Equivalent Citations

2012 SCC ONLINE NCDRC 132 . 2012 NCDRC 132 .

M/S Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. Petitioners(S) v. G. Sreenivasa Reddy

& Ors. (S).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mar 20, 2012)

CASE NO.

Revision Petition No. 4280/2007 (From the order dated 03.09.2007 in Appeal No.
994/2007 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh), Revision Petition No. 4281/2007
(From the order dated 03.09.2007 in Appeal No. 159/2006 of the State Commission,
Andhra Pradesh) and Revision Petition No. 4282/2007 (From the order dated 03.09.2007
in Appeal No. 999/2007 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)

ADVOCATES

Mr. Manoj Swarup and Ms. Neha Kedia, Advocates

Ms. Radha, Advocate (in R.P No. 4280/2007)
Nemo. (R.P No. 4281-82/2007)
JUDGES

Ashok Bhan, President

Vineeta Rai, Member

JUDGMENT

Vineeta Rai, Member:— R.P Nos. 4280/07, 4281/07 and 4282/07 have been filed by M/s
Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) being aggrieved
by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’). G. Sreenivasa Reddy, C.C Yerikala
Reddy and Smt. A. Nagalakshmi & Others, who were the original complainants before the
District Forum are Respondents herein.
Since the Petitioner and facts in these revision petitions are substantially similar and State
Commission has also disposed of these appeals by a common order, we also propose to
dispose of these revision petitions by one common order by taking the facts from R.P No.
4280/2007.
In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/ Complainant had contended that
he is an agriculturist and resident of Village Itikalapalli at Anantpur District where he owns

Printed by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana Page 1 of 5

agricultural land with irrigation facilities. He had purchased Brinjal seeds (MEBH-11) of
Petitioner/Company for planting the same in his agriculture fields because the Petitioner/
Company and its dealers had assured him that the yield would be good and also there is a
good market for Brinjal MEBH-11 from which he would derive income of Rs. 1 lakh per
acre. Petitioner also gave a booklet to Respondent giving the weight of Brinjal, its colour
and other features. The seeds were purchased from Petitioners No. 2 and 3 after which
these were raised in a nursery and the seedlings transplanted by manuring the land and
strictly following the instructions in respect of its cultivation. However, to the shock of the
Respondent, he found that the yield of the Brinjal was far less than represented and with
distinct variations in colour, size and weight etc. The produce was thus not marketable.
These facts were confirmed by the Horticulture Officer, Anantpur who inspected the fields.
Since Respondent obtained 70% less output, quality and rate per acre as promised, he
approached the Petitioners who admitted the mistake and promised that they would make
good the loss but thereafter evaded the issue on one pretext or the other. Aggrieved by this,
Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service
and requested that since he had incurred a loss of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of defective
Brinjal seeds , Petitioners be directed to make good this loss along with interest.
The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that the Respondent filed
the complaint after harvesting the entire Brinjal crops and selling the same almost 180 days
from the date of purchase of seeds although, the total duration of Brinjal crop is 65-70
from the date of its transplanting and continues for a further period of 50-60 days. Further,
the allegation that there was any defect in the seeds has nowhere been specified and there
is no expert report or any finding on scientific and technical basis to prove that the seeds
are defective . On the other hand, Petitioner is a reputed ISO 9001 certified company and
all seeds are tested in the quality control unit of the Petitioner before being marketed. The
high quality of its seeds has been recognized by research institutions as also the Ministry
of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific Industrial and Research etc.
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners to jointly and
severally pay a sum of Rs. 65,000/- to the Respondent with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of complaint till the date of realization as also Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation cost
within one month of the passing of the order. The District forum in reaching its findings
relied on the report of a Court Commissioner that there was low yield of the Brinjal Crops
and the Respondent suffered a loss of 54% in respect of the plants which being of differing
varieties could not be sold.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which
partly allowed the appeal and directed that Petitioner No. 1 only is liable to pay a sum of
Rs. 65,000/- (in R.P No. 4280/2007), Rs. 45,000/- (R.P No. 4281/2007) and Rs. 16,000/-
(in R.P No. 4282/2007) respectively along with interest @ 9% per annum in each case
from the respective dates of complaints. Litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- (in R.P No.
4280/2007), Rs. 1,000/- (R.P No. 4281/2007) and Rs. 500/- (in R.P No. 4282/2007)
respectively were also awarded. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is
reproduced below:

