(Delivered on 16/06/2016)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed  by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos. 1,& 2 against the order dated 29/04/2000, passed in consumer complaint No. 173/1995, by the  District Forum. Yavatmal, by which complaint has been partly allowed.

2.         The case of the original complainant  No. 1&2 who are the  respondent No. 1&2 in this appeal  as set out  by them in their single  page complaint  filed before the Forum in brief  is as under,

            The land admeasuring 7 hectors  is  shown in the name of the father of the complainant Nos. 1- Sanjay and land admeasuring  2.42 hector is   shown in the name of the grand father of the complainant Nos. 1&2 in record of  right. Complainant is their jointly family member. Complainant had sown  cotton seeds  in 10 acrs of land and out of that land, he had sown 450 gms. of cotton seeds  in 1/2 acrs of the land which were purchased by him from  O.P. No. 1- dealer, as produced by the O.P. No. 2- Company.  However, the said seeds were not germinated but  other seeds were germinated. Therefore, complainant sustained loss. He made complaint to the Agricultural Officer, Panchyat Samittee, Babulgaon who visited his field to verify the loss. Therefore, the consumer complaint filed before the Forum against the O.P. Nos. 1&2 by the complainant claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss sustained by them.

3.         The  O.P.  Nos. 1&2 appeared before the  Forum and filed   their separate  written version.  The O.P. No. 1- dealer, who is respondent No. 3 in this appeal admitted that on 04/06/1995 complainant had  purchased cotton seeds  weighing  450 gms.  However, the O.P. No. 1 submitted that  the  report be called for Agricultural Officer about those seeds  and complaint may be dismissed with cost. He opted  written version  of the O.P. No. 2 as filed on record.

4.         The O.P. No. 2 in its written version  denied that seeds were defective. It is the case of the O.P. No. 2/ appellant in brief that  the complainant  has not shown that he had sown  the same seeds in his land which were  purchased from  the O.P. No. 1. The germination of the seeds may be adversely defected due to various agro climatic  factors specified in detail  in the said reply by the O.P. No. 2. The seeds were released by the O.P. No. 2 only after they were duly certified  by Quality Control Laboratory  and Research Farm. The O.P. No. 1 produced photo copy of said test report  No. 00002  dated 20/04/1995 showing  that the seeds have  84% capacity of germination. Many other  farmers  had purchased  seeds of  the same  lot as specified in the reply. There is satisfactory germination  of the said seeds in their land. The complainant  has not informed  the O.P. No. 2 about inspection alleged to be  taken  by  the Agricultural Officer. Therefore, the O.P. No. 2 submitted that complaint may be dismissed .

5.         Initially the complaint  was partly allowed by the Forum. However, in appeal No. 433/1997, this Commission vide order dated 29/10/1998 set aside  that order and remanded the complaint for fresh evidence and consideration.  Thereafter the  District  Forum  after hearing both the parties  and considering evidence  brought  on record  passed the  impugned order  on 29/04/2000. As observed above, the Forum partly allowed that complaint holding that the O.Ps.  have not produced laboratory test  report in support of their  case that the seeds  have 84% germination capacity  and after due verification the seeds were brought to market for sale.  Therefore,  the Forum disbelieved the case of O.Ps.  and held that   as the seeds  purchased from the O.P. No. 1 produced by the O.P. No. 2 were not germinated , it is proved that the seeds had no germination  capacity.   The Forum assessed the loss of Rs. 6,000/- sustained by the complainant due to defective seeds and directed the O.P. No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 6000/- with interest  at the rate of 18% from 01/01/1996 to the complainant  towards loss sustained by him. The Forum  also directed the O.P. Nos. 1&2 to pay cost of Rs. 1500/-  jointly and severally  to the complainant. The Forum further directed  the O.P. No. 1, to refund the price of the seeds i.e. Rs. 200/- with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. from 09/06/1995  to the complainant. The Forum also directed  the said order be complied with  within 30 days  from the receipt of that order and if it is not complied  within 30 days, the  amount granted by the Forum will carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

6.         Thus, the original O.P. No. 2 has filed  this  appeal against that order.  We heard Advocate Mr. Khubalkar   who appeared  for the  appellant and Adv. Kullarwar  who appeared for the respondent No.3.  None appeared for the respondent 1/original complainant No.1 and legal representatives(LRs.)  of deceased complainant No. 2 though duly served with notice. Hence, this appeal is  proceeded exparte against them.

