Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This appeal is filed by original opposite party (for short O.P.) feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04/12/2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, in consumer complaint No.47/2012, by which the said complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein as set out by him in the consumer complaint, filed before the District Forum in brief is as under.
The original complainant who is the respondent No.1 in this appeal is an agriculturist and he had purchased soyabeen seeds from the respondent No.2 herein who was the dealer of appellant. The seeds were produced by the appellant. The respondent No.1 had sown those soyabeen seeds in his agricultural land. However there was less germination of those seeds. Hence he made complaint to Taluka Agricultural Officer, Morshi and District Agricultural Officer, Amravati. On his said complaint, the Members of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee paid visit to the land of the complainant on 27/07/2011 and inspected the land and the crops and found the seeds were defective and hence due to non germination of the seeds, the respondent No.1 suffered 50% loss amount to Rs.61,600/- They accordingly submitted the report which was filed before the District Forum by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 served notice dated 21/09/2011 to appellant and the respondent No.2 claiming compensation due to the loss sustained by him. They did not give positive response. Therefore he filed consumer complaint before District Forum and thereby claimed total compensation of Rs.80,000/- due to loss sustained by him and he further claimed compensation of Rs.40,000/- for physical and mental harassment. He further claimed litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
3. The appellant/original O.P.No1 and the respondent No.2/original O.P.No.2 appeared before the District Forum, Amravati and filed their independent reply and thereby resisted the complaint.
4. The original O.P.No.1/appellant in its reply came with a case in brief that the respondent No.2 is its authorized dealer and it sold sealed bag of soyabeen seed produced by it to the respondent No.1 and it is not known whether the respondent No.1 had sown the same seeds produced by it in his agricultural land. As per the report of the Committee, the seeds were of lot No.2125 which was mentioned in the bill. But as per tag number, lot number is different which is 010-13-2710-2496. The respondent No.1 has not sown the seeds as per the bills in his land. Moreover there is raining of 58 m.m. only from 05/07/2011 to 15/07/2011 and for sowing of soyabeen seeds, there must be raining of 75 m.m. Therefore it is proved that for want of sufficient water, the soyabeen seeds were not properly germinated. The soyabeen seeds of lot No.21252 were not produced by the appellant. The respondent No.1 also did not properly prepare the land before sowing, which also caused less germination of the seeds. Therefore O.P.No.1/appellant had prayed that complaint may be dismissed with cost.
5. The original O.P.No.2/respondent No.2 herein admitted that he is the authorized dealer of the appellant and that the respondent No.1 had purchased soyabeen seeds from him on 17/06/2011. It is denied that the lot number and tag number of the seed sold do not tally with the same number given in the bill. He submitted that he had sold same seeds to the respondent No.1 which were produced by the appellant. However according to him there is no evidence to show that the same seeds sold by him were sown in the land of the respondent No.1. There was the less raining at the relevant time and hence there was low germination of the seeds. He therefore requested that complaint may be dismissed.
6. The District Forum, Amravati after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, accepted the case of the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest from the appellant and respondent No.2. The Forum therefore directed the original O.P.Nos.1 and 2/appellant and respondent No.2 herein to pay to the original complainant/respondent No.1 compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. within 30 days of the date of that order and in case of default the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization by him and also to pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.
7. As observed about, feeling aggrieved by the said order, the original O.P.No.1/producer of seeds has filed this appeal. We have heard advocate Mr.I.K.Juneja who appeared for the appellant and submitted that the written notes of arguments submitted by him may be treated as his oral arguments. Advocate Mr.Ranade appeared for respondent No.1 and Advocate Mr.Kasture appeared for respondent No.2. We have also heard both advocates and also perused the entire record of the appeal.
8. The learned advocate of the appellant in his written notes of argument filed in appeal reiterated the aforesaid case of the appellant and in addition to the same submitted that the District Forum failed to consider the material aspect of the non-germination of the seeds because of not supplying the sufficient fertilizers, water and lack of moisture and other agro-climatic adverse conditions. He further submitted that the Forum also did not consider that the soyabeen seeds were shown in the bill as of lot No.24252, which were not at all produced by the appellant and therefore appellant can not be held responsible for non-germination of those seeds as not produced by it. Moreover there is no evidence to prove that the respondent No.1 had sown the same seeds in his land which were produced by the appellant. He also submitted that the respondent No.1 had sown the seeds in the land of Gat No.27 instead of Gat No.25 and there is no evidence to prove that he is the owner of the land of Gat No.27 and this fact is not considered by the District Forum. He also submitted that the District Forum has not considered the report of the Committee and other material aspects of the case in right perspectives and reached to incorrect conclusion and findings. He therefore requested that impugned order may be set aside by allowing the appeal.
