IMPORTANT POINT
Sale of Seeds – Selling the seeds, without mentioning batch number, lot number or tag number, etc., is gross deficiency of services, as well as unfair trade practice.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member.—This Revision Petition is filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.12.2015 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“State Commission) arising from First Appeal No. 241/2015 filed by the Revision Petioner/Complainant and First Appeal No. 223/2015 filed by the Respondent No 1/Opposite Party.

2. The Revision Petitioner is an agriculturist engaged in agriculture in district Sirsa of Haryana. He had claimed Rs.12,80,000/- for loss of guar crop, including Rs.2,00,000/- for cultivation costs and for harassment from the Respondents who are the National federation of farmers’ cooperatives on the ground that the seed sold to him by the Respondent No. 3 in 2012 was mixed with seeds of other varieties. He approached the District Forum, Sirsa in CC 6 of 2013 which awarded him a compensation of Rs.1,62,368/- for crop loss and Rs.5,000/- for harassment vide order dated 10.02.2015. His appeal No. 241/2015 before the State Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission” for short) claiming that the amount awarded was very meagre was turned down vide order dated 18.12.2015. Appeal No 223/2015 of the Respondents challenging the order of the District Forum, Sirsa was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside. Aggrieved, he is before this Commission with the following prayer:

(i) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may be accepted, the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal no. 223 of 2015 and 241 of 2015 may set aside and may be modified and the compensation should have been awarded and enhanced to the amount claim in the original complaint in the interest of justice and equity;

(ii) To pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant/Revision Petitioner had purchased 10 packets of guar seeds (HG 563 variety) on 8.6.2012 for Rs.40,000/- from Respondent No 3 for sowing on 20 acres of his agricultural land. The Complainant’s case is that although the planting of the guar seed was done as per instructions, there was very poor germination of seeds and a crop of mixed varieties resulted. He made several efforts with the Respondents to undertake an inspection of his crop and compensate him for the poor crop. However, this was to no avail and he finally approached the State Agriculture Department. In September 2012 the Agriculture Department ordered a joint inspection by the Agriculture Development Officer, Dadu and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Odhan on 12.09.2012. As per the report of the Agriculture Department, it was found that the crop was a mixed crop of jowar, moong and nagar crops with assorted growth with the guar crop being stunted and/or with non-uniform growth of side branches. Crop loss of guar was assessed by the Agriculture Department at 30%. The extent of the area sown was 18 ½ acres as per the assessment of the Revenue authorities.

4. Calculating the loss in terms of cash value, for 9 acres of the 20 acres sown, based upon the expected yield of 13 quintals per acre and market value of the crop @ Rs.54,000/- per quintal as per the prevalent market price for guar that year, the Complainant/RP has claimed crop loss of Rs.10,80,000/-. In addition, he has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for cultivation costs and Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, i.e. a total compensation of Rs.12,80,000/- from the Respondents.

5. The Respondent Opposite parties had jointly contested the claim before the District Forum, Sirsa. They pleaded that the seeds were of a high standard and quality and that crop loss may be attributable to a variety of reasons other than the quality of seeds, such as soil and water quality. The Agriculture department’s report was also contested as it did not mention revenue details of the fields stated to have been inspected. It was av