Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1.      This appeal is filed by the original complainant; feeling by an order dtd.21.02.2015, passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, by which the consumer complaint bearing No.02/2014, filed by the appellant herein against respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3, came to be dismissed.

2.      The case of the appellant as set out in the consumer complaint in brief is as under.

          The appellant is a farmer and respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are respectively producer of chilly seeds, dealer of the seeds and Taluka Agricultural Officer.  The appellant purchased four bags of chilly seeds from respondent No.2 on 29.06.2013 for Rs.920/-, @ Rs.230/- per bag and he also purchased one packet of Tejab-4-101-468 for Rs.200/- from the respondent No.1.  The appellant sowed the chilly seeds in his agricultural land admeasuring 4 R on 29.06.2013.  However, though the seeds had to germinate within seven days from the date of sowing, but inspite of lapse of 20 days from the date of sowing, they were not germinated. Therefore, the appellant made contact with respondent No.2 and intimated him about the same, but he did not give any response. Therefore, appellant lodged the complaint with the appropriate authority. Assistant Agricultural Officer paid visit to the field of the appellant and found that the germination of the chilly seeds were up to 30% to 35% only.  He, therefore, filed consumer complaint before the Forum below, claiming refund of Rs.920/- towards cost of chilly seeds and Rs.200/- towards cost of Tejab from the respondent No.2 alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and further claiming compensation of Rs.1.50 Lakh from respondent No.1 & 2 towards loss of chilly produce, suffered by him during the year 2012-2013 and further claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical & mental harassment, from respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3.      The respondent No.1 appeared before the Forum and filed reply and resisted the complaint on the grounds in brief as follows.

          The appellant suppressed the material fact before the Forum The respondent No.1 already tested the sample of chilly seeds of the same variety purchased by the appellant, from Government Seeds Testing Laboratory (MS) and the seeds testing authority issued a certificate stating that the germination of the seeds is 66%.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.  The inspection carried out by the Government Authority is illegal and bad in law as no notice or prior intimation of inspection was given by any authority to respondent Nos.1 & 2.  Hence, panchanama dtd.13.08.2013 is not binding in law on respondent No.1.  The seeds of same variety were also purchased by many other farmers of the surrounding areas, but they made no complaint of non-germination of the said seeds. The inspection is to be carried out jointly by various authorities specified in the reply, but they did not carry out the inspection as required under law. The panchanama prepared by Assistant Agricultural Officer was not communicated to the Committee comprising of various authorities specified in reply.  The said panchanama also does not show the quantity of chilly to be produced and the prevailing market rate and therefore it is a vague Panchanama. It is denied that the appellant suffered loss of Rs.1.50 Lakhs as alleged in the complaint.  The Seed Testing Laboratory already submitted report that the seeds are of good quality.  Therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot be held responsible for the loss, if any, suffered by the appellant.  The germination of the seeds depends upon various factros namely, water quality, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. The climatic variation is also a factor, which can affect the growth of the seeds.  So the germination is not attributable to the quality of seeds but to other factors and hence respondent No.1 being a manufacturing company or respondent No.2 being a dealer cannot be held responsible for poor germination. Hence, it was prayed by respondent No.1 that the consumer complaint may be dismissed.

4.      The respondent No.2 failed to appear despite service of notice of the consumer complaint. The Forum below, therefore, proceeded exparte as per order dtd.04.04.2014 against respondent No.2.

5.      The respondent No.3 filed reply and resisted the complaint.  The submission of respondent No.3 in brief is as under.

          The appellant purchased the chilly seeds of variety NS238- Lot No.K1204-85-12 and Tejab-4 of Lot No.101468 and he made complaint to Taluka Agricultural Officer, Mouda about non-germination of the seeds after one month of sowing.  In the month of August 2013 there was heavy raining and hence agriculturist of 124 Villages of that Taluka suffered loss.  The Asstt. Taluka Agricultural Officer was, therefore, deputed on the complaint of the appellant for inspection.  He inspected his field and prepared Panchanama and submitted a report that the germination is of 30% to 35% only.  The respondent No3 cannot be held responsible for the loss suffered by the appellant due to non-germination of the seeds.

6.      The Forum below after considering evidence brought on record passed the impugned order and thereby dismissed the complaint.  The Forum below concluded in the impugned order as follows.

