IMPORTANT POINT
A farmer cannot be penalized for lapse on part of concerned public servant he having done his duty by bringing the matter to notice of Agricultural Department.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a poor farmer, is not in a position to pay the costs for restoring the case. Considering the financial condition of the farmer, the said costs are waived.

2. The petitioner/complainant who is a farmer, purchased soya bean seeds from the respondent on 07.07.2011. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that the said seeds were planted in the fields using the requisite scientific methods but the germination was found to be very poor. The petitioner/complainant therefore, made a complaint to the Agricultural Department in this regard on 15.07.2011. The District Seed Grievance Committee visited his field on 19.07.2011 and reported that only 28% germination was found in the field of the complainant. Being aggrieved on account of the loss suffered by him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which inter-alia stated in its written version that low germination could be due to a number of factors such as weather conditions, moisture in soil, type of land, method of sowing and use of fertilizers. The respondent denied any responsibility for the low germination in the field of the complainant.

4. The District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the respondent to pay compensation quantified at Rs.50,000 to the complainant.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 08.04.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the inspection report does not show that the low germination was due to defect in the quality of the seeds.

6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission.

7. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the low germination was on account of quality of the seeds or on account of other factors enumerated in the written version of the respondent. No evidence was led by the respondent to prove the cause of low germination in the field of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had duly sown the seeds in his field using the scientific methods, but after a few days, he found that the germination of soya bean crop was very low. The low germination has been verified by the Agricultural Officer, who had inspected the field of the complainant on 19.07.2011. Since the complainant had taken all the requisite steps and had sown the seeds using the scientific methods, the inevitable inference in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, would be that the low germination had happened due to poor quality of the seeds. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner/complainant is a poor farmer. He did whatever he could have possibly done by making a complaint to the agricultural department. It was for the agricultural department to carry out such inspection and verification as was appropriate by it. The officers who carried out the inspection reported low germination. They did not deem it necessary to take the sample from the field of the complainant and send the same to a lab. The obvious inference would be that in their opinion, low germination was on account of the poor quality of the seeds and that was the reason they did not feel any necessity of taking samples from the field of the complainant and send the same to a laboratory.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that no notice to the respondent was given before carrying out the inspection and no attempt was made by the petitioner/complainant to send the samples of the seed to a laboratory for obtaining an expert opinion. All these issues have been considered by this Commission in a number of decisions including RP No.4314 of 2012 Coromandel International Ltd. Vs.