1 F.A.No.

:472-20

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Date of filing: 04/10/2018

Date of Order: 26/02/2021

FIRST APPEAL NO.: 406 OF 2018

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 15OF 2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD

VNR Seeds Pvt. Limited,

Through its Regional Business Manager&
Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Santosh Singh
R/o. Corporate Centre, Canal Road Crossing,
Ring Road No.1, Raipur-492006.
…..……Appellant

-VERSUS-

1. Balu S/o. Bhanudas Jagdale

R/o. Janephal, Tq.Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.

2. Virsai Krushi Seva Kendra

Through Yogsh s/o. Dhupa Borde(shop owner)
R/o. Janephal, Tq.Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad …….…Respondents

Coram :
Smt. S. T. Barne, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. K. M. Lawande, Hon`ble Member

Present:
Adv. V.P.Barje/P.S. Barje, for appellant
Adv. Borde, for respondent No.1
 2 F.A.No.:472-20

- :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
(Delivered on 26.02.2021)

Per Shri. K. M. Lawande, Hon’ble Member

(1) Being aggrieved by the judgement and order of District

Consumer Redressal Forum, Aurangabad in Consumer
complaint No.15/2018 dt.31/08/2018, respondent VNR Seeds,
Raipur has filed this appeal.
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

(2) The appellant was the the opponent No. 1 and

respondent number 2 was the opponent No.2 and respondent
number 1 was the complainant in the consumer complaint
no.15/2018.The appellant and respondents are hereinafter
referred to, as per their original status in the consumer
complaint and the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum
is referred to as District Forum for the sake of convenience.
(i) It is the case of complainant Shri Balu Bhanudas Jagdale,
that he purchased five bags (each bag of 4 kgs ) of seeds of
Maize of 4325 variety, lot No.HI 90245 from opponent No. 2
on 15/05/2017 and paid Rs. 5,600/- . Allegedly the seed is
manufactured by opponent No. 1 seed company. The
complainant sowed the seeds on 8/6/2017 in 3 acres of his
field gat no.95 which is having irrigation facility in Hilalpur
Shiwar village of Vaijapur Tahsil. The complainant also took
care of the crop by applying fertilizers and insecticides. It is
contended that, though there was proper growth of the crop,
the maize plants, it did not bear the cobs/earheads. The
complainant is deceived by the opponent by supplying bogus
/duplicate seeds.
 3 F.A.No.:472-20

(ii)The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs. 30,000/- per

acre towards operation of land, sowing charges, fertilisers and
insecticides. The complaint was made to the Sub Divisional
Officer Vaijapur.

(iii)The team of experts visited the field and drew panchnama

on 10/10/2017. The Committee observed that the seeds supplied
to the complainnat were 100% bogus/duplicate
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

(iv) The complainant has also sent legal notice to opponents ,

however the notice is not replied by them. The complainant has
filed consumer complaint before the District Forum for
Compensation of Rs. 4,84,000/- , Rs. 25,000/- towards mental
agony and Rs.25000/-towards physical harassment.

3. The opponent No.1, seed company filed their written

statement before the District Forum and denied the all adverse
allegations as to deficiency in service on their part. It is
contended that the complainant has not come with clean hands
in filing of the complaint and he has suppressed material facts,
and has filed a false complaint with an intention of grabbing
money from the opponent seed company. It is admitted that the
opponent no.1 is a seed manufacturing company engaged in
Maize seed production. However, it is denied that the
respondent no. 2 is their authorised dealer. The purchase of
seeds from opponent No. 2 on 08 /06/2017 by complainant is
denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that the complainant
has sown seeds in his 3 acres of land in Hilalpur Shiwar village
and has taken all precautions and incurred expenses of Rs.
30,000/- per acre for sowing and other operations and for
fertilizers and insecticides. The allegation of selling defective
 4 F.A.No.:472-20

seeds against opponent denied. It is denied that the complainant

has made a complaint to sub divisional officer Vaijapur and the
team of Agricultural officers inspected the field of complainant
on 10/10/2017 and the team concluded that the maize seeds of
the opponent company are 100% bogus or duplicate.
The Inspection report is prepared behind the back of the
opponent company and there was no intimation to the opponent
company about the inspection of the field. The allegation of loss
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

of 70 quintals crop of maize per acre for 3 acres, total 210

quintals and thereby loss of income of Rs.2,94,000/- is also
denied. The claim towards mental agony and physical
harassment is also denied. It is denied that, there is joint and
several liability of opponent No. 1 with opponent No.2.