7.         The learned advocate of the  appellant  has drawn our attention to the Quality Control Laboratory Test Report  of the seeds of the same lot which were purchased  by the complainant  as filed on record and submitted that  the same was also filed  before the Forum showing germination  capacity of 84% as verified  by the laboratory. He further submitted that  the Forum has ignored  the said report  and  erroneously  held that  no laboratory  test  report is  filed on record  to prove the germination  capacity  of the seeds. He also  submitted that  as the said report   shows 84% germination capacity  and as there is no expert report  showing  the defective seeds, the Forum erred in  holding that the seeds were defective  and  therefore they were not germinated. He therefore submitted that  the impugned order  is illegal and it may be set aside.

8.         The learned advocate of the respondent No. 3-dealer also adopted the aforesaid argument of the learned advocate of the appellant and submitted that impugned order may be set aside.

9.         It is pertinent to note that the complainant in complaint though stated that cotton seeds were sown in total 10 acres of their land but it is   not stated that   cotton seeds of which company or which lot were sown in 9 & 1/2 acres of their land out of said 10 acres of land.  It is simply stated that in 1/2 acre of land out of 10 acres,  the seeds  purchased  from the O.P. No. 1 and produced by the O.P. No. 2 were sown.

10.       The complaint shows that agricultural  officer  had paid visit  to  the land of the complainant  and inspected the land.  However, no report of the said  agricultural officer is  filed  on record  to support the case of the complainant. It is not  explained by the  complainant why agricultural  officer did  not submit  his report  after inspection of the land. Hence  adverse inference  can be drawn  against  the complainant.

11.       The  learned advocate of the  appellant  has relied on  decision in  following  cases.

i.          Savesh Kumar  Vs. Rahul Seeds, III (1999) CPJ 148. Uttar Pradesh State  Consumer Commission. In that case no solid proof was furnished in support of transaction. It is  observed that certified and guaranteed seeds are  not bound to grow in crop in absence of inputs   and that weather conditions  also affect the crop.

ii.          Shri Parasram Sonaji Kuber Vs. M/s. Gokul Seeds, Aurangabad in appeal No. 477/1992 decided on 21/08/1995 by State Commission, Mumbai. It is observed in that case that  in the absence  of any test report  no conclusion  can be arrived at  that  seeds were defective  and therefore, respondent cannot  be saddled  with compensation.

12.       In the instant case as observed  above there is neither  report of agricultural officer showing that  the seeds in question  were defective  or sub standard nor there is any other cogent  evidence  to prove that  the seeds were defective or of  sub standard quality and due to that reason  there  was no germination of seeds. On the contrary  the  appellant had already  placed  before the Forum along with its written  version Quality  Control  Laboratory Test Report  No. 00002, dated 20/04/1995 showing that  cotton seeds of the said lot  are having  84% germination capacity. The copy of that report  is also produced by the appellant  in appeal.  The Forum ignored  that test report  and observed that  no such test  report  is produced before the Forum. We find that  the Forum lost sight  of that test report  and observed that  it is not produced  before the Forum. In our view in the absence  of report  of the agricultural officer showing that  the seeds were defective , it cannot be said that  the test report  produced by the appellant is not reliable.

13.       Therefore,  we hold that  the Forum erred in  coming  to the conclusion that  complainants  sustained loss due to non germination of seeds. Moreover,  in the absence of any cogent  evidence  about  defective seeds, no reasonable  inference  can be drawn that  seeds were not  germinated because  they were defective.   Hence,  the impugned order cannot be sustained  in law. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is allowed.  

ii.          The impugned order is set aside. Complaint stands  dismissed.

iii.         No order as to cost in appeal.

iv.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.