CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.437 OF 2007 Date of filing : 13/04/2007

@ MISC. APPL. NO.621 OF 2007 (S) Date of order : 12/08/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.106 OF 2005

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : KOLHAPUR



The Manufacture and distributors

Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,

Regd.Office : “Mahabeej Bhavan”,

Krishi Nagar, Kolhapur - 444004. … Appellant/Org.O.P.No.1



V/s.



1. Shri Kalgonda Dhulgonda Patil

R/o.Takwada, Tal.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur. … Respondent/Org.Complainant



2. Managar,

Shirol Taluka Sahakari Kharadi Vikri Sangh

Ltd. Jaisinghpur. … Respondent/Org.O.P.No.2



3. Shri Babgonda Patil (Kaka)

Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Vikas Sewa

Sanstha Ltd.,

Takvada, Tal.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur. … Respondent/Org.O.P.No.3


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Shri.H.G.Misar, Advocate for Appellant.

Respondent No.1- Shri.K.D.Patil in person.

Respondent No.2 & 3 absent.





- : ORDER :-

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1) This appeal arises out of order/award dated 05/02/2007 as modified further by an order dated 14/03/2007, passed in Consumer complaint No.106/2005 Kalgonda Dhulgonda Patil V/s. The Manufacture and distributors Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Akola and Others by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (‘Forum below’ in short).

2) It is the case of the Respondent/Org. Complainant that he had purchased two bags of Soyabeen seeds manufactured by Respondent/Org.O.P.No.1 and sold through other Respondent/Org.Opposite Parties. Soyabeen seeds purchased was of quality, “Soyabeen J.S.335”. The seeds were sold and the crop grew well but at the time of flowering it was found that some plants were of more height and did not bear the fruits i.e. expected crop - ‘shenga’ with Soyabeen grain and hence the complaint was made. It was found that the plant having more height was of adulterated seeds. Consumer complaint was filed. It was decreed in favour of the Complainant and feeling aggrieved thereby Org.Opposite Party No.1 - the manufacturer of the seed preferred this appeal.



3) We heard Shri.H.G.Misar, Advocate for Appellant. Respondent/Org. Complainant-Shri.K.D.Patil in person and other Respondent remained absent. Perused the record.



4) Complainant except relying upon the report of District Seed Complaint Redressal Committee relating to seeds in question, did not adduce any other evidence. As far as the report of seed complaint redressal committee is concerned, it endorse that the Complainant had sown seeds not only of Soyabeen J.S.335 manufactured by the Appellant/Org.O.P.No.1 but, had also sown other seeds which are described as adulterated seeds. It is specific defence of Appellant- manufacturer that they are not responsible for any damage since Respondent/Org. Complainant had sown other seeds alongwith their Soyabeen J.S.335 seeds and which are described as adulterated seed and these seeds only could not bear the fruit. The Complainant failed to show that bags of Soyabeen J.S.335 which they purchased, contained the adulteration seeds. Thus, the alleged loss or damage sustained by the Complainant could not be attributed to quality of seed manufactured by Appellant/Org.O.P.No.1. This loss is attributed to other factors e.g. use of different quality of seeds described as adulterated seeds and in respect of which Appellant/Org.O.P.No.1 cannot be held responsible. Under the circumstances, no liability for compensation for alleged deficiency in service on the part of Appellant can be fastened upon it. Such view finds support from a decision of apex court in the matter of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. V/s. Sadhu & Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC).



5) For the reasons stated above impugned order/award cannot be supported. It may be pointed out that once the award passed on 05/02/2007, the Forum below having no power of review, erroneously passed subsequent order dated 14/03/2007. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :



: O R D E R :



1) Appeal allowed.

2) Impugned order/award dated 05/02/2007 as modified by order dated

14/03/2007 stands set aside.

3) Misc.Application No.621/2007 for stay stands disposed of as infructuous.

4) In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.

5) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(Mrs.S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member



A.J.