Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 615
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3330 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:
Seed suppliers must prove seed quality when facing complaints of adulteration, as farmers cannot typically retain samples for testing.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(1)(c) - Agricultural seeds - The complainant purchased seeds which were adulterated as per the inspection report, leading to failed crop yield - Manufacturer's liability established when no adequate rebuttal was provided against the complaint - The complainant’s approach for compensation was justified as the respondent failed to prove quality of seeds. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Inspection Reports - Validity in Consumer Complaints - Direct inspection by agricultural experts holds sufficient grounds for a complaint, even in the absence of prior notice to the manufacturer - It is the responsibility of the seed supplier to provide samples for analysis if they dispute claims of seed quality. (Paras 14-20)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleges that seeds purchased were adulterated, leading to a poor crop yield; a government inspection confirmed 30% adulteration. The complaint was upheld by District Forum and State Commission, prompting this revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no merit in the petitioner's revision and upholds the decisions of lower fora regarding the defective seeds.
Issues: Main issues include the adequacy of the seed quality inspection and the responsibility of the supplier to provide evidence against claims of adulteration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the duty of seed suppliers, asserting that they must provide conclusive evidence to refute claims against seed quality when facing consumer complaints, especially when farmers are often unable to retain samples for testing.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. purchase of defective seeds and alleged adulteration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. district forum's response to consumer complaint. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against inspection report. (Para 5) |
The complainant / respondent purchased 30 Kg. of rice seeds of Variety PB 1509 from the Sale Point of the petitioner on 18.5.2016 for a price of Rs.1350/-. The seeds were sown by him in three acres of his agricultural land, incurring an expenditure of Rs.10,000/- per acre on fertilizers, pesticides etc. According to the complainant in the fourth week of August, 2016, he found mixture of odd variety in fields and even the balance was different in height. Alleging adulteration in the seeds, he requested the petitioner to inspect his fields, but no such inspection was carried out. The complainant thereupon requested Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepat to inspect his crop. A team of experts accordingly inspected the fields of the complainant on 19.9.2016 and found that 30% plants were of the variety PB 1121 and only 70% of the plants were of the variety PB 1509. The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation from the petitioner.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner alleging in its reply that the crop was dependent upon several factors, including seed quality, agro climate condition, type of soil, water and irrigation facility and effective use of fertilizers etc. It was also stated in the reply that the Haryana State Seed Certification Agency had issued a certificate dated 30.3.2016, certifying the quality of the seeds.
3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint and having directed to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per acre to the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
4. A perusal of the inspection report prepared by a team of four persons, including quality control inspector would show that when the said team inspected the fields of the complainant on 19.9.2016, only 70% of the crop was found to be of the variety PB 1509 and there was adulteration to the extent of 30%. It was also noted by the said team that the seeds had been purchased by the complainant form the petitioner on 18.5.2016 and had Batch No. October-15-07-06-03. It was also reported by the said team that the complainant had suffered loss since he will have to get the harvesting done twice and will also be deprived of the sugarcane crop in the next season besides getting less price for the crop on account of the adulteration found by the team.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice to the petitioner was issued by the team before carrying out the inspection and therefore, the said report was a unilateral report. He also submits that no effort was made by the complainant to send the seeds to a Laboratory for analysis to show that there was adulteration in the seeds purchased by him. Such contentions came to be considered by this Commission in RP/1033/2015 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Singh Chandan Singh Saddiwal & Anr. & connected matters decided on 14.01.2016 and the following view was taken:
“17. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the complainants did not request the District Forum to send the samples of the seeds purchased by them to a laboratory, in terms of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and in the absence of analysis by an appropriate laboratory, as defined in Section 2(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum and the State Commission were not justified in holding that the seeds purchased by the complainants were defective. We however, find no merit in the contention. A farmer purchases the seeds for the purpose of using them in his fields and while sowi
