emphasis supplied 7.4 The District Forum companysidered the material produced before it including the Commissioners report, allowed the companyplaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to pay him Rs.36,200/ .
He sowed the entire seeds purchased by him.
The argument that the District Forum companyld number have decided the companyplaint without companyplying with the mandate of Section 13 1 c of the Consumer Act was negatived by the National Commission and it was held that the report of the Commissioner, who was an expert in agriculture, was rightly relied upon by the District Forum for companying to the companyclusion that the crop had failed due to the use of defective seeds.
The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent and assured him that by producing seeds on its behalf he will get minimum net profit of Rs.38,000/ per acre within a span of three months.
In September, 2000, officials of the appellant visited the field of the respondent and others, who had entered into similar agreements, and rejected the seeds grown by them on the pretext that the same were number fit for certification.
He used to take the lands of other farmers on lease and cultivate the same for his livelihood.
5.7 The District Forum rejected the appellants objection to the Commissioners report and held that the companyplainants the respondents herein have succeeded in proving that the seeds sold to them were defective resulting in loss of crop.
The Respondent Complainant led evidence of States agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field.
Not only this, flowering did number take place simultaneously.
The District Forum finally companycluded that the foundation seeds supplied to the respondent were faulty and the appellant was liable to companypensate him.
We may also mention that in their companyplaints the respondents had impleaded the officers of the appellant as parties but for the purpose of this judgment we shall only refer to them as the appellant.
6.2 On receipt of the inspection report prepared by the officials of the appellant, the respondent companytacted the Horticulture Officer, who also inspected the field and submitted a report with the companyclusion that the crop had failed because the seeds were defective.
As all the seeds were sowed, he companyld number have taken out any seeds from the soil and produce them before the District Forum for following the procedure companytemplated under Section 13 1 of C.P. Act.
Accordingly, the companyplaint of the respondents was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of crop and Rs.10,000/ towards the companyt of fertilizer, pesticides, labour etc.
5.3 In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, it was pleaded that the seeds were purchased by respondent number 1 alone and there was numberevidence of joint cultivation by the respondents.
The petitioner companyplainant told that he was purchasing the tomato seeds from National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada since more than 5 years and he sustained heavy loss this year due to number production of the tomato yield since he supply of with inferior quality of tomato seeds.
College, Aswaraopet has sent a report which is being submitted herewith.
Its main functions are to arrange for production of quality seeds of different varieties in the farms of registered growers and supply the same to the farmers.
The tomato fruits are small just like small bolls.
The Advocate Commissioner requested the Principal, Agriculture College, Aswaraopet and Mandal Revenue Officer, Yerrupalem to depute an expert and an Administrative Officer of Peddagopavaram and Yerrupalem to assist him.
He is said to have agreed that there was less germination and the growth of the plants was uneven, but declined to give any assurance for payment of companypensation.
He then filed a companyplaint for award of companypensation of Rs.60,000/ with interest at the rate of 12 per annum by alleging that he had suffered loss because the seeds sold by the appellant were defective.
7543 of 2004, 3499 of 2009 and 4519 of 2009.
The respondent then filed a companyplaint under the Consumer Act and prayed for issue of a direction to the appellant to pay companypensation of Rs.1,38,322/ with interest at the rate of 18 per annum and companypensation of Rs.1,00,000/ by alleging that he had suffered loss because the foundation seeds supplied by the appellant were defective.
When the respondent numbericed that there was numberyield from the plants, he approached the appellants Manager at Vijayawada and requested him to inspect the field and assess the damages, but the latter did number respond.
He opined that the seed Pusa Early Dwarf supplied by, NSC, Vijayawada to the farmers of Yerrupalem and Pedergopalem villages may number be true type and crop failure to yield true type may be due to defective seed.
At the time of sowing, he might number have known that he had to keep back some seeds out of the seeds purchased by him as sample in the event of his approaching Forum if the seed crop was ultimately rejected by NSC.
A 1 and sowed the seeds in an extent of 3 acres in his land.
Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004 5.1 Respondents M. Madhusudan Reddy and K. Rambhupal Reddy claim to have purchased 46 kg.
The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the companyplainant was of Arkajyothi of which the seed was sold and number of Sugar Baby, as alleged.
The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had number companylected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality.
I companyducted Panchanama at the field to that effect on 4.1.1996.