Printed by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana Page 2 of 5

“It is pertinent to note that at the instance of the respondent/ complainant, the District
Forum appointed an advocate as Commissioner in F.A Nos. 994/2007 and 996/2007
whereas in F.A No. 999/2007 the complainant filed the report of the Senior Scientist (Plant
Breeding), Anantpur and also Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Brinjal crop with the
assistance of the concerned Agricultural Officer. The Advocate Commissioner in the
presence of the Agricultural Officer and representatives of appellants 1 and 2, the counsel
for respondent/ complainant and appellant/ opposite party No. 1 and submitted his report
Ex. A11 stating that the complainant raised brinjal crop in two different plots of Acs. 2-00
and Ac. 1-00 and the brinjal plants were upto 1¼ % to 2 feet height and noticed two
varieties of plants. One variety is Mahyco-11 and another is different variety and the other
variety is having white and yellow coloured fruits, small in size and ripening at an early
stage. The Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of estimation of loss of the crop with
the aid of the Agricultural Officer counted the plants in two bits out of which one bit is
selected by the respondent/complainant and the other by appellant/opposite party No. 1. In
the bit selected by the respondent/complainant, there are 61 plants out of which 25 plants
are Mahyco-11 variety and 36 plants of another variety and in the bit selected by appellant/
opposite party No. 1, there are 63 plants in which 32 plants are Mahyco-11 variety and 31
plants are another variety and in total out of 124 plants, 57 plants are of Mahyco and 67
plants are of another variety and therefore the Commissioner estimated the percentage of
loss at 54.03%. On the basis of the evidence and material filed, we are of the considered
opinion that in the absence of the appellant having not got the seeds tested, we rely on the
judgment of the National Commission reported in 2004 CPJ 122(NC) in which it was held
that when provision of Section 13(1) (c) becomes un- implementable then one has to
resolve to alternative methods, which in this case is the Advocate Commissioner's report.
However, appellants/ opposite parties 2 and 3 cannot be held liable as they are only the
agents of appellant/opposite party No. 1 and sold the seeds of appellant/opposite party No.
1 and hence they cannot be made to suffer.”
Hence, the present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent in R.P No. 4280/2007
were present. Counsel for Petitioner stated that the Fora below erred in concluding that the
seeds were defective although in the report of the Court Commissioner who inspected the
fields in the presence of the Respondents, as directed by the District Forum, it has nowhere
been stated that there was any genetic defects in the seeds . It was only concluded that
there were two different types of seeds of Brijal which were planted and therefore, there
were variations in the plants from the different seeds . In the case of Respondent in R.P No.
4281/2007, in fact the Mandal Agricultural Officer in his report to the Joint Director,
Agriculture has also clearly noted that there were a mixture of a variety of seeds but no
evidence of there being any genetic deficiency has been noted. The onus to prove that there
was any defect in the seeds was on the Respondents as per various judgments of this
Commission as well as the Apex Court. In the instant case, Respondents have not been
able to prove that there was any defect in the seeds and the variation in the crops was
because of mixture of seeds for which Petitioner could not be held responsible.

Printed by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana Page 3 of 5

Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that from a perusal of the report of the
Court Commissioner it is clear that the seeds did not yield the assured results. Even
though, these seeds were not sent to a laboratory for testing and the word “genetic defect”
is not specifically mentioned, the fact that the Court Commissioner has recorded in great
details that there was deficiency in the crops is adequate to prove that the seeds were
deficient/defective . The District Forum after examining the report was also satisfied that
the seeds were defective and it was not necessary for the Respondents to provide samples
of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. It was for
these reasons that the Fora below on the basis of the report of the Court Commissioner
concluded that the seeds were defective and did not put the onus on the Respondents to
get this fact confirmed in a certified laboratory. The present revision petition has, therefore,
no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have also gone through the evidence
on record. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the District Forum to inspect the
affected fields/ brinjal crops had after visiting the spot given a finding that there were
variations in the Brijnal plants which indicated that there was a mixture of the seeds and it
is because of this that flowers as well as the plants were of differing varieties. The report
nowhere states that the variation was because of defective seeds . Counsel for Petitioner
had submitted that under these circumstances, the Fora below erred in concluding by citing
report of the Court Commission that the findings of the Commissioner amounted to supply
of defective seeds by Petitioner/its dealers. Counsel for Petitioner also cited a number of
judgments to state that the onus to prove that the seeds supply were defective were in fact
on the Respondent. We find force in these contentions of the Counsel for Petitioner which
is in consonance with our own rulings on this issue. In R.P 3525/2007 in which Mayhco
Seeds was also the Petitioner, this Commission had concluded as follows:
“Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants. Except for
producing the report of the Asstt. Director Agriculture reproduced above, respondents did
not lead any evidence to prove that the seeds supplied to them were defective . A perusal
of the report would show that it nowhere states that the seeds supplied were defective .
Variation in condition of the crops is not and cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds
but to some other factors. Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops.
The report of the Agriculture Officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of
inferior quality. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any
genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner.”
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Sadhu , (2005) 3
SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Basappa Channappa Mooki (Civil
Appeal No. 2428/2008) has held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily
be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention in the
concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds . The Apex Court has held that the
onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the Complainant. In the instant
case, in view of the fact that the report of the Court Commissioner does not state that the
variation in the seeds was because of any genetic defect and the Respondent on whom the

Printed by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana Page 4 of 5

onus to prove otherwise, has produced no evidence that the Petitioner's seeds had any
genetic defect, therefore, cannot uphold the orders of the Fora below and the same are set
aside. The revision petitions are allowed and the complaints dismissed with no order as to
costs.

Printed by licensee : Pradhan Singh Rana Page 5 of 5