Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3800 OF 2006 (From the order dated 13.09.2006 in Appeal No.1875/2006 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 1

Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. Petitioners(s) Doddabasappa & Ors. Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.3801 OF 2006 (From the order dated 13.09.2006 in Appeal No.2089/2006 Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. Petitioners(s) Smt.Suraramlakshmamma & Ors. Respondent(s) Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 2

REVISION PETITION NO.3802 OF 2006 Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012 (From the order dated 13.09.2006 in Appeal No.2090/2006 Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. Petitioners(s) Mallappa & Ors. Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.3803 OF 2006 (From the order dated 13.09.2006 in Appeal No.2091/2006 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 3

Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. Petitioners(s) Kandari Ramanjinappa & Ors. Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.3804 OF 2006 (From the order dated 13.09.2006 in Appeal No.2092/2006 Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. Petitioners(s) Bikki Sreenivasa & Ors. Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO.2920 OF 2007 (From the order dated 25.06.2007 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 4

in Appeal No.627/2006 Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India)... vs Doddabasappa & Ors. on 10 April, 2012 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. & Anr. Petitioners(s) C.Hanumantha Reddy Respondent(s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioners(s) : Mr.Manoj Swarup, Advocate Ms.Neha Kedia, Advocate Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 5

For the Respondent(s) : Mr.Mallikarjun S.Mylar, Advocate (in R.P.Nos.3800-3804/06) For the Respondent (s) : NEMO. (in R.P.No.2920/06) Pronounced on 10th April, 2012 ORDER PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech(India) Ltd. and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd. & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) have filed these revision petitions against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) decided in favour of Doddabasappa and others, Respondents herein, who were original complainants before the District Forum. Since, the facts and issues involved in these cases are substantially similar, these revision petitions are being disposed of through a single order by taking the facts from R.P.No.3800 of 2006. In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had stated that he is an agriculturist cultivating two acres of leasehold land for which he had purchased MECH-12 cotton seeds for Rs.1,525/- from the dealer and agent of the Petitioner (who was the manufacturer of the seeds) and which he sowed in his land by following the directions and agricultural practices as advised by the Petitioner. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 6

However, after having sowed the seeds and providing proper irrigation, pest control measures and investing in labour, the seeds failed due to their inferior quality. Respondent therefore, immediately approached the agent of Petitioner and also Petitioner to inspect the crops which they failed to do and only orally intimated that the seeds supplied by them were of good quality. Respondent thereafter submitted a representation/request to the Joint Director(Agriculture), Bellary on 01.06.2005 as also to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary to inspect the crops which had failed because of defective seeds. However, the Joint Director(Agriculture) was away from his office. Respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay him compensation amounting to Rs.2,93,000/- which included cost of the seeds as well as 70,000/- spent on fertilizers, pesticides and labour, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, Rs.500/- for litigation costs, Rs.1,50,000/- for damages and loss of crops and Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service with interest @ 12% per annum as well as other relief as deemed proper. The above allegations were rebutted by the Petitioner who denied that there was any defect in the MECH-12 BT Cotton seeds and stated that no evidence of the same including any expert evidence had been filed by Respondent in support of his contentions particularly since the onus to prove that the quality of seeds was defective was on the Respondent/Complainant. On the other hand, the seeds sold by the Petitioner are uniformly tested in a laboratory in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Seeds Testing Manual by confirmation of germination and physical purity standards as prescribed by the Central Government under the statute and these tests confirmed that there was no defect in the MECH-12 Bt Cotton seeds. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the basis of a Report from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad which stated that MECH-12 Bt Cotton seeds are susceptible to sucking pest especially jassids and since Bellary and Raichur Districts are prone to jassids, MECH-12 Bt. is not suitable for sowing in these areas. Therefore, Petitioner erred in marketing MECH-12 Bt Cotton seeds in these jassids prone areas. District Forum therefore, directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent, the cost of seeds purchased by Respondent along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, Rs.2,500/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for loss of crops and Rs.1,000/- as litigation costs. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same by also relying on the notification of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The operative part of the State Commissions order is reproduced: The complainants have produced the notification issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad which is marked as Ex.P-21 which reads as follows: Sowing of intra hirsutum cotton Hybrids MECH-12 Bt and RCG-2 BT have been taken up late, because of which the growth has been reduced and in turn boll load has been reduced. MECH-12 Bt is susceptible to sucking pest especially jassids. As Bellary and Raichur districts are prone to jassids, MECH-12 Bt is not suitable because of susceptible to jassids. Because of susceptibility to jassids Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 7

