(Delivered on 15 /02/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Appellant-  Mahagujrath Seeds Pvt. Ltd.   has filed   the present  appeal  under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and  order dated 15/03/2018  passed by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha in Consumer Complaint No. 110/2016 by which  the complaint filed by the  respondent /complainant – Mr. Majoj Warghane came to be allowed  and appellant  was directed to  pay sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest at the rate  of 6% p.a. (Appellant hereinafter shall be referred as O.P. and respondent as complainant for the sake of convenience)

2.         Short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under:-

            Complainant – Mr. Manoj  Warghane claims to be  resident  of  Mouza Pimalgaon  Taluka Hinganghat, District Wardha and owner of field bearing survey  No. 290,.  whereas  wife of the complainant  was  the owner of filed  bearing  survey  No. 289. The complainant purchased Soyabeen seeds   M G -351 for  sowing  purpose  from the shop of O.P.No. 2 on 30/05/2016  bearing lot No. 4838.  The complainant had purchased 10 bags of Soyabeen seeds at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per bag and had sowed the same on 05/07/2016  in both  his fields . The complainant who was an agriculturist had also taken the precaution of keeping space between the crops as per the guidelines.  The complainant had spent Rs. 40,000/- in Agricultural  operation. The complainant has alleged that   despite purchasing   of Soyabeen seeds  of good quality  there was no  satisfactory  germination  of the crops as assured by the O.P. Nos. 1&2.  The complainant  has alleged that  on 01/08/2016   Agriculture  Officer, Panchayat Samati , Hinganghat  also visited  the spot  namely  the fields  of the complainant and after necessary  panchanama had also given  a report.  The O.P. No. 3- Agriculture   Officer had given a report that the complainant did not get the yield as expected as the seeds provided by the O.P. Nos. 1&2 were not of good quality. According  to the complainant   the O.P. Nos. 1&2 had thereby  indulged  in deficiency  in service due to which  complainant  had suffered  monetary  loss as well as  mental  harassment  and same  amounted  to an unfair  trade practice.  The complainant therefore, lodged the complaint seeking a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- from the O.P. Nos. 1&2 and Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

3.         O.P. No. 1- Mahagujrath Seeds Pvt. Ltd.  filed its written  statement   and strongly  resisted  the allegations made by the  complainant.  The O.P. No. 1 has  denied  that  the Soyabeen seeds  supplied  to the complainant  were  not of good quality  or that  there was  no proper  germination  of the seeds  as alleged by the complainant.  The O.P. No. 1 has taken a plea that  Soyabeen seeds  purchased by the  complainant  were sufficient  for  an area  of 3.33 Hectare  only  and  insufficient  for cultivation  of Soyabeen seeds  in 4.34 Hectare  area of the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 has contended that the seeds were purchased on 30/05/2016 but the sowing operation was done on 05/07/2016 after the delay of 35 days and the same adversely affects the germination quality of the seeds.  The germination   quality of the seeds depends upon the variety of factors like   quality of soil and other aspects. For the forgoing  reasons the O.P. No. 1 has denied  that  there was  any deficiency  in service on their part  or that  seeds were  not of required quality and prayed that  complaint  be  dismissed  .

4.         The O.P. Nos. 2&3 received the notice but did not file any written statement and so  the complaint proceeded exparte against the O.P. Nos. 2&3.

 5.        The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha thereafter went through the evidence led by the complainant as well as  O.P.No 1. The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha also went through written notes of argument filed by the complainant as well as O.P. No. 1. After appreciating the  oral and documentary  evidence on record  the  learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha came to the conclusion  that the Soyabeen seeds  supplied  to the  complainant  by the O.P. Nos. 1&2 were not of good quality and their germination capacity was also not high. The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha came to the conclusion that the O.P.Nos. 1&2 who had supplied  the Soyabeen seeds  to the complainant had  indulged  in deficiency  in service  and same  amounted  to unfair trade  practice. The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha thus allowed the complaint partly and directed the O.P.Nos. 1&2 to pay  a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- within 30 days  or else  to pay interest  at the rate of 6% p.a.  The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha also directed  the O.P. Nos. 1&2 to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical  harassment  and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation  charges.  It is against this judgment and order dated 15/03/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha, that  the present appellant/O.P. has  come up in appeal.

6.         After filing of the appeal  notice  came to be issued  to the respondent /complainant  but respondent  remained  absent  and so  appeal  proceeded exprate  against the  respondent/complainant.

7.         We have heard Mr. P.J. Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant at length. Foremost  contention  of the learned advocate  for the appellant  is that  the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has not properly  appreciated  the documents placed on record  and more particularly  the  Seed Testing Report  submitted by the Government  Seed Testing  Laboratory, Nagpur. The appellant  has not seriously  disputed  the fact that  10 bags  of Soyabeen seeds were  sold  to the respondent  or that on  the  complaint   lodged  by the  complainant, Agriculture   Officer, Panchyat Samittee, Hinganghat had visited  the field  on 06/08/2016 and also prepared  a panchanama.  The learned advocate for the appellant  has submitted  that the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has erroneously  discarded  the Seed Testing Report on the sole ground that  there was tampering /striking of the date  of receiving  the sample of test start date and  on this assumption  has drawn  inference  that  the appellant  had manipulated  the report.  We have gone through the elaborate judgment delivered by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha. The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has heavily relied upon the panchanama conducted and report submitted by Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Hinganghat. The report of the Sub Divisional  Agriculture  Officer reveals  that  on 06/08/2016 inspection was conducted   of the field  and measurements were taken  in the presence  of the complainant  and other  officers  and germination  of the seeds was found  to be to the  extent of 14%. The learned advocate for the appellant has also criticized   the panchanama prepared on 06/08/2016.  However, since, the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has not  accepted  the Seeds Testing  Report, it is  necessary to  examine  the same in the  light  of the contentions advanced by  Mr. P.J. Mehta,  learned advocate for the appellant.  If we go  through  this   report  it can be seen that  the sample  of seeds were  examined  by the  Seed Testing Officer at Nagpur and the  purity  of seeds  was found  at 99.8 % and  the germination  was found  to be 73%. The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has not given  due weightage to this Seed Testing Report  on the sole ground that  there was  striking of dates  in the date of receiving  sample and test start date.  No doubt the date of  receiving  sample  was earlier shown as  01/11/2017 and same  was  struck  of  date  was shown as 11/01/2017. Similarly  there was striking  of date in Test start   date from 01/12/2017 to 12/01/2017 but it is necessary to mention that  this striking of  date or cancellation  is duly  initialed  by signing  officer namely  G.M. Moon in his own  handwriting.  It is necessary to point out that there was no scoring    or cancellation  at all in the column  of purity  or other  columns which were material.  In our view  this Seed Testing Report  could not be  discarded  on this count alone for the  reason that  scientific  testing was done regarding  the quality  of seeds  of the  complainant  and then report was submitted. It is needless to mention that this report conducted after scientific investigation will  prevail over the report of Agriculture   Officer.  The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has not considered this aspect in proper perspective and has accepted the report of Agriculture Officer which was not proper .  We further find that on the basis of this report of Agriculture Officer alone the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha has arrived at the conclusion that the O.P. Nos. 1&2 had indulged in deficiency in service. As such we feel that the  finding given by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside.  Accordingly, we find much substance in contentions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant.  We therefore, pass the following order.     

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby allowed.

ii.          Order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha dated 15/03/2018   is        hereby set aside.

iii.         Complaint filed by the respondent /complainant hereby stand dismissed.

iv.        Appellant and respondent shall bear their own costs

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