Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Mahaboob Sab and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2357, 2358 and 2359 of 2014
Decided on 21.11.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, Advocate with Ms Nandini Tomar, Advocate
For the Respondent in RP No.2357-2359 of 2014 - Respondent No.1:Mr Gurudatta Ankolekar, Advocate with Mr Nihant Paniker, Advocate
For the Respondent in RP Nos.2357-2358 of 2014 - Respondent Nos.2 - 3: Ex parte vide order dated 04.05.2017
For the Respondent in RP No.2359 of 2014 - Respondent No.2: Ex parte vide order dated 04.05.2017
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) The test undertaken in its own laboratory by the petitioner cannot, however, be considered acceptable as per section 13 (i) (c) of the Act. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act mandates that an ‘appropriate laboratory’ is either a laboratory of the Central or State government or one certified by it.
(2) Sample of Seed - In the absence of the sample of seeds being available or its test results being from an ‘appropriate laboratory’, an alternative method is the only option of testing the quality of seeds.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] - Revision against order of State Commission – Goods – ‘appropriate laboratory’ - Poor quality seeds – Test done in non-approved / ‘appropriate laboratory’ laboratory – Reliability of Report – onus of proof of poor quality seeds – on Petitioner - There was a low crop yield in the cotton seeds sown by the respondent no. 1 - In the absence of any sample of seeds from the lot sown being available with the respondent, the onus of proving that the quality of seeds was good has been argued by the respondent to have shifted to the petitioner. The test undertaken in its own laboratory by the petitioner cannot, however, be considered acceptable as per section 13 (i) (c) of the Act. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act mandates that an ‘appropriate laboratory’ is either a laboratory of the Central or State government or one certified by it. In the absence of the sample of seeds being available or its test results being from an ‘appropriate laboratory’, an alternative method is the only option of testing the quality of seeds. By having approached the concerned technical experts of the agriculture department, the respondent can be considered to have discharged the primary onus cast upon him. From the available records, the basis for the petitioner’s contention that the advice of the officers of the Agriculture Department, was not followed by the respondent is not available on record - The issue of testing of seeds as well as onus to prove that the seeds were of poor quality or of good quality lies on petitioner – impugned orders confirmed – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 9 to 15]
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Subhash Chandra—These revision petitions are filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assailing the orders of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal Nos. 1886 of 2011 dated 07.02.2014, 3510 of 2011 dated 07.02.2014 and 3550 of 2011 dated 07.02.2014 filed against orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haveri (in short, ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaints no.2 of 2011 dated 16.05.2011, 17 of 2011 dated 09.09.2011 and 10 of 2011 dated 19.05.2011 respectively.
2. The facts in the three petitions are identical inasmuch as they relate to alleged deficiency in quality of cotton seeds sold by the petitioner leading to poor yields resulting in complaints and appeals for compensation before the lower fora. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from RP No. 2357 of 2014 based upon the State Commission’s order in Appeal No. 1886 of 2011.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 sowed cotton seeds on his agricultural fields in village Hiremugadur of Savanur Taluk in 2010-2011. The seeds were procured from respondent no. 2, the authorized seller of cotton seeds manufactured by Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner. 7 bags of seeds of Rasi II Cotton at a cost of Rs.4550/- were purchased for planting in 7 acres of land. Due to poor growth of crop, at the request of the respondent, the crop was inspected by the staff of the Agriculture Department, Savanur taluk who advised that pesticide treatment be undertaken. Accordingly, respondent no.2 sprinkled pesticide and removed the weeds in the cotton crop twice incurring a cost of Rs.14,000/-. At the time of sale of the cotton seeds, respondent nos.2 and 3 had informed the petitioner that from this seed would yield a minimum of 15 to 18 quintals of cotton crop per acre. However, due to the poor quality of seeds only 10-12 quintals of yield was harvested. The complainant sustained a loss of 5-6 quintals which was estimated at Rs.3,15,000/- on the basis of the market price. Respondent has therefore alleged deficiency in service as per section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. On 06.01.2011 the respondent no. 1 preferred a complaint before the District Forum which came to be dismissed on 16.05.2011 on the ground that deficiency on part of the petitioner was not proved since there was no evidence produced to the effect that pesticides/micronutrients and chemicals had been sprayed as advised by the Agriculture Officer, Hattimattur, and the test report produced by the petitioner from his own laboratory had indicated that the seeds were 99.9% of good quality. Respondent no. 1 then approached the State Commission in appeal on 20.06.2011. This appeal was allowed on 07.02.2014 with directions to pay Rs 1,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses..
5. The petitioner is before us impugning this order on the grounds that the State Commission erred in putting the onus on the petitioner to get the seeds tested and the burden of proof to prove that the seeds were not defective. It is urged that the State Commission erred in not accepting the report of the Agriculture Officer, Hattimattur, which had been accepted by the District Forum and the fact that the petitioner had proved on the basis of testing of the seeds in its laboratory that the seeds were not defective, since a negative cannot be proved in law. It is argued that the State Commission erred in determining the loss without there being any basis for it on record. It is also argued that the impugned order overlooked the fact that the Agriculture Officer, Hattimattur, had advised the respondent to undertake various chemical treatments and that the same had not been done. It is therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order of the State Commission with costs.
6. The State Commission’s or
