- (1.)M/s Mahyco Seeds Ltd., Petitioner in this case has filed the present Revision Petition against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in favour of G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents ).
(2.)The case of the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum is that he had purchased 18 packets of cotton seeds of 225 gms. each which were manufactured by the Petitioner. He sowed and nurtured the seeds by applying fertilizers and pesticides as required. He was assured that the yield per acre would be 10 quintals under normal conditions. However, although there was heavy growth of plants, there were no buds and flowers because of which he made a complaint to the Agricultural Officers and requested them to visit his fields for inspection. Agricultural Officers accordingly after inspecting the crops on 02.01.2004 opined that there was failure of crops because no buds and flowers were noticed due to genetically failed seeds resulting in total crop failure. They also opined that this was because of the manufacturing defect in the seeds of the Respondent. As a result of this, Respondent suffered heavy losses and assessed the same at Rs.2,24,000/- which he would have earned if the normal yield per acre had been 10 quintals. He, therefore, approached the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
(3.)Petitioner challenged this complaint as being false and not maintainable on various grounds. Regarding the failure of the crops allegedly due to manufacturing defects, Petitioner has denied it on the grounds that its genetic purity has been confirmed as being 98% in their own Quality Control Laboratory which is recognized by the Ministry of Science & Technology. Further, it is apparent from the Respondent s statement as well as the report of the Agricultural Officer that the crop was not sent for any scientific testing and is based only on visual inspections and conjectures. For example, the Respondent s contention that the duration of the crop is 90 days and the yield per acre would be 10 quintals are vague and baseless. In fact, the total duration of the crop is 160 to 170 days and the yield depends upon many factors including the fertility and type of land, proper use of fertilizers and pesticides, crop and water management, plant protection, environmental conditions etc. The same seeds were purchased by many farmers and there were no complaints. Even the report of the Agriculture Officer indicates that the growth was sufficient and satisfactory and the germination was good. Therefore, the question of genetic failure does not arise. Further, Respondent never approached the Petitioner with any complaints and even the inspection by the Agriculture Officer was done behind his back. On the other hand, there is evidence on record that the crops were sowed late and in a rainfed land which was not fit for this crop. The Joint Director (Agriculture) to whom the report was sent by the Agricultural Officer vide its letter dated 07.02.2004 has confirmed that it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the cotton crop as the complaint was filed after 50% of flowering stage i.e. after the crop duration of 5 months and 10 days. In other words, at the time of inspection the crops had been harvested. The entire contention of the Respondent is, therefore, fabricated and not based on facts for which the Petitioner cannot be held responsible. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that the burden was on the Petitioner to prove that the seed was not of substandard quality with genetic impurity, which the Petitioner failed to prove. The operative part of the order of the District Forum is reproduced:
10. The respondents in his case contended that the failure of the crop was due to non-observation of the instructions and recommendations and not proper using of pesticides and fertilizers and inspection report was prepared without knowledge of the respondent. At the time of visiting of the Agriculture Officer duration of crop was 160 days old and was harvested and the crop duration was completed at that time. The burden was on the respondent to prove that it was not their negligence for deficiency of service towards the complainant and the seed was not substandard with genetic impurity. There was no defect in the seed. The respondent failed to prove the same. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the loss of crop. There was no proper evidence regarding the quantum of compensation for loss of the crop of 70 quintals @ Rs.3,200/- per quintal from the complainant.