          The 7/12 Extract of the field of the appellant shows that the Chilly seeds were sown in 0.20 H of land of the appellant and hence it cannot be said that he had sown the said seeds in 0.40 H of the land.  Moreover, the panchanama dtd.13.12.2013 prepared by Asstt. Agricultural Officer, showing the Chilly seeds were sown in 0.40 H of the land is also not acceptable.  The  germination of the seeds depends on various factors mainly quantity of fertilizers used, climate and the raining. At the same time the purity and germination capacity of the seeds is also important. So far as the germination is concerned, the appellant has not stated in the consumer complaint, which type of fertilizer was used by him, what quantity of fertilizer was sprayed by him and water provided by him and what was the climate at the time of germination of the said seeds. He has also not adduced any evidence about the same. 

          On the contrary, the respondent No.1 produced evidence showing that other farmers who had purchased the same variety of Chilly seeds, had also sown the same in their adjoining lands and they got good yield from the same. The appellant has not raised any objection about the said evidence adduced by respondent No.1. Moreover, the seeds testing laboratory report produced by respondent No.1 on record shows that the seeds of the same variety purchased by the appellant were having 100% purity and germination capacity is of 66% and that the information in leaflet provided by the respondent No.1 to the appellant also shows the purity of the seeds as 98% and the germination capacity as 60%.  Therefore, there is no reason to allow the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly, it is dismissed.

7.      Thus, as observed above, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original complainant has filed this appeal.  We have heard Advocate Smt S K Paunikar appearing of the appellant.  She also filed Written Notes of Arguments.  The respondent Nos.1 had appeared through its representative Mr Masarkar before this Commission on 15.10.2015 and respondent No.2 had appeared before this Commission after service of notice through its advocate on 15.10.2015. The representative of respondent No.3 had also appeared on 15.10.2015. On the date the appeal was admitted and notices to the respondents after admission were waved.  Both the parties were directed to file Written Notes of Arguments.

8.      However, though the appellant filed Written Notes of Arguments, the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 neither filed Written Notes of Arguments nor appeared for final hearing of the appeal.  Hence, we heard advocate Smt S K Paunikar for the appellant and considered the material placed before us in the appeal.

9.      The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the Forum below has not considered the panchanama dtd.13.08.2013 prepared by Asstt. Agricultural Officer, which proves that the germination of the Chilly seeds produced by respondent No.1 and sold by respondent No.2 to appellant, were germinated to the extent of 30% to 35% only. She also submitted that the report filed by respondent No.1 about the testing of Chilly seeds cannot be relied on as the Asstt. Agricultural Officer after due inspecting the land of the appellant found that the germination was only to the extent of 30% to 35%.  Moreover, in other identical disputes, respondent No.1 settled the said disputes by paying compensation to other farmers.  The observations made as above by the Forum below in the impugned order are erroneous and the appellant cannot be expected to observe all the procedure for carrying out spot inspection, being a layman.  Therefore, the Forum below gave undue weightage to the procedure for carrying out spot inspection. Thus, according to her the appellant has proved that the seeds were defective and hence the appellant suffered loss of Rs.1.50 Lakh due to that reason.  Therefore, she requested that the relief sought for in the complaint may be granted.

10.    It is now to be considered as to whether panchnama dtd. 13.08.2013 is to be believed in the background of the said Chilly seeds purity report obtained by respondent No.1 from the Seeds Testing Laboratory of the Government. The panchnama dtd.13.08.2013 prepared by Asstt. Agricultural Officer shows the germination of Chilly seeds 30% to 35% only. But it was not prepared after giving intimation to respondent Nos. 1 & 2.  The seeds testing laboratory report dtd.01.01.2014 shows that the Chilly seeds of Lot No K1204-85-12 is having 100% purity and is having germination capacity of 66% and thus the said testing authority passed the said seeds after duly conducting test of sample of the said seeds.

11.    Moreover, the leaflet provided to the appellant by respondent Nos.1 & 2 also shows germination capacity of the said seeds as 60%.  In our view, the panchanama dtd.13.08.2013 relied on by the appellant cannot override the seed testing laboratory report issued by Government Seed Testing Laboratory, Maharashtra State under the aforesaid facts & circumstances.

12.    Even though, if it is accepted that the germination was of only 30% to 35% only, but the appellant has not come with a case that there was proper sowing of the seeds and agro-climatic condition was also suitable for the germination of the seeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the low germination of the seeds to the extent of 30% to 35% was because of defective seeds, particularly when the seeds testing laboratory gave report of 100% purity and percentage of germination as of 66%.  Thus, we hold that the appellant has not proved by cogent evidence that the seeds produced by respondent No.1 and sold by its dealer, i.e. respondent No.2 to him were defective and that therefore he suffered loss.  Hence, we do not agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate of the appellant.  We, thus, find no error in the impugned order and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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.