(Passed on 07.06.2016)
Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the order dtd.20.10.2011, passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in consumer complaint bearing CC No.1/11, by which the complaint has been partly allowed against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 / original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos.1 & 2.
2. The case of the complainant / appellant as set out by him in the original complaint in brief is as under.
The complainant is an agriculturist. The O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are respectively the producer and the dealer of watermelon seeds. The complainant purchased watermelon seeds for Rs.9,500/- from the O.P. No.2 as produced by O.P.No.1. He had sown those seeds in his agricultural land. There was germination of the seeds. However, many of the plants did not bear watermelon fruits and only some plants bore few fruits. The complainant, therefore, made complaint to various authorities, who inspected his filed and the crop and submitted their report that due to defective seeds the complainant sustained loss of yield. Therefore, the complainant served legal notice dtd.12.10.2010 to O.P. Nos.1 & 2 and demanded compensation from them. They did not pay any heed to his notice. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum, seeking total compensation of Rs.4.00 Lacs towards loss of yield and further compensation of Rs.1.00 Lac towards expenses incurred by him for cultivation of crop. He also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. over Rs.4.00 Lacs & Rs.1.00 Lac. He also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of the proceeding amounting to Rs.5,000/-.
3. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint by filing their separate written version. The O.P.No.1 denied the allegations that the seeds were defective. The main submission of O.P.No.1 is that the age of the watermelon plants was 75 to 80 days only and the seeds were sown on 10.12.2009 and 25.12.2009. But the inspection of the plant was made after 60 to 62 days after sowing operation and therefore, the inspection is made after the full age of the plants and hence inspection report cannot be relied upon. The complaint to various authorities was made after a long delay. The complaint made to authorities shows that the plants were infested by insects and there is no reference of the same in the report of the experts. The loss of yield can be due to various other reasons than the defective sees as specified by the O.P.Nos.1 in written version and the same facts were brought to the notice of the experts by respective O.P.No.1 at the time of inspection, but the same were not considered by the experts. The seeds were duly certified before they were brought to the market for sale. No sample of the seeds was sent to the laboratory by the complainant for testing. Therefore, it was prayed by the O.P. No.1 that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The O.P.No.2 dealer also submitted that it sold the seeds in sealed condition to the complainant and therefore, it is not responsible for any loss, if any, sustained by the complainant. It also raised similar defence as raised by O.P.No.1 in its written version. It also requested that the complaint may be dismissed.
5. The Forum below, after hearing both the parties and considering evidence on record passed the impugned order and thereby partly allowed the complaint. The Forum accepted the case of the complainant that the seeds were defective. The Forum directed the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to refund jointly & severally price of the seeds amounting to Rs.9,500/- and also to pay jointly & severally to him Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred by him for cultivation of the crop, Rs.5,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.1,500/-. Thus, the Forum also directed them to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. over total amount of Rs.29,500/- after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order.
6. As observed above, to enhance the compensation awarded by the Forum, the original complainant has filed this appeal. We have heard learned advocate of both the parties and perused the papers placed before us. The learned advocate of the complainant / appellant submitted that the Forum has not given any reason for not awarding compensation to the complainant towards the loss of yield of watermelon fruits sustained by the complainant / appellant. He has drawn our attention to the letter dtd.20.04.2011 addressed to the complainant / appellant by the Agricultural Development Officer, Yavatmal, informing him about the loss of Rs.2,16,600/- sustained by him due to defective seeds. He, therefore, requested that the compensation as claimed in the complaint may be awarded. In support of his submission he relied upon the observations made in the following cases.
i. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Ishwarsing, (3) 2010, CPJ 270 and
ii. National Seeds Corporation Ltd Vs. M Madhusudan Reddy & Anr., DGLS (Soft.) 53 (SC).
In both the cases, compensation was awarded for defective seeds under the facts & circumstances of the said cases.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate of the respondents submitted that the Forum has rightly not awarded any such more compensation as claimed by the appellant since it is not proved that the complainant has sustained any such loss due to defect in the seeds. He has reiterated the case of the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 as put forth by them in their respective written version. He, therefore, submitted that as there is no merit in this appeal, it may be dