Beyond Revenue Records: NCDRC Focuses on Ground Reality in Seed Defect Case, Awards Compensation to Farmers.


19 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a significant ruling of Chandrapratap Singh Bais & Other Vs Prakriya Prabhari (Process In Charge) & Another, underscores the plight of farmers facing agricultural losses due to faulty inputs, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside orders of lower consumer fora and directed compensation to farmers who were supplied with substandard soybean seeds. The Commission, while acknowledging the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction, found "perversity" and "failure to exercise jurisdiction" in the previous orders, ultimately granting relief to the aggrieved petitioners.

The case stemmed from two separate revision petitions filed by farmers who had purchased soybean seeds from the respondents. The petitioners in RP/1097/2022 had bought 2.10 quintals of seeds intended for sowing on 7 acres of land, while the complainant in RP/1098/2022 purchased 5.40 quintals for 18 acres. Both alleged that the supplied seeds were defective and failed to germinate despite proper sowing.


 

 

Crucially, the farmers presented Panchnamas (inspection reports) prepared by the Rural Agricultural Extension Officer, which corroborated their claims of non-germination. These reports certified the failure of the seeds to sprout despite appropriate cultivation practices. However, the District Commission, relying on revenue records that did not reflect soybean cultivation on the farmers' land, dismissed the complaints. The Commission reasoned that the absence of soybean crop entries in the revenue records meant the farmers had failed to establish the link between sowing the purchased seeds and their alleged losses. This decision was summarily upheld by the State Commission at the admission stage.

The NCDRC, however, took a different view. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the purchase of the seeds was undisputed, and a report from the Deputy Director Agriculture, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, confirmed the substandard quality of the seeds. While the price of the seeds was reimbursed, no compensation was provided for the loss of the anticipated harvest.

The respondents countered that the farmers had failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual sowing, including details of individuals involved, tractors used, or expert testimony on germination. They further argued that the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC was limited and should not overturn concurrent findings of fact by the lower fora, citing Supreme Court precedents.

The NCDRC, while acknowledging the limitations of its revisional powers, emphasized that it could intervene in cases of "perversity, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or any other irregularities." The Commission found that the lower fora had erred in their assessment of the evidence.

The NCDRC highlighted the undisputed purchase of the seeds and the official report confirming their substandard quality. It also gave weight to the Panchnamas, which were prepared by a government official and attested by witnesses, clearly stating the non-germination of the sown seeds.

The Commission reasoned that the District Commission's reliance on revenue records showing other crops (paddy, lentils) was flawed. It stated that "the very foundation of the reasoning is incorrect as the failure of germination of the soya seeds after being sown was the issue, and not what other crops were reflected in the Khasra." The NCDRC astutely observed that farmers, facing the failure of their initial crop, would logically attempt to mitigate their losses by planting alternative crops, which would then be reflected in the revenue records.

The NCDRC concluded that the evidence on record "firmly establishes that the seeds supplied were substandard and did not germinate." It deemed the paltry reimbursement for the seeds an inadequate compensation for the potential loss of a soybean harvest, a significant cash crop. The Commission criticized the lower fora for adopting a "reverse process" by using revenue records to discredit the farmers' claims, overlooking the "preponderate probabilities" that the substandard seeds were indeed sown and failed to germinate.

Finding a "gross omission to consider relevant facts in correct perspective," the NCDRC allowed the revision petitions. While the petitioners had claimed compensation at Rs. 30,000 per acre, the Commission, noting the lack of specific details on incurred agricultural expenses and the subsequent cultivation of other crops, awarded compensation at a rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre.

Accordingly, the petitioner in RP/1097/2022 was awarded Rs. 1,05,000 for the 7 acres, and the petitioner in RP/1098/2022 was awarded Rs. 2,70,000 for the 18 acres, along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint until the date of payment.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the crucial role consumer protection bodies play in addressing the grievances of farmers who are often vulnerable to losses due to substandard agricultural inputs. The NCDRC's decision emphasizes the need for a holistic assessment of evidence, considering the realities of agricultural practices and the potential repercussions of faulty seeds on farmers' livelihoods.