NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Suresh and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
M/s. Shyam Beej Bhandar and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.1275 of 2019, Revision Petition No.1276 of 2019, Revision Petition No.1277 of 2019, Revision Petition No.1278 of 2019, Revision Petition No.1279 of 2019, Revision Petition No.1280 of 2019 and Revision Petition No.1281 of 2019
Decided on 19.3.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
“Seeds hold to farmers since found not of high quality amounts to deficiency in service.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – Seeds – Inferior quality – Claim for – Petitioners-farmers purchased groundnut seed of the quality TAG-37-A from the respondent – Seeds have not developed even after 100 days – Impugned finding of District Forum that all the seeds supplied were not of the quality of TAG-37-A but it had mixture of other seeds as well and that amounted to deficiency – State Commission ruled out any deficiency in service on part of respondent – Hence these revision petitions – Nothing brought on record by respondent to show that seeds were not sown 100 or 110 days prior to the date of inspection of the Agricultural Committee – Other types of seeds found to had been mixed and sold to farmers – Seeds supplied to farmers were not of high quality – Deficiency in service on part of respondent proved – Impugned order of State Commission set aside – Order of District Forum restored.

Held: There are two issues in this case. First is whether the seeds sold by the Respondent to the farmers were of inferior quality as claimed by farmers and secondly whether the seeds had not grown fully due to excessive rain and the onslaught of Tika disease and not enough time passed as claimed by the respondent. When the farmers noted that their produce is not coming up to the mark they had made a complaint to the District Collector, Alwar on 04.10.2013.

It is apparent that at the time the inspection was done and the report was given to the representatives of the Respondents, they could have contended before the Committee that 100-110 days had not expired and, therefore, the produce is not fully matured. Therefore, the plea taken in the W.S. to this effect that 100-110 days had not expired from the date of sowing of the seeds is an after-thought. Also no evidence is led by the respondents to prove that seeds were not sown 100 or 110 days prior to the date of inspection. The findings of the State Commission on this count is based on conjecture and surmises. The inspection was done in the presence of the representatives of the Respondent and the Respondents despite having the occasion to raise objections did not raise any objection means that they had accepted the findings of the expert committee. The expert committee on inspection of the seeds clearly found that in the field besides the TL(Truth Full) and TAG 37A there were other types of plants which had grown. The argument of Ld. Counsel that the findings of the State Commission that the plants of other quality had been sown by the farmers has no basis and is totally a figment of imagination. It is against common sense that a farmer who had invested such a large amount in seeds of superior quality would temper their produce by mixing other types of seeds. Also there is no evidence produced by the Respondents that it is the farmers who had sown other types of seeds along-with the seeds which the Respondents had supplied to the farmers. That the other types of plants had also grown in the field conclusively proves that the seeds which the Respondent had sold to the farmers as a superior quality seeds had contained other types of seeds. They had done the adulteration in the seeds by mixing other types of seeds with the seeds they had sold to the farmers. The expert committee has also stated in the report that seed producing company is responsible for packaging, therefore, it is the Respondent No. 1 who is solely responsible for the contents in the packet. This fact clearly indicates deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No.1 and, therefore, the findings to the contrary by the State Commission is nothing but conjecture and surmises and so perverse.

Regarding the quality of the seeds which the Respondent No. 1 have supplied to the farmers the experts have observed on examining the pods of the plants grown from the seeds supplied by the Respondent that in the plant all the pods were not fully developed. They found that few of the pods developed fully on a plant. The fact that few of the pods developed on a plant further falsify the contention of the Respondent that 100-110 days have not elapsed from the date of sowing. Had the 110/110 days not been elapsed from the day of sowing of the seeds till the date of inspection of the expert committee would not have found even a single fully developed pod on a plant. This factum shows that seeds were not of the quality as promised and substandard quality of seeds, mixed with other type of seeds were sold in packet. It also amounts to selling defective goods and unfair trade practices.

13. The effect of the rain, heat and Tika disease had also been considered by the expert committee and in order to consider all the effect of these factors the expert committee had examined other fields which had grown other types of seeds, and has observed that these factors are responsible to a loss of 20 to 25%. The expert committee had examined groundnut fields having quality of seeds other than TAG 37A and found that the loss occurred to those fields are only 20 to 25% and the loss estimated to the produce of TAG 37A was of 40 to 45%. This further shows that the seeds supplied to the farmers by the Respondents were not of high quality and this further amounts to deficiency in service. (Paras 10 to 13)

Result: Petition Disposed of.