4. In additional reply it is stated that the opponent is a

registered and reputed seed manufacturing company engaged in
manufacturing of seeds of different crops, having its branches all
over India, and one of its branches at Aurangabad. The
opponent company has a qualified and trained team in the
quality department, the research and development centres are
recognised by the Department of Science and Industrial
Research of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The seed
/product of the opponent company is tested and approved by
the competent authorities under the seeds act. The Maize variety
VNR 4325 is a popular and demanded variety in Aurangabad
area. The opponent has sold large quantities of seeds in the
district. There is no single complaint regarding quality and
performance of this variety. At the time of sale of product, the
company provides necessary information in respect of sowing of
the seeds and use of fertilizer to their consumers. The particular
VNR 4325 seed is marketed after proper completion of testing
 5 F.A.No.:472-20

.The opponent No. 2 is not the authorised dealer of the

opponent No.1 company. He is not provided with any
instructions by the company. The opponent No. 2 has no
authority to sell the seeds of the opponent seed company to
any customer. For any loss to the complainant, opponent No. 2
is only liable . The alleged loss to the complainant is not due to
defect to seeds of the company but due to want of proper
precautions on the part of complainant himself. The opponent
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

company has no knowledge in which condition the opponent

no.2 has sold the seed to the complainant. There are no
complaints for the seed sold from the same lot of seed to other
farmers.

5. The contention of opponent number 2 is gathered from

the impugned judgement of District Forum.It is contended that
the opponent No. 2 has purchased Maize seed ,VNR 4325
variety of batch number 90245 on 15/05/2017 from the
authorised wholesale dealer of the opponent No.1 company
vide delivery challan number 137, bill number 137 and has sold
this seed to complainant. It is contended that the opponent No.1
is only liable for the defects in the Seed .

6. The District Forum, vide their order dt.31/08/2018

allowed the complaint partly against the opponent No. 1 seed
company and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 61425/- to the
complainant within 30 days of the order. Being aggrieved by the
impugned judgement and order, the opponent No. 1 /seed
company has filed this appeal.

7. Advocate Mrs V.P. Barje appeared for the number 1 /

seed company. Advocate A.J.Borude appeared for the
 6 F.A.No.:472-20

complainant .The appeal is proceeded exparte against opponent

No. 2.

8. From the respective submissions of the parties, following

points arose for our determination. We have noted and
answered them for the reasons to follow.

Sr.No. POINT ANSWER

| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

(i) Whether the opponent seed In the negative.

company imparted with deficiency
in service towards the complainant?

(ii) Whether, there requires interference Yes.

In the judgment and order of
District Consumer Forum?

(iii) what order? As per final order

REASONING

Point No.1to 3

(9). The learned Advocate for the opponent No.1 argued that,
the opponent No.1 is a reputed company involved in seed
production business. The company keeps strict adherence to the
quality norms as per Seeds Act, 1966. The quality report of the
lot is produced by the opponent at page 71 of appeal
compilation. The report states 98% purity of seeds, genetic purity
95%, germination % 90. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the
company brought defective produce in the market for selling.
The inspection report prepared by Agricultural Dept. officers is
very defective. They have inferred that the seeds sustained with
genetic defects. However, they are not competent to derive such
inference by visual observation only. Such inference can be
drawn by testing the seeds in laboratory only. The Hon’ble
 7 F.A.No.:472-20

National Commission in Mahyco Seeds Ltd., v. Venkata Subba

Reddy in R.P.No2046/2007 decided on 23/05/2011 observed
that inference on genetic defect cannot be brought by visual
inspection. The opponent No.2 is not their dealer. The liability
for the action of opponent No.2 cannot be fastened on opponent
No.1. The opponent No.2 had not passed on instructions to
complainant properly regarding application of fertiliser doses,
insecticide use and irrigation. The inspection report also reveals
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

that there was no irrigation facility to the crop. The complainant

failed to apply fertilisers and insecticides. The loss to the crop is
due to poor crop management of complainant. The National
Commission has also observed these aspects in the judgment in
Syngenta v. P. Chowdia case in RP/1451-1489 of 2011 decided
on 31/07/2013. The expert committee has not extended
opportunity of representation to opponent for the inspection and
violated the principle of natural justice. In the absence of
opportunity of representation at the time of inspection, the report
cannot be read against opponent No.1. The Hon’ble National
Commission in the same judgment has also held the necessity of
giving opportunity to the Seed company and dealer in such cases
and in the absence of giving opportunity to concerned, it is held
that complainant cannot derive any benefit. The said judgment is
squarely applicable to the case in hand. The witness of opponent
No.2 alleged dealer is also suspicious. There is variation in his
signatures in his letter to Registrar, District Forum and signature
shown in the inspection report. The District Consumer Forum
awarded the compensation of Rs.61,425/- to complainant
payable by opponent No.1, however it has no basis or
explanation in arriving to their amount. The appeal deserves to
be allowed.
 8 F.A.No.:472-20

