,000 mental agony and Rs. 1,000 cost of complaint and the order of simple cost of Rs. 10,00,000 is set aside. Rs. 25,000 have got been deposited while filing appeal on behalf of appellant which be set off from the amount given to the complainant with earned benefits. 30 days' time is given from today for the compliance of remaining order."

5. The opposite parties/petitioners have filed the present revision petition against the order dated 13.12.2010 of the State Commission.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that no notice was given to the petitioner seeds company by the Inspecting Officer or the complainant at the time of inspection. Hence, the report of the Inspecting Officer of the Agriculture department on 4.8.2006 is unilateral and this report cannot be taken as binding on the petitioners. The inspection should have been made before both the parties.

8. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Inspecting Officer has given his report only on the basis of visual inspection and no laboratory tests have be