Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Ashok Janardhan Dhumule —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1615 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 04/02/2015 in Appeal No. 603/2007 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 2.7.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shishir Alaspurkar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Appearance not marked
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajendra Gaiki, Representative
IMPORTANT POINT
Onus to prove that the seeds manufactured are of good quality lies on the manufacturer as the farmers are not expected to store some of the seeds for future testing.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and (o), 2(1)(r) 13(1)(c) – Agriculture – Seeds – Low germination – Complaint dismissed by State commission in appeal – Admittedly, seeds purchased by Complainant were developed and promoted by Seed Company which claimed and propagated that its minimum germination would be 65 % – However, seeds were of very small in dimension, dried and some seeds had minor holes in them, in it prima facie evident that seeds were of inferior quality – Seeds in question were also sent to Government Seeds Laboratory – Less germinating capacity is a negative factor for a seed to transform into a full-fledged crop – Promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved seeds, when nothing was known of its performance and other traits like grain yield, maturity period, disease and insect reaction and which failed to yield claimed and propagated produce when in adjoining fields, at the same time, gave good / higher yield, was decidedly unfair and deceptive within meaning of Section 2(1)(r) – As per Seeds Act, 1966 manufacturer is required to keep a small sample of each batch of seeds for a minimum period of time depending upon nature of seeds – There was no reason for petitioner to not have sent seeds to a laboratory for testing as per Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act – Both, ‘deficiency in service’ within meaning of Section 2(1)(g) and (o) and ‘unfair trade practice’ within meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of Act, are well and truly evinced against Seed Company – Impugned order set aside and Order of District Forum affirmed and sustained. (Paras 8, 10 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER
“It is the widespread adverse effects on farmer consumers at large noted because of unfair trade practice of promoting, getting distributed, falsely claiming and propagating high yield, in respect of untested, unapproved seeds. It is necessary to make it a priority to have a framework regarding the accountability and improvisation in seed quality in future.”
1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 04.02.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’ whereby the Appeal filed by seeds co. was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.
2. In the instant case the petitioner is complainant and the respondent no. 1 is the Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (OP-5) and the respondent no. 2, Amravati Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Samtee Ltd. is OP-3 and the OP-1 is President, OP-2 is Secretary and OP-4 is Administrator of OP-3 Samtee.
3. Brief facts are that the petitioner / complainant purchased 12 bags and 8 bags of cotton seeds of Ankur 651 lot No. 173 (5273 CS) and lot No. 171 (7213 CS) respectively on 15.06.1998 and 02.07.1998 from Amravati Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi / OP-3 and paid Rs.300/- for each bag ( total Rs.6000/-). The seeds were manufactured by Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. / OP-5. The packets of seeds were giving assurance of 65 % germination of seedlings. But after sowing in 8 acres of irrigated land only 20 % to 30 % seeds had germinated. The complainant further alleged that the lots printed on the bag were not as per the bill issued to him. Therefore he made a complaint to the Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 15/07/1998 who visited his field and carried of the inspection and found that the germination of seeds was less than 25% to 30%. The OPs did not heed any concern to the complainant’s requests, thus being aggrieved the consumer complaint was filed in the District Forum, Amravati.
4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties vide Order dated 07.03.2007 partly allowed the complaint. It directed the Seed Co. to pay Rs. 15,000/- per Acre for 8.5 Acres of land towards compensation along with interest @ 8 % p.a on the total amount from 17.08.1998 and Rs. 2,000/- as cost. The OP -1, being the Samiti dealing with sale and purchase of seeds was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 towards fine for not complying the order dated 13.07.2001 & 28.07.2003. No order was passed against the remaining OPs i.e office bearers of the OP- 1.
The District Forum observed as:
4.7 The opposite party No.1 to 3 have falsely alleged that they have taken their seeds back given earlier to complainant and handed him over other seeds. However, since beginning, opposite party has failed to prove before this Forum as to which goods / Seeds are taken by company back and which goods/seeds are given to complainant in place of earlier seeds and, therefore, it is not just, proper, legal to held the opposite party’s allegations that lot number has changed due to exchange of seeds/ goods and it caused difference.
4.8. On 17.07.1998, Agriculture Officer and Seeds Inspector Panchayat Samiti, Amravati personally visited and inspected the Farm of the complainant and accordingly prepared their report dated/ -20.07.1998 and submitted to Agriculture Officer Zilla Parishad, Amravati. The Copy of the said report is filed on record. On perusal of the said report, it reveals that concerned Officers have mentioned in report that on inspector, there is 50 % germination in 6 Acres of Field/ Gut No. 68/1 of the complainant and there is 27 % germination in 2 Acres of Gut No. 18/2. There is 80 % germination in neighbour’s foelds. Farmers have sown on 6th and 7th July and on 5th 6th and 10th July rain was recorded and at this juncture, it is submitted that it is clear that opposite party has provided Lot No. 5277 in place of 5238 and made changes w