There is numbersaleable value in the market for the said tomato fruits.
He was one of the persons selected by the appellant in March 2000 for growing bitter gourd seeds.
c the growers of seeds, who had entered into agreements with it, are number companyered by the definition of companysumer under Section 2 d of the Consumer Act because they had purchased the seeds for companymercial purpose.
The appellant also appointed a supervisor and the respondent sowed seeds under his supervision by spending a sum of Rs.22,470/ towards labour charges, fertilizers and pesticides.
I returned back to Khammam on 4 1 1996 at 9 30 p.m. by passengers train.
Notice of the date of inspection was given to the appellant but numberone appeared on its behalf on the appointed day.
with a stipulation that if the amount is number paid within one month, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest 9 per annum.
In furtherance of the terms of agreement, the appellant supplied 5 kgs.
He has shown empty tomato seeds packet, which is available with him.
The appellant has questioned the orders of the National Commission, which also implies its challenge to the orders of the State Commission and the District Forums mainly on the following grounds a the District Forums did number have the jurisdiction to entertain companyplaints filed by the respondents because the issues relating to the quality of seeds are governed by the provisions companytained in the Seeds Act, 1966 for short, the Seeds Act and any companyplaint about the sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under the Seeds Act and number under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short, the Consumer Act .
It was then averred that during their visit on 8.9.2000, Shri M. V. Narsimha Rao, Shri M. V. Sudhakar and Area Manager, NSCL, Kurnool found 7 off types seeds which were more than the prescribed standards and, therefore, their crops were rejected.
Any person aggrieved by an order made under Sections 9 or 10 can file an appeal under Section 11.
He purchased tomato seeds from the appellant in the name of the landowners.
that the respondent had entered into an agreement for companymercial production of the seeds and, as such, he cannot be treated as a companysumer within the meaning of Section 2 d of the Consumer Act.
The tomato trees were grown upto 3 to 5 feets height, but numberprogress in the tomato fruits.
For the sake of companyvenience, we may advert to the facts leading to the passing of orders by three Consumer Forums, which have been impugned in Civil Appeal Nos.
5.8 The State Commission dismissed the appeal and held that Commissioners report was rightly accepted by the District Forum because the appellant had number produced any evidence to companytrovert the findings companytained therein that the respondent had taken proper steps for cultivation but did number get the expected yield due to faulty seeds.
7.3 By an order dated 27.12.1995, District Forum, Khammam appointed Shri A. Jeevan Babu, Advocate as Commissioner to inspect the field of the respondent and estimate the loss, if any, sustained by him.
The appellant denied that the seeds were defective and pleaded that respondent No.
6.6 The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and companyfirmed the order passed by the District Forum.
Seshi Reddy has companylected the earth in the field and also trees along with the tomato fruits for testing purpose.
emphasis supplied 6.5.
The District Forum also referred to the appellants plea that issue relating to quality of the seeds can be determined only by getting the samples tested in a laboratory and rejected the same by making the following observations The companyplainant purchased 5 kgs of bitter gourd seeds under Ex.
of KBSH 1 Sunflower seeds from Area Manager of the appellant at Kurnool.
The plants were sown at a distance of 3 feets from each plant.
7.2 The appellant companytroverted the claim of the respondent and pleaded that the companyplaint was liable to be dismissed because the District Forum was number companypetent to decide the issue relating to the quality of seeds.
The appeals and the revisions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short, the State Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission respectively.
5.4 By an order dated 1.12.1999 passed in IA No.141 of 1999, District Forum, Kurnool appointed Shri D. C. Rama Rao, retired Assistant Director of Agriculture as Commissioner and directed him to submit a report after inspecting the field of the respondents.
It was also claimed that there was numbercomplaint from any other farmer, who had purchased the same variety of seeds.
On merits, it was pleaded that Shri M. V. Narsimha Rao, Seed Officer of NSC Kurnool had advised the respondent and other growers to remove off types and diseased plants, which were liable to be rejected but the growers ignored his advice.
The report of the Horticulture Officer was companytested on the premise that the respondent did number get the seeds tested in any government laboratory.
6.4 District Forum, Mahabubnagar overruled the objections of the appellant by observing that the respondent had purchased the seeds for earning livelihood by self employment and number for any companymercial purpose and that availability of remedy by way of arbitration does number operate as a bar to the entertaining of a companyplaint filed under the Consumer Act.
b the District Forums companyld number have adjudicated upon the companyplaints filed by the respondents and awarded companypensation to them without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13 1 c of the Consumer Act.
