Holding

The expert committee report was clear and not ambiguous; the lower fora erred in law and jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.

Summary

The farmers, including Sadhu Singh, purchased wheat seeds from Haryana Seeds Development Corporation and a cooperative credit society and alleged poor germination, filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission all allowed the complaint, relying on a certificate of sub‑standard seeds and observing that the expert committee report was ambiguous. The corporation appealed, contending that the expert committee report clearly stated that crop variation was due to factors other than seed quality and that the lower fora erred in law and jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the entire expert committee report and found no unauthorised insertion of the word “not”; the report was clear, definite and specific. Consequently, the Court held that the lower fora committed an error of law and jurisdiction and set aside their orders, dismissing the complaints and ordering the deposited amount to be refunded to the corporation.

Issues considered

Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether the Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint concerning seed quality and germination.
Whether the expert committee report was ambiguous or clear, and the effect of any alleged unauthorised insertion of the word “not”.
Whether the lower fora committed an error of law and jurisdiction in allowing the complaint.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 13(1)(c), s. 27

Subjects

consumer protectionseed qualitygerminationexpert committee reportjurisdictionerror of lawcompensationagricultural seeds

Judgment

HARV ANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. A
v.
SADHU AND ANR.

FE~RUARY 18, 2005

[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Error of law and jurisdiction by lower
fora-Effect of-Complaint by farmers against Seed Development Corporation
alleging poor germination of seeds-Complaints allowed by District Forum C
and State Commission-Report of the &pert Committee-National Commission
also allowed the complaints but observed the report to be ambiguous and not
clearly exonerate the Corporation-On appeal, held: Reading the report of
the Expert Committee in its entirety, it is clear that the &pert Committee was.
satisfied that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to the.
quality ofseeds but to other factors-Word 'not' was not inserted in the report D
unauthorisedly-Therefore, report neither ambiguous nor vague but clear and
definite-Hence, lower fora committed error of law qnd jurisdiction-
Complaints liable to be dismissed and compensation granted to be refunded-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136.

Respondent - fl)rmers purchased seeds of wheat from the appellant E
- State Seeds Development Corporation and sowed them in their fields but
germination of seeds was very poor. Respondent filed a complaint seeking
compensation. Agriculture Officers issued certificate to the effect that the
seeds were of sub-standard quality and germination was poor. Both
District Forum and State Commission allowed the complaint. Corporation F
constituted an Expert Committee which submitted the report that
variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality
of seed but it may be due to other factors viz. high salt concentration,
brackish water, moisture content at the time of sowing, sowing method
and soil physical conditions etc. National Commission even though
observed that the report of the Expert Committee was ambiguous and did G
- not clearly exonerate the Corporation but giving the benefit to the
complainant, upheld the orders of District Forum. Hence the present
appeal.

Respondent-complainant contended that the complaints were allowed
181 H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A after considering the evidence .on record and perusing both the reports;
that the National Commission was right in observing that the report of
the Expert Committee was ambiguous inasmuch as though it stated in the
operative part of the report that variation in condition of the crop could
be attributed to the quality of the seeds, the word 'not' was added
subsequently either to favour the Corporation or to cause prejudice to
B farmers; and that this Court should not interfere with the orders passed .::
and directions issued.

Appellant-Corporation contended that the lower fora committed
error of law and of jurisdiction by not considering the report of Expert
C Committee in its proper perspective; that the National Commission erred
in observing that the report was ambiguous; and that the word 'not' was
very much there in the report and also in the certified copy, and could
not be said that it was ins~rted subsequently.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD : Reading the report of the Expert Committee in its entirety,
it is clear that there was no unauthorized insertion of the word 'not' in
the report of the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee was satisfied
that variation in the condition of crop was not and could not be attributed
to quality of seeds but to .other factors. Hence, it cannot be said that the
E word "not" was inserted either to favour the Corporation or to cause
prejudice to the farmers. Therefore, National Commission was not right
in observing that at the most, the report could be said to be ambiguous.
It was neither ambiguous nor vague but was clear, definite and specific.
In no uncertain terms, it stated that variation in the condition of crop could
F not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors.
. (186-G-H; 187-A-BI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1308 Of2005.

From ·the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.2003 of the National
G Consumers Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 2332 of
2003.

D.P. Singh and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant.

K.S. Rana, Dr. V.P. Appan, N.Raja Raman and F.S. Chauhan for the
H Respondents.
HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD."· SADHU [Tl-IAKKER, .I.] 183
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
THAKKER, J. Leave granted.

