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

1.        Both these appeals are being disposed of by common order as common question of facts and law are involved in them. Both these appeals are filed by the original opposite party No.1 feeling aggrieved by two identical orders passed against it by the District Consumer Forum of Akola on 13/05/2005 in two consumer complaints bearing Nos. 259/2004 and 260/2004, by which both the said complaints are partly allowed.

2.   The common case of complainants in both the complaints in brief is as under.

There are in all five complainants in both complaints who had purchased soybeen seeds from the original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.2/dealer as produced by original O.P.No.1/appellant. They had sown those seeds in their respective land. However, there was no proper germination of those seeds. Hence they made complaint to the agricultural officer on 02/07/2004. The District Seeds Dispute Grievance Redressal Committee paid visit to the respective land of the complainants on 02/07/2004 and inspected land and prepared the report stating therein that seeds sold to respective complainants were defective. The seeds testing laboratory of the Government also issued a certificate of examination of the seeds of the same verity and lot number to the effect that 89% seeds are dead. Thus the complainants suffered loss of the yield due to defective seeds as stated by them in their respective complaints. Hence they filed aforesaid two complaints against the appellant and the original O.P.No.2/dealer claiming compensation from them of which details are given in their said two consumer complaints.

3.     The appellant appeared before the District Consumer Forum below and filed reply to each of the complaint and opposed the same. It was the common case of the appellant before the District Consumer Forum below that the seeds were not defective and that the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee prepared the report without any basis. There was no sufficient raining before inspection of the land which adversely affected the germination of the seeds. The seeds were of good quality. No complaint was made by the complainants to the appellant about the defective seeds. Hence the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

4.   The original O.P.No.2/dealer failed to appear in consumer complaint No.260/2004 despite service of notice and therefore the Forum proceeded ex-parte against O.P.No.2 in that complaint.

5.    However O.P.No.2 appeared in consumer complaint No.259/2004 and filed reply. Its defense in brief is that the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee did not give prior intimation to it for inspection and that it sold the same seeds produced by O.P.No.1/appellant and therefore it is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence it was prayed by the O.P.No.2 that the complaint No.259/2004 may be dismissed.

6.       The District Consumer Forum below after considering evidence brought on record in both complaints placed reliance on the report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee as well as on report of seeds testing laboratory and held that the seeds were defective. The District Forum below then assessed compensation for the loss suffered by the complainants and passed one of the impugned order in complaint No.259/2004 directing the O.P.No.1/appellant to pay to the four complainants in that complaint respectively Rs.7400/-, Rs.7200/-, Rs.7200/- and Rs.7200/- and also to pay each of them litigation cost of Rs.500/-.

7.        The District Forum below in another impugned order passed in complaint No.260/2004 directed the O.P.No.1/appellant and O.P.No.2/respondent No.2 herein to pay compensation of Rs.4,365/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant in that complaint.

8.      Thus both these appeals are filed by O.P.No.1/producer, feeling aggrieved by both impugned orders. We have heard advocate     Mr.Parvez Dokadia appearing for the appellant. The respondents have not appeared for final hearing in both these appeals, though they were duly served with the notices. We called the original record and proceedings of both complaints from District Forum Akola and perused the same.

9.      The learned advocate of the appellant has brought our attention to the inspection report dated 02/07/2004 and submitted that the two complainants namely Panjabrao Ramchandra Jayale and Shriram Gangadhar Jalandhar had already ploughed out the land before inspection and therefore there was no occasion for the Members of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee to verify the seeds and their germination in the lands. Thus according to him the report about the defective seeds sold to Panjabrao Ramchandra Jayale and Shriram Gangadhar Jalandhar is baseless and District Consumer Forum has thus erred in relying on the same. He also submitted that as per the said report there was no raining since before one week of inspection. Hence he argued that District Forum has not considered this material aspect that the germination of the seeds may be adversely affect due to shortage of water and also due to other adverse agro climatic conditions. He also argued that though the seeds testing laboratory stated that the seeds failed in the testing, but as seeds were valid upto 17/08/2004 and the seeds were tested in Government Laboratory on 19/07/2004 and it can be said that by that time of testing those seeds the germination capacity of the seeds may have been reduced. Thus according to him, the District Consumer Forum below has not properly considered this material aspect of the case and erred in partly allowing both complaints. He therefore requested that the impugned order may be set aside and both the complaints may be dismissed.

10.     It is found that Government Seeds testing laboratory after due testing of the soybeen seeds of the same variety and lot number which were sold to the original complainants, issued certificate on 19/07/2004 which was filed before the District Forum below. It shows that germination capacity of said seeds as 17% only the sample of seeds filed. In our view as the seeds were tested before expiry of the period of validity of the seeds testing report, the testing report can be said to be reliable. We thus hold that on the basis of the said report of the Government laboratory, it is proved that the seeds produced by the appellant and sold to the respective original complainants were defective and hence they suffered loss in the yield due to non germination of those seeds in their respective land.        

11.    Moreover, admittedly the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee after due inspection of the land of the respective complainant submitted a report which is rightly considered by the District Forum of Akola. It also shows that the germination capacity of those seeds was very low and the seeds were defective. We find that when all most five complainants suffered loss due to defective seeds, and as their case is supported by testing report and report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee, it can be said that the District Consumer Forum below has rightly partly allowed both the complaints. We find that both the appeals are devoid of merits and they deserve to be dismissed.        

                                         // ORDER //

I.        Both appeals bearing Nos.A/05/1124 and A/05/1125 are

          hereby dismissed.

II.       No order as to costs in both the appeals.

III.      The original record and proceedings of both the complaints be   

          sent back to the District Consumer Forum Akola, forthwith.

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