Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This appeal is filed by the original opposite party against the order dtd.15.09.2011, passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint bearing No.5/2011, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.

2.      The case of the original complainant / respondent No.1 herein as set out by him in his complaint in brief is as under.

a.      The complainant is an agriculturist and he cultivates 35 acres of agricultural land by sowing paddy.  The said land of 35 acres is owned by him and his close relatives namely mother, father, aunt and brother. The complainant had purchased 38 bags of paddy seeds total worth Rs.19,776/- total weighing 380 Kgs, from the opposite party No.1 – dealer as produced by opposite party No.2 – manufacturer. He had purchased the said seeds on 18.06.2010. He had sown those seeds in his said 35 acres of land on 24.07.2010.  However, when the seeds were germinated and the crop was grown up to the age of three months, it was noticed by the complainant that 50% of the crop was in damaged (Khabra) condition as said 50% paddy crop bore black pods.  The complainant had to incur expenses of Rs.25,000/- for weeding that Khabra crop.  He had also made complaint about the same to opposite party No.2 on 06.10.2010 and also to Agriculture & Cattle Development Committee, Zillha Parishad, Nagpur and other officers on 18.10.2010. The representative of opposite party No.2 had put an endorsement on that complaint that there is some adulteration in paddy crop. However, opposite party No.2 did not take any positive action on the said complaint.

b.      Agricultural Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Parshivani paid visit to the land of the complainant on 26.10.2010 and inspected crop and he also found that there is a 50% adulteration in the paddy seeds.  He accordingly prepared Panchanama on the spot.

c.       The complainant had also made similar complaint to the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee (for short DSGRC) on 06.10.2010. The Members of that Committee had also paid visit to the land of the complainant on 04.11.2010 and inspected paddy crop and found adulteration in the aforesaid seeds and also observed in the report that there is black paddy crop to large extent in that crop and complainant suffered loss due to that reason.

d.      The complainant therefore suffered loss of Rs.11.40 Lacs due to shortfall in yield of paddy. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint before the Forum against opposite party Nos.1 & 2 claiming Rs.11.40 Lacs for the loss, Rs.4.90 Lacs for expenses incurred for cultivation of the crop, Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred for removal of Khabra crop and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical & mental harassment. Thus, the complainant claimed total amount of Rs.16.75 Lacs from opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and also claimed cost of the proceedings amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

3.      The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 dealer & producer of the seeds respectively resisted that complaint by filing reply before the Forum.  It is not disputed that the complainant purchased 38 bags of paddy seeds weighing 380 Kgs, from the opposite party No.1 – dealer as produced by opposite party No.2 – producer.  It is denied that after three months of sowing of the said seeds in the land of the complainant, it was noticed that 50% of the paddy crop was in damaged condition and there was black Khabra to the extent of 50% in the said crop and therefore, the complainant suffered loss. The Pancanamas prepared by the authorities are false. The concerned authority has not specified the actual loss suffered by the complainant. It is submitted by opposite party No.2 that when as per the report of the authority there was adulteration of 4.3%, no such 50% crop can be found adulterated.  The opposite party No.2 also submitted that it was made clear while selling the seeds that there is possibility of 2% adulteration in the seeds and it was also stated on the lable pasted on the bags sold to the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties denied that the complainant is entitled to Rs.11.40 Lacs towards loss of yield.  Moreover, it is also denied that the complainant incurred expenses for cultivation and other purpose as stated in the complaint.  Therefore, it was prayed by the opposite parties that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order and directed the opposite party No.2 – producer to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2.20 Lacs towards loss sustained by the complainant also to pay him further compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.2,000/-.  The Forum below further directed the opposite party No.1 – dealer to refund to the complainant Rs.19,760/-, which was paid by the complainant for purchasing 38 bags of paddy seeds.  The Forum also directed that the said order be complied with by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of that order and in case of default; the said amount will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from 17.01.2011.