The present appeal is filed by the Haryana Seeds Development
Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation' for short) against the order passed by the
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kaithal, confirmed by the State B
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, and also confirmed by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

The facts of the case in which a complaint was filed by Sadhu Singh
S/o Kehar Singh may briefly be stated. The said complaint was filed by
Sadhu Singh resident of village Dhundwa against Dhundwa Cooperative Credit C
& Service Society and also against the Haryana Seeds Development
Corporation (appellant herein) before the District Forum Kaithal inter alia
alleging that he had purchased seeds of wheat from Dhundwa Cooperative
Credit & Service Society and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. He
had sown them in his field. After about 15 days, he noticed that gennination D
of seeds was not up to standard but was "very much poor". He, therefore,
made complaints to D.C. and D.D.A., Kaithal whereupon a certificate was
issued by Circle Agriculture Officer, and Agriculture Development Officer,
Kalayat on 6th December, 200 I, stating therein that germination of seeds was
found to be poor and the seeds were of sub-standard quality. According to
the complainant, he suffered a loss of price of seeds, labour charges for E
preparation of land, of sowing seeds, irrigation costs, loss of crop and also
mental torture. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to
pay compensation. Similar was the case of other complainants.

Notices were issued to the respondents pursuant to which they appeared
and filed their replies. Respondent No. I Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & F
Service Society, in its reply stated that the complaint was not maintainable
· against it. According to the said respondent, it purchased the seeds from the
Corporation. rt was contended that the complainant had purchased seeds for
selling wheat in Grain Market and thus the purchase was for commercial
purpose. He, therefore, could not be said to be 'consumer' within the meaning G
of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
It was also alleged that loss said to have been caused to the complainant was
shown to be excessive. The complaint was, therefore, false, frivolous and
liable to be dismissed.

The Corporation also filed a reply contending that the complainant had H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A no locus standi as he had no cause of action to file such complaint. He also
could not be said to be 'consumer' as seeds were purchased for commercial
purposes. According to the Corporation, disputed and complicated questions
of fact and law were involved which could not be decided in a summary
manner in the Consumer Forum and the complainant should ·approach a civil
court. On merits, it was contended that germination of seed would depend
B upon several other factors such as, climate - condition, type of soil, water and ''
irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizer, etc. The complainant could not show
that the crop had suffered due to poor germination of seeds. According to the
Corporation, seeds were duly certified by the Haryana State Seeds Agency,
a Government undertaking which objectively decided that seeds were in
C conformity with prescribed standard. The complainant had, therefore, no cause
and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum accepted the claim of the complainant and held the
appellant liable. It relied upon the report of the Civil Agriculture Officer and
Agriculture Development Officer, Kalayat and observed that it was "crystal
D clear that the germination of the seeds was very poor". According to the
District Forum, due to low yield of crop, the complainant suffered financial
loss as well as physical harassment. He was, therefore, entitled to compensation
as mentioned in the order. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the
appellant herein was directed to pay compensation to the complainant within
E thirty days of the order failing which proceedings would be initiated in
accordance with Section 27 of the Act. Similar directions were given in other
complaints.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant
approached the State Commission. By a cryptic and virtually non-speaking
p order, the State Commission dismissed the appeals. Against that order, the
appellant approached the National Commission. It was argued that the
Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter as the complainant was
not consumer and he had purchased seeds for commercial purposes. Moreover,.
seeds were certified by certification agency to be of proper quality and report
of Expert Committee ruled out poor germination and hence the grievance
G was unjustified. It was also ~ubmitted that the District Forum ought to have
followed the procedure laid down in clause (c) of sub-section (l) of Section
13 of the Act by sending a sample to appropriate laboratory and by obtaining
a report. Since it was not done, the order passed by the District Forum and
confirmed by the State Commission was not valid.
H
t
• .!-

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. v. SADHU [THAKKER, J ] 185
-- The National Commission, however, dismissed revisions observing that A
the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction in the matter and the farmers did not
grow crop for commercial purposes. It also observed that there were two
reports on record, one by the Circle Agriculture Officer and Agriculture
Development Officer, Kalayat and the other by the Expert Committee. The
report of the Expert Committee at best was ambiguous and did not clearly

- exonerate the Corporation. According to the National Commission, in the
circumstances, benefit ought to go to the complainant and as the benefit was
given by the District Forum and State Commission, the orders passed by
B,

them could not be said to be illegal. Revisions were accordingly dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for
the appellant did not contend that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction
c
as seeds were purchased for commercial purposes as urged before the lower
fora. It was, however, submitted that an error of law and of jurisdiction was
committed by the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission
in not considering the report of Expert Committee in its proper perspective.
According to the counsel, the report which was placed on record clearly D
revealed that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to
quality of seeds but to other factors, viz. high salt concentration, brackish
water, moisture content at the time of sowing, long dry spell, etc. It was also
submitted that neither the District Forum nor the National Commission
considered the said report keeping in view the fact that it was prepared by
E
an Expert Committee. The National Commission was in clear error in observing
that the report was ambiguous. The counsel, therefore, submitted that all the
orders deserve to be set '!Side by dismissing all the complaints.

The learned counsel for the complainants, on the other hand, supported
the orders. It was submitted that after considering the evidence on record and F
perusing both the reports, complaints were allowed and the appellant was
directed to pay compensation. It was also submitted that the National
Commission was right in observing that the report of the Expert Committee
was ambiguous inasmuch as though it stated in the operative part of the
report that variation in condition of the crop could be attributed to the quality
of the seeds, the word "not" was added subsequently by someone. This G
:---
Court, in the circumstances, may not interfere with 'the orders passed and
I directions issued.

On behalf of the respondent No.2 Dhundwa Society, the learned counsel
submitted that the said Society was neither necessary nor proper party as no
H
A final direction~di~d been issued against the said respondent by the District
Fotuin. It ougrih not .to have been m.ade party respondent in the present
appeals. '·
~ . ·::-
Having co,rt~idered t~e dva(co~tentlons o(the parties,, in our opinion,
all the. appea.ls ·:a~~erve to be ~llowed and the orders passed by the District
B forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the .National Commission
... deserye.to be.,set:.~si.~~· rt?in the_:re£qrd.ii-'.isap,u11*u:i~ty/f)ear..t~attti(!:·a1>?e11ant
had constituted an Expert Committee, The said: commi~ee h!ld undertaken
the exercise of inspection of seed~ sold to farmers.· it c~nducted field ins~ection
and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop
C condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent".Jtfurther observed that the
reason for varfation was other than the quality of seeds. The Committee
stated:

"Hence the variation in the condit.ion ,of.9rop .in the sarqe !ot .<)f seed
at different fields may nc>t be aitributedto quality of'seed but the
D other factors including high salt concentration; Brackish Water,
Moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical
conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and
crop s~.an~~,, . . . · : .. , ''·; :, '. : }\c.::_
the op~rative p~rt; the C~m~i~;~ co11ci~'de~··;
In' - '• .. . .
""
E "It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may
not be ·attribu.ted to .the. _quality o(se(!d bµt)t ·may be .due to other,
Ja~tors. incl4di11g water qllality tls:ed; for' irrigations,. long dry spell;
salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture
content at the sowing time and soil physical 901Jdition.'L,
F
What was contended before the National Commission was that ;tile
. . !

word "not" was not found in the report of the Expert Committee but it was
inserted unauthorisedly. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the
word "not" was very much there in the report and in the certified copy also,
it was present. Hence~ it could not be said that it was inserted subsequen~ly.
G But even otherwise, looking'. tenhe rep·ort .as: a whole, we are· satisfied t:hat .
there was n~ u~authorised .in~ertion of th~ word ''.not" in the rep~rt. Reading
the report in its entirety, it is ·clear that the Expert Committe.e was satisfied
that variation in the condition of crop was not and could not be attributed 'tO
quality of seeds but to. otherJai.:tors.Even the earlier.'.Qart referred to by us .
makes :the. positiori :ire~t-:,'tiefice/tiie .:f~nte~tion,'th·a(t~t?w~d · ~~~(' :;w~s· ....
H
-
llARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMtNT CORPN. LTD. r. SADHU [THAKKER. l] J87

inserted either to favour the Corporation or to cause prejudice to farmers A
cannot be accepted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the National
Commission was not right in observing that at the most, the report could be
said to be ambiguous. In our view, it was neither ambiguous .nor vague but
was clear, definite and specific. In no uncertain terms, it stated that variation
in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to B

-·
·.- other factors.

In the light of the report of Expert Committee, the complaint was liable
· to be dismissed and the Commissions committed an error of law and of
jurisdiction in allowing it.

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be C
allowed and is hereby allowed. The orders passed by District Forum, State
Commission and National Commission are hereby set aside and the complaint
is ordered to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however,
there shall be no order as to costs.
D
On 18th August, 2004, this Court directed the appellants to deposit 50
per cent of the principal amount. By a subsequent order dated 8th October,
2004, the money deposited was ordered to be invested by the Registry in
fixed deposit account in a Nationalised Bank for a period of six months in
the first instance. The said deposit was to be renewed till the disposal of the
appeal. In view of the fact that the appeal is allowed the said amount may E
now be refunded to the appellant. Ordered accordingly.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

-