(10) The Ld. Advocate Shri.Borude argued for the complainant

that the complainant purchased maize seeds of 4325 variety of
lot No.90245, 5 bags of 4 kg from opponent No.2. The seed is
the manufactured by opponent No.1. The complainant had
taken every care of irrigating the crop, applying fertilizer doses
and insecticides. However, though the crop was grown, there
was bearing of 4-5 cobs without grain filling. The complainant
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

sustained 100% loss due to defective seeds supplied by

opponents. He has made complaint to Sub-Divisional
Agricultural Officer. The expert committee visited the field of
complainant and drawn panchanama and inferred supply of
defective seeds with genetic issue. The committee assessed loss
of Rs.61,425/-. The complainant has filed his case before District
Forum for compensation of Rs.4,84,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- for
mental agony and Rs.25,000/- for physical agony. The order of
District Forum is based on merit. The District Forum has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective of law. The
appeal of opponent No.1 does not have any merit and deserves
to be dismissed.

(11). (i) We have perused the documents on record filed by the

respective parties. The receipt/bill of purchase of 5 bags
weighing of 4 kg each of VNR 4325 variety of maize dated
8.6.2017 is on record at pg.94 of appeal compilation. The bill for
Rs.5,600/- is issued by Veer Sai Krishi Seva Kendra, Janephal
Tal. Vaijapur (opponent No.2) in favour of complainant. There
is a delivery challan towards purchase of 30 cases, each having 8
bags of 4 kgs of VNR 4325 maize variety which is dated
15.5.2017, issued in favour of opponent No.2 by one Jay
Gajanan Krushi Seva Kendra at New Mondha Aurangabad (at
 9 F.A.No.:472-20

page No.93). There is also a bill/invoice regarding of alleged

seed which is dt.15.5.2017 which is at pg. No.95 of appeal
compilation showing purchase of VNR 4395 variety seed of 240
bags by opponent No.2 from M/s Jay Gajanan Srishi Seva
Kendra. The opponent is contending that opponent No.2 is not
their dealer and any act done by opponent no.2 is not binding on
them. It is also contended by opponent No.1 that the necessary
instructions for application of fertilizers and insecticides are not
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

passed on by opponent No.2, which are otherwise issued in the

form of manual by opponent No.1. The opponent No.2 in his
reply before the District Forum has replied that he has purchased
the alleged seed from M/s. Authorized dealer Jay Gajanan
Krushi Seva Kendra Aurangabad and liability towards loss rests
with the manufacturer company. We agree with the contention
of opponent No.1 that the liability of any sell of the product by
opponent No.2 cannot be fastened on opponent No.1 in the
absence of any established contract between them.

(ii). However, the Ld. Advocate for opponent drawn our

attention to the quality report of seed of same lot of variety. We
have also perused the copy of packet of 4325 variety supplied by
opponent No.1 which stated that the seed in the packet confirms
to the minimum limits of germination and purity of prescribed
under the Seeds Act, 1966. The copy is at page No.75 (rear side)
of the appeal compilation. The Ld. Advocate of the opponent
also referred to statement on genetic purity which is shown as
95%, purity of seed as 98% and germination (minimum) % as
90% which is for the same lot HI 90245 tested in survey which is
annexed at page No.77 of appeal compilation.

(iii). There is allegation of supply of defective seeds to

complainant by opponents. The panchanama done by the
 10 F.A.No.:472-20

Agricultural Department shows that the maize plants bears 4 to 5

earheads/cobs at one place without filling of grains to them. The
said observation is recorded by the committee in findings column
No.16 in the inspection report which is at pg.no.47 of appeal
compilation. The column No.11(5) and 12 of the inspection
report also stated use of defective seeds and absence of 100%
fruiting/ grain filling in the crop.

(iv). The Ld. Advocate for the opponent No.1 contended that
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

the expert team cannot decide or give findings on genetic defects

as these defects can be verified by the competent laboratory only.
For that the Ld.advocate also relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble National Commission in Mahyco Seeds Ld. V. Venkata
Subba Reddy & others, in R.P. 2046 of 2007 wherein the
Hon’ble Commission held that genetic defects in seeds cannot be
detected through visual inspection and would need to be tested
in a scientific laboratory. It thus reveals that the observations or
findings of inspecting team as to genetic defects which are at
page No.47 are without any basis.