5.      As observed above, opposite party No.2 – producer has filed this appeal against that order. We have heard learned advocate Mr Zoting appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr S T Moon appearing for respondent No.1 / complainant. None remained present for respondent No.2 – dealer for hearing. We have also perused the copies of the original record of the complaint and Written Notes of Arguments as filed in appeal by both parties.

6.      The learned advocate of the appellant Mr S Zoting made submission, which is summarized as below.

a.      The bill of purchase of seeds produced by the complainant is forged as seen from the another certified copy of that bill obtained under “Right to Information” (for short RTI) and produced in appeal and thus the complainant / respondent No.1 has not come with clean hands and hence he is not entitled to any relief.

b.      The report dtd.04.11.2010 relied upon by the complainant showing adulteration of the seeds, was not prepared as per procedure provided by the law and therefore it cannot be relied upon.

c.       No notice of the enquiry and inspection was served by any authority to the appellant and therefore the inspection carried out in the absence of appellant cannot be relied upon and therefore that enquiry & inspection is vitiated which is against the basic principle of law.

d.      The Committee in its report held that each bag contained 12 Kgs of seeds. Whereas, admittedly, each bag contained 10 Kgs of seeds and the Forum passed the impugned order about compensation on the same ratio and there is difference of 2 Kgs per bag i.e. about 76 Kgs of seeds in total and hence on this ground the impugned order is erroneous. The copies of the record of land of the complainant in appeal shows that he holds only 12.5 acres of land and the Committee has wrongly stated that the complainant had sown seeds in 35 acres of land.

e.      The report & Panchanamas do not show on which basis the conclusion of adulteration in seeds is drawn.

f.       The maximum yield per acre from the said seeds is 1,750 Kgs and out of 13 acres of the land of the complainant, the maximum yield would be 22,750 Kgs and the value of the said seeds at the rate of Rs.14.5 per Kg, comes to Rs.3,29,875/- and considering adulteration to the extent of 2.3%, the value of loss comes to Rs.7,587/- only.  But the Forum granted excessive compensation of Rs.2.20 Lacs to which the complainant is not entitled.

g.      The impugned order is thus erroneous and needs to be set aside.

7.      On the other hand, the sum & substance of the submission of the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 / original complainant is as under.

a.      The complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that 35 acres of the land belongs to him, his father, mother, aunt and brother and the same was not denied by the opposite party / appellant and the Committee has rightly inspected 35 acres of land in which the said seeds were sown and therefore, the Forum has rightly considered the same.

b.      There is no reason to disbelieve the Panchanama prepared by the Talathi and inspection report of the competent authorities.

c.       The complainant had made complaints to opposite party No.2 / appellant as well as other authorities when he had found 50% of the crop in damaged & adulterated condition and this fact was properly considered by the Forum.

d.      The seeds sold to the complainant as produced by the appellant were of inferior quality at large extent and therefore the compensation granted was in accordance with the extensive loss sustained by the complainant.

e.      The expected yield of the paddy from 35 acres land was 1,140 bags and the value of paddy per bag was Rs.1,000/- and accordingly the complainant suffered loss of Rs.11.40 Lacs. But the Forum granted very less compensation of Rs.2.20 Lacs, which needs to be confirmed in appeal.

f.       The photographs of the entire crop of the field were filed before the Forum to show the damaged condition of he aforesaid paddy crop, which were considered by the Forum in right perspective.

g.      The Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur had also given copy of the letter dtd.30.11.2010 to opposite party No.2 / appellant informing the adulteration in the seeds and loss sustained by the complainant. But the opposite party No.2 / appellant has taken no steps in this regard and therefore the said report of the Committee is rightly relied upon by the Forum for granting compensation.

h.      The impugned order is just, proper and correct and needs no interference in appeal.