9. The learned advocate of the appellant has relied on the observations in the following cases.
a) Mahyco Seeds Ltd….V/s….Sharad Motirao Kankale and Others, II (2012) CPJ 373 (NC). In that case, no report of any agricultural expert was produced to confirm that quality of seeds was poor and therefore it was found that crop can fail because of several reasons. Moreover the crops were heavily infested by bollworms which caused for failure of crops.
b) Mahyco Monsanto Bio Tech (India) Ltd…..V/s….. Doddabasappa & Otheres, II (2012) CPJ 436 (NC). It is observed in the said case that no credible evidence including expert evidence is filed by respondent to prove that crop was failed because of defective seeds and variation in condition of crops can be due to various other factors. Therefore the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.
c) Gujarat State Co-Op.Marketing Federation Ltd., III (2011) CPJ 433 (NC). It is observed in the said case that poor germination of seeds could be result of various factors and not related to quality of seeds.
d) Syngenta India Ltd.,….V/s…..Velaga Narasimha Rao and Others, 2010 STPL(CL) 602 NC. In that case there was no finding of competent technical laboratory to show that the said seeds sold to the complainant by opposite parties suffered from any quality defect or did not meet the standards prescribed for such seeds. There was also no other evidence to prove the defective seeds. Therefore the order of the State Commission was set aside by Hon’ble National Commission.
e) Gyan Chandra Sharda……V/s…..Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and Otheres, 2009 STPL(CL) 2590 NC. In the said case there was nothing to show that seeds supplied were defective. Cause for less production was due to excessive rains which resulted in lower yield. It is observed that in the absence any report from laboratory or an expert in agriculture to the effect that the seeds supplied were defective. It can not be proved that the seeds were defective.
f) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.Ltd……V/s…..Parchuri Narayana. 2009 STPL(CL) 1073 NC. In that case the test report of the seeds proved 99% purity and 85% germination of seeds of same batch. Therefore it is held that the seeds were not proved to be defectives.
g) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd……V/s…..Gowri Peddanna and others, I (2007) CPJ (NC). In that case the testing laboratory report from an independent agency supported the case of O.P. that seeds were of 99.6% purity and hence no deficiency in service was proved.
i) Ganesh Ram……V/s……Prop.Kisan Agro Sales, 2004 STPL(CL) 493 NC. In that case no material was produced showing that the seeds were defective. Hence complaint was dismissed.
10. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed with cost.
11. The learned advocate of the respondent No.2 adopted the aforesaid submissions made in the written notes of arguments of learned advocate of the appellant.
12. It is thus not disputed that respondent No.1 had purchased soyabeen seeds from the respondent No.2. It is also admitted by the respondent No.2 that the seeds produced by the appellant were sold by him to the respondent No.1 being his authorized representative. Therefore variation in the lot number of the bills and that of the number given in the tag, makes no different as there is possibility that due to mistake wrong lot number was mentioned on the bill by the respondent No.2. Moreover it can not be said without any evidence that respondent No.2 had sown the seed which he did not purchase from the respondent No.2, as produced by the appellant. The Gat No.27 is mentioned in the complaint due to typing mistake as the respondent No.2 is the owner of Gat No.25. The District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee had also paid visit to the land of the respondent No.1 and found that there was low germination of the soyabeen seeds in that land, owned by the respondent No.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the committee as the said committee was comprising of the experts members. The appellant has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the same.
13. We find that there is no evidence to prove that due to less raining there was low germination of the seeds. We are inclined to rely on the report of the District Seeds Redressal Grievances Committee, which is very clear in all respect. It proves that seeds sold to respondent as produced by appellant were defective and hence it caused less germination of seeds. Hence relying on the said report we hold that as the soyabeen seeds produced by the appellant and sold to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 were defective, there was less germination of those seeds and hence the respondent No.1 suffered less in the yield of the crop of the said seeds. The Forum has also rightly assessed the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards the said loss suffered by the respondent No.1.
14. We find that in the instant case, though there is no Seeds Testing Laboratory Report in support of the case of the appellant, but there is a report of the District Seeds Redressal Grievances Committee to prove that the seeds were defective. We find that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as they are totally different from those of the said case.
15. We are thus of the considered view that the Forum below has properly considered evidence brought on record and reached to correct conclusion and findings. There is no reason to interfere with the same in this appeal. Hence following order is passed.
// ORDER //
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to cost in the appeal.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