(v). We have also perused the inspection report which is at

pg.no.43 to 47 of appeal compilation for other observations as
pointed out by opponent No.1 it reveals that the information on
crop protection as to measures is Nil in column 9 of the report.
The irrigation facility made available is Nil in the report as stated
in column 9(6) at p.18. The advocate of opponent No.1 already
argued that the growth of crop and fruiting depends upon the
proper cultivation practices including proper irrgation,
application of fertilizers at proper stage and use of
pesticides/insecticides. The Ld. Advocate of opponent relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in
Syngenta India Ld. Vs. P. Chowdaiah and Ors, in R.P.1451-
 11 F.A.No.:472-20

1489/2011 decided on 31/07/2013 wherein the Hon’ble

Commissoin in para 34 held that, it is well settled that crop can
be affected due to various reasons viz. poor quality of seeds,
fertilizers, inadequate rainfall or irrigation and also due to proper
quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticides/insecticides. In
the case in hand the complainant failed to prove his case that he
had taken all the appropriate measures of irrigation, fertilization
and use of insecticides, by relying upon the aforesaid reported
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

case.

(vi). The very grievous objection of opponent to the inspection

report of Agriculture experts is that the opponent is not made
available of opportunity of representation at the time of
inspection by the Agricultural Dept. and there is violation of
natural justice. And the report is prepared behind the back of
opponent No.1 and cannot be considered as evidence against
them. The Ld. Advocate of opponent No.1 also relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Syngeta Seed v.
P. Chowdiah case where the Hon’ble National Commission held
that the respondent cannot derive benefit in case of violation of
principle of natural justice. Keeping reliance on this judgment, it
cannot be inferred that the report is useful to complainant in
proving his case of supply of defective seeds to him by opponent
No.1.

(vii). The Ld. Advocate of opponent No.1 has also drawn our
attention to the column of 16(6) of report as to presence of dealer
and his witness in column 14 in the inspection report. The Ld.
Advocate of opponent No.1 also drawn our attention to one
letter dt.21.6.2018 written by opponent No.2 through their
proprietor Yogesh Dhupa Borde which is at P.92. The Ld.
Advocate brought the discrepancy to our notice that, Mr.
 12 F.A.No.:472-20

Yogesh Borde has signed said letter in English. However, he is

shown present in the inspection report and for his signature, his
name is shown in the witness column, which is not his signature.
We have noted this discrepancy as regard to variation in the
signature of opponent No.2 from his letter and in inspection
report.

(viii) Further, the District Forum has awarded the compensation

of Rs.61,425/- to complainant payable by opponent No.1 relying
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

upon the inspection report of Agricultural Dept. in column 18.

The advocate of opponent strongly objected this inference
arguing that the committee has not explained how the loss of
crop is assessed to this amount by the exert committee. It reveals
there is no explanation or justification in assessment of loss of
the amount of Rs.61,425/- by the expert committee.

(ix). Lastly, we would like to observe that, the officers of

Agriculture Dept. are not observed seriously in preparing the
inspection report. In few cases, we have already observed that
the opportunity is not given to seed manufacturing company and
dealer as per law and thereby the seed company and dealer take
defence of violation of natural justice and denial of opportunity
of representation at the time of inspection. Also, many columns
of panchanama are left blank and not properly filled/which
favours the seed company and dealers in taking defence. In the
case in hand, it appears that there is definitely 100% loss to the
complainant. However, he could not establish his case against
the opponents due to laxity on the part of officers of agricultural
department. The concerned authorities of the Agriculture Dept.
are definitely required to follow the guidelines issued for drawing
 13 F.A.No.:472-20

panchanama being expert Member of Committee, to arrive at

appropriate conclusion.

12. In view of our discussion in aforesaid paras. We

therefore, answer the point No.1&2 accordingly. The judgment
and order of District Forum is not standing on legal footing and
hence, deserves to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal
and pass following order.
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana

Order

1. F.A.No.406/2018 is allowed.
2. The judgment and order in C.C.No.15/2018 dt.
31/08/2018 passed by District Forum Aurangabad is
hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The C.C.No.15/2018 stands dismissed.
4. No order as to costs.

Smt. S. T. Barne
Presiding Judicial Member

Shri. K. M. Lawande
Member