8.      It is seen that the complainant in paragraph No.2 of the complaint stated very specifically that he had sown 38 bags of paddy seeds in the land admeasuring 35 acres as owned by his mother, father, aunt & brother and that he personally cultivated the said entire land by expending money. The opposite party No.2 in its reply filed before the Forum has not denied the said submission made by the complainant about the cultivation of the land belonging to him, his parents, aunt and brother.  Therefore, we find that as it was not so specifically denied by opposite party No.2 / appellant, it is deemed to have been admitted by opposite party No.2 / appellant.

9.      The opposite party No.2 / appellant in appeal simply produced the certificate of Talathi showing that the complainant held only 4.97 hectors of agricultural land at Village Dumrikhurd.  However, the complainant stated that the said land of 35 acres is situated at Village Dumrikhurd and Mehandi.  The opposite party No.2 has not produced any record on rights of the land belonging to the parent, aunt and brother of the complainant.  Moreover, the Seed Grievance Redressal Committee also found on due inspection of the land that the seeds were sown in 35 acres of land.  Therefore, we find no substance in the submission of the learned advocate of the appellant that seeds were sown in only 4.97 Hectors of agricultural land of the complainant.

10.    So far as the question of forged bill is concerned, it is seen that there was no such submission made by the opposite party No.2 / appellant before the Forum about forgery. It is also not disputed that 38 bags of paddy seeds, each weighing 10 Kgs were purchased by the complainant as produced by the appellant and accordingly, said seeds were sown in the land.  Hence, the question of forgery of the bills of the same is irrelevant in the present case.

11.    No such contention was raised by the opposite party / appellant before the Forum that  the reports filed on record were not prepared as per procedure prescribed by law and hence, in the appeal the said submission made for the first time cannot be accepted.  Moreover, it is not specified as to what procedure prescribed by law is not followed for inspection and for preparing of the report by the concerned authorities.  Hence, the said submission made by the appellant’s advocate cannot be accepted.

12.    The opposite party has not also taken any steps after receiving the report from the concerned authority about adulteration in the seeds and hence, the opposite party / appellant cannot raise the dispute that the inspection report was prepared by District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee behind its back. The Forum while assessing compensation has considered the quantity of each of the bags as 10 Kgs and not 12 Kgs and therefore report of the said Committee showing 12 Kgs weight of each bag has got no importance in the present case.

13.    The Spot Panchanama and the inspection report discussed above did not show the assessment of actual amount of loss sustained by the complainant but they are very specific to show that the seeds were adulterated and there was large extent of damaged (Khabra) crop in the land of the complainant.  The Forum has rightly believed the said Panchanama prepared by Agricultural Officer & report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee for holding that due to adulterated seeds there was loss in the entire yield of the land.

14.    The loss cannot be calculated on the basis of only adulteration to the extent of 4.3%, particularly when it is the specific report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee filed on record that not only there was 4.3% adulteration in seeds but there was large extent of black damaged paddy crop in the land of the complainant. Thus, taking together 4.3% adulteration and large extent of the black paddy crop in the land of the complainant, we find that the Forum has only considered the crop of 11 Hectors of the land of the complainant considering the quantity of 380 Kgs of the seeds.  The Forum observed that as per recommendation of the Punjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University, 380 Kgs paddy seeds can be sown in 11 Hectors of the land and the yield of per hector of the land is 40 quintals and thus out of 11 Hectors of land the yield comes to 440 quintals and the considering the damage of the crop caused and bad quality of the yield of 440 quintals and hence, the compensation of Rs.500/- per quintal amounting to Rs.2.20 Lacs is assessed. The Forum below, therefore, granted compensation of Rs.2.20 Lacs with further compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.2,000/-, which we find to be just & proper.

15.    We find that the assessment of the loss, by the learned advocate of the opposite party No.2 / appellant to the extent of Rs.7,587/- is not in accordance with the loss in quality of entire yield sustained by the complainant as above and hence the same cannot be accepted.

16.    We, thus, find that the Forum has properly considered the evidence brought on record and reached to the correct conclusion and finding and thus there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

          Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is dismissed.

ii.       No order as to costs in this appeal.

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