especially in MECH-12 Bt, more plaint protection has been taken by the farmers, overall the growth and boll number has been reduced and farmers will not get expected yield. A reading of the said notification, it is clear that the seeds are not suitable for the purpose of growing cotton in that area. In spite of this notification, the OPs have issued an advertisement saying that the seeds are defect free seeds. Paragraph(1) of the Mahyco Bollgard MECH-12 Bt advertisement reads as follows: Bollgard has inbuilt strength to control bollworms (American bollworm, Pink bollworm and Spotted bollworm). The whole cotton plant fights bollworm day and night non-stop. From this it is seen that the very advertisement says that it is a disease free seeds. According to the OP if the bollgard cotton may require supplemental sprays to control bollworms, in case Economic Threshold Level (ETL) is reached. Bollgard needs to be sprayed for control of sucking pests like aphids, jassids, whiteflies, thrips and mites. It is not the case of the OP that there is no spray of the pesticides by the complainants in order to avoid any possible disease as stated in the advertisement. So when the OP has issued the notification stating that seeds are defect free necessarily the bollgard cotton crops have given the yield from the lands. The loss suffered by the complainant has not been disputed by the appellant. This loss is because of the defect in the seeds. The University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharward issued a notification stating that the said seeds are not suitable. In spite of the said notification there is no reason for the OP to issue such an advertisement stating that the seeds are defective free seeds. The State Commission, thus, concluded that the seeds manufactured by the Petitioner were defective because of which agriculturists did not get the proper yield and confirmed the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner contended that the Fora below erred in concluding that the Petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service for marketing MECH-12 Bt Cotton seeds which according to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad were not suitable for Bellary and Raichur Districts since they are prone to jassids which is a sucking pest. Counsel for Petitioner while admitting that Petitioner had issued an advertisement, stated that the same advertisement also pointed out that it was necessary that the seeds be sprayed for control of sucking pests including jassids. Therefore, Petitioners have nowhere stated in their advertisement Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 8

that no measures for pest control were required to control pests. Further, there is no evidence produced by the Respondent to prove that the seeds sold were defective. Even the evidence of the agricultural expert who Respondent states he had approached, does not appear to have given any such report in this connection. The seeds did not yield the expected cotton crops because it was the Respondent who failed to follow proper agricultural practices including adequate spraying to control infestation of sucking pests like jassids. The onus to prove that the crops failed due to any defects in the seeds was on the Respondent but as stated above, he has failed to do so. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Fora below had after considering all the evidence filed before them rightly concluded that the failure of crops was because the seeds were defective and further stated that although the Petitioners knew that it was not suitable for sowing in Bellary and Raichur Districts, they continued to market their seeds and gave misleading advertisements for sale of these seeds. We have considered the submissions made by both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. We note that no expert evidence has been filed by Respondent before the Fora below to state that there was any genetic defect in the seeds or that they were of inferior quality because of which the crops failed. The Joint Director(Agriculture) to whom Respondent had submitted a representation also does not appear to have got the crops inspected or given any report on the nature of the seeds. Therefore, the statement of the Respondent that he had submitted a representation to Joint Director(Agriculture), Bellary on 01.06.2005 does not help his case since there is nothing in evidence to indicate that the crops were inspected by that office and any finding of defective seeds given. We have also carefully perused the notification issued by University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad pertaining to the susceptibility to jassids especially in MECH-12 Bt Cotton seeds but nowhere does this report indicate that the seeds had any genetic defect or impurity. This notification states that since MECH-12 Bt Cotton Seeds are susceptible for attacks by jassids more care and protection would have to be taken by the farmers to deal with this pest. It is well settled through a catena of judgments including of Honble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn.Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co.Ltd. Vs.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.2428/2008) that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributable to quality of seeds but could be due to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds. The Apex Court has also held that the onus to prove that there is a defect in the seeds is on the Complainant. In the instant case, as discussed above, no credible evidence including expert evidence has been filed by the Respondent to prove that the crops failed because of defective seeds. Further, the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant who has failed to provide any credible evidence in support of the same. In view of these facts, we are unable to uphold the orders of the Fora below and the same are set aside. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed. Counsel for Petitioner stated that in compliance with the orders of the Fora below, 50% of the amount awarded has already been deposited with the Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 9

District Forum except in R.P.No.2920 of 2007. He further states that Petitioner has no objection in case this amount is retained by the Respondents since the case involves poor agriculturists. In view of this, Petitioners in R.P.No.2920 of 2007 are also directed to pay the Respondent (C.Hanumantha Reddy) 50% of the total amount awarded by the District Forum in Complaint No.DFB/C-76/2005, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/-.. (ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-.. (VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/ Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68972206/ 10