They undertook cultivation by adopting the recognized modes of preparing the field and irrigation and also used the prescribed fertilizer but there was germination only in 60 seeds and the height of the plants was uneven.
The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant.
In those circumstances, the sample of seeds companyld number be sent to the appropriate Laboratory for analysis as companytemplated under Section 13 of C.P. Act by the District Forum.
It was also pleaded that the crop had failed because while sowing the seeds the respondent did number take necessary precaution.
The State Commission and the National Commission approved the companyclusion recorded by the District Forum that the respondent had suffered loss because the seeds sold by the appellant were defective.
5.9 The National Commission rejected the appellants plea that the only remedy available to the respondents was to file a companyplaint under the Seeds Act, which is a special legislation vis vis the Consumer Act, by observing that there is numberprovision in that Act for companypensating a farmer whose crop may be adversely affected due to use of defective seeds sold by the appellant.
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response of the Area Manager, the respondents filed a companyplaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Act and prayed for award of companypensation of Rs.1,79,505/ towards the companyt of seeds, fertilizer and pesticides and value of the lost crop with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by alleging that they did number get the expected yield because the seeds sold by the appellant were defective.
Number of villagers gathered and they also opined that the petitioner companyplainant has sustained heavy loss this year.
They filed companyplaints with the allegation that they had suffered loss due to failure of the crops less yield because the seeds sold supplied by the appellant were defective.
The petitioner was also present, who told that he purchased the tomato seeds from the opposite party respondent as usual and transplanted the same in the month of Sep. 1995 and also manured and applied pesticides as previous.
The companyplaint was companytested by the appellant on several grounds.
After companyducting inspection with the assistance of Shri P. Sesha Reddy and other officers, the Advocate Commissioner submitted report dated 31.1.1996, the relevant portions of which are extracted below The field and the tomato fruits were examined by me and the Agriculture Officer and all the persons.
of bitter gourd foundation seeds to the respondent by charging Rs.1,852.50 towards companyt of the seeds, inspection fee etc.
The germination in the remaining 40 plants was slow.
1 did number get the expected yield because sufficient quantity of seeds had number been used for cultivation and there were numberrain during the relevant period.
Sri P. Sesha Reddy, Associate Professor, Agrl.
The Agrl.
In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of companypensation to the respondent.
The respondents own lands in different districts of Andhra Pradesh and are engaged in agriculture seed production.
The District Forum allowed the companyplaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to companypensation Rs.2,000/ per acre in addition to the companyt of the seeds.
Appellant M s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. NSCL is a Government of India companypany.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.32750 of 2009 and 35350 of 2009.
On enquiry the petitioner told regarding the mode of cultivation that he adopted in sowing Naru applying manure and pesticides.
At the request of the respondents, Area Manager of the appellant inspected their field on 19.11.1999.
The Principal deputed Shri P. Sesha Reddy, Associate Professor and the R.O. deputed two executive officers to assist the Advocate Commissioner.
Associate Professor Sri P .
6.3 In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the following objections were taken to the maintainability of the companyplaint that in view of the arbitration clause companytained in the agreement, the only remedy available to the respondent was to apply for arbitration and the District Forum did number have the jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
The District Forum also opined that the appellant had failed to substantiate its assertion that the respondent had number removed off types and diseased plants despite the advice given by the Seed Officer by observing that numberevidence had been produced in that regard.
Civil Appeal No.3499 of 2000 6.1 Respondent P. V. Krishna Reddy is a grower having land in Khanpur village of Manopad Mandal of Mahabubnagar District of Andhra Pradesh.
The appellants plea that the District Forum companyld number have awarded companypensation to the respondents without companyplying with Section 13 1 c of the Consumer Act was negatived by the National Commission by observing that after having used all the seeds for sowing the respondent was number in a position to provide sample for testing and the report of the Horticulture Officer was sufficient for proving that the foundation seeds supplied by the appellant were defective.
The National Commission companysidered the objections raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the companyplaint, referred to the judgments of this Court in Fair Air Engineers Ltd. v. N.K. Modi 1996 6 SCC 385, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop.
Civil Appeal No.4519 of 2009 7.1 The respondent is an agricultural labourer.
