Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 210
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
SURESH – Appellant
Versus
M/S. SHYAM BEEJ BHANDAR & ANR. – Respondent
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 | REVISION PETITION NO. 1281 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rit Arora, Mr. Ankur Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari
Deficiency in seed quality constitutes a violation of consumer rights, confirmed by authoritative expert reports on agricultural products.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - The farmers purchased groundnut seeds which were later found to be mixed with inferior seeds, leading to crop failure beyond accepted thresholds - Expert committee's findings indicated significant deviation from promised quality, confirming deficiency in service of the Respondent. (Paras 5, 11, 14)
(B) Deficiency in Service - The State Commission's reversal of findings was contested as being based on conjectures, failing to substantiate its claims against the findings of the expert committee, which was grounded on thorough inspections and credible evidence. (Paras 9, 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
Farmers claimed that purchased seeds were not of the promised quality. After inspections, an expert committee reported significant deficiencies in the seeds, leading to the farmers filing complaints. The District Forum initially ruled in favor of the farmers, citing lack of quality in the seeds. However, the State Commission overturned that decision.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the State Commission's decision lacked evidential basis and was based on assumptions, confirming the District Forum's order which established liability on the Respondent for supplying substandard seeds.
Issues: The core issues included whether the seeds were of inferior quality and whether external factors contributed to crop failure. The Court addressed the burden of proof regarding the seed quality and external influences.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court unequivocally stated that the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the quality assertions and that the expert committee's findings were definitive in establishing the deficiency in service. The conclusion drawn was that the State Commission's ruling was baseless and contradicted established evidence.
Result: Order of the State Commission is hereby set aside and the order of the District Forum is confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of inferior seed quality lead to consumer disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence supports claims of deficiencies in supplied goods. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments based on conjectures challenge the state commission's findings. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. arguments regarding the evidence and findings. (Para 7) |
| 5. main issues revolve around quality of seeds and growing conditions. (Para 9) |
| 6. court's reasoning affirms district's finding of liability for inadequate goods. (Para 12 , 13) |
Vide this order I propose to dispose of the above-mentioned Revision Petitions since the common questions of law and facts are involved in all these Revision Petitions. These Revisions Petitions are arising out of the common order of the State Commission dated 04.04.2019. Vide the impugned order the State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum dated 28.08.2018 and dismissed all the Complaints. Aggrieved by the order present Revision Petitions have been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners (hereinafter called the ‘farmers’) are farmers by profession and had been toiling the agricultural land since long. They had purchased groundnut seeds of the quality Tag 37A from the Respondent. Their contention was that the Respondents had at the time of purchase of the seeds, assured them that the seeds were of superior quality and the crops will completely ripe within 100-110 days. They had also alleged that after sowing the seeds they had applied the pesticides and took proper care but when they noticed that the seeds have not developed even after 100 days. They all then filed a joint complaint before Collector, Alwar. A Committee of the officers of the Agriculture Department was formed and the inspection of the crops was done. The Committee, in its report, had concluded that out of the seeds sowed 8 to 10% of the produce were found to be of some other species and the plants which had grown out of the seeds of TAG 37A all the pods had not developed fully which concluded deficiency on the part of the Respondents. The farmers filed the Complaint on the basis of the report.
3. The Opposite Party filed its written version wherein they had denied that the seeds supplied was of lower quality. It was contended that the Complainants had not disclosed the dates when they sowed the seeds. It was further contended that on the day of inspection barely 100 days were over and that as per the quality of the seeds the crop could have been obtained only after 100 to 110 days of sowing. They had also taken the plea that the excessive rain poured during that period is also the reason for the less produce. They had denied that there was any deficiency on their part.
4. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum on the basis of the evidences on record and after hearing the arguments of the parties concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.
5. The District Forum has based its findings on the report of the expert committee. It has reached to the conclusion that since the expert committee had clearly held in their report that the plants grown from different type of seeds of plants were found in the field where TAG37A was sowed clearly shows that all the seeds supplied were not of the quality of TAG 37A but it had mixture of other seeds as well and that amounted to deficiency. The District Forum has also relied on the report of the expert committee wherein the Committee has observed that in a single plant grown from seeds of TAG 37 A only 5% of the pods were found completely developed and the remaining pods were semi-developed. The element of damages to the extent of 20 to 25% in the crops due to heavy rains as observed by expert committee was considered and the losses suffered by the farmers was calculated and relief was granted.
6. These findings when challenged by the Respondent before the State Commission, the State Commis
