Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. These five appeals are filed by original Opposite Party (for short O.P.) No.1, the manufacturer of the seeds against the common order passed on 05/07/2010 by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in five Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.21/2010 to 25/2010 by which following direction has been given,
“ (a) The O.P. No.1/appellant shall refund to each of the complainant, price of the Soya-bean Seeds purchased by them as manufactured by O.P.No.1 and also to pay each of them compensation of Rs.7000/- towards the loss sustained by them within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and in case of default the said amount will carry interest @ 12 % p.a. till realisation of the same by them. (b) The O.P.No.2 the dealer of the Soya-bean Seeds is also directed to pay each of the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/-.”
2. We have perused the record of the original complaint and written notes of arguments filed by Advocates of both parties. The learned Advocate of the appellant filed memo/pursis stating therein that his written notes of arguments may be treated as his oral arguments.
The respondent’s Advocate relied on the decisions in the following cases.
A) Nath Bio-Technologies Ltd…..V/s…..Dr.Bajranglal Shrikisan Mantri, II (2015) CPJ 241 (NC). It is held that the presumption of truth is attached with report given by Agricultural Committee. Petitioner submitted that no tissue culture plants were supplied but they have filed certificate that only plants are produced in their laboratory by tissue culture. It is held that case of petitioner itself is contradictory.
B) Seed Works International Pvt. Ltd and Anr….V/s….Nampelly Sudhakar, II (2015) CPJ 587 (NC). There was low germination of the seeds. There was also poor formation of flowers and bolls. There was no evidence to show that complainants were suitably cautioned or advised by O.Ps. It is held that nothing stopped O.Ps. from applying for test and analysis and sending requisite sample on their own and therefore Unfair Trade Practice is proved.
C) National Seeds Corporation Ltd…..V/s…..M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., I (2012) CPJ 1 (SC). It is held that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss of crop on account of use of defective seeds.
The learned Advocate of the respondent thus supported the impugned order and submitted that all these appeals may be dismissed.
3. The learned Advocate of the appellant in his written notes of arguments has submitted that the lot the seeds was certified and released by the competent M.P.State Seeds Certification Agency and the Forum has not considered the same. He also submitted that the complainants had purchased the seeds in the month of May 2009 but they were sown in the month of July 2009 and they have not explained as to whether they observed all the necessary conditions required for storing the seeds before sowing and this fact was also not considered by the Forum. He also submitted that the reports of the Talathi, Sarpanch and Agriculture Officer can not be accepted as they are not experts and the Forum failed to consider this aspect also. He therefore requested that common impugned order may be set aside.
4. The following facts have emerged from the documents filed on record. The original complainants who are the respondent No.1 in all appeals had purchased Soya-bean seeds from original O.P.No.2/respondent No.2 as produced by O.P.No.1/appellant and they had sown the same in their respective land. But there was no proper germination of those seeds and therefore they had made complaints to various authorities. Moreover the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee had also paid visit to respective land of the complainant and inspected the same and submitted report drawing conclusion that the seeds were defective. They had come to that conclusion after sending the samples of the seeds of same lot and varieties to the Government Testing Laboratory and after receiving the test report of those seeds that they are failed.
5. We find no reason to dis-believe the report of the aforesaid Committee which comprises of various officers including Agriculture Officer and their report is also supported by the Government Seed Testing Laboratory report filed on record.
6. We find that the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants by its Advocate carries no weight when it is not supported by any evidence and particularly when the case of complaint/ respondent No.1 is duly supported by expert committee and the testing report of the Government Laboratory. The Forum has considered all material aspects of the case and evidence in right prospectives while partly allowing all the aforesaid five complaints. Moreover the Forum has rightly held that appellant/O.P.No.1 responsible for refund of price of defective Soya-bean seeds and for payment of compensation of Rs.7000/- to each of the complainant. The interest awarded after the lapse of the period of 30 days is also just and proper. Thus all these five appeals deserve to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- All the five appeals bearing Nos.A/10/651, A/10/652,
A/10/653, A/10/654, A/10/655 are hereby dismissed.
- No order as to cost in all these appeals.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of costs.
