HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. versus SADHU AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 18-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
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 of seeds 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. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
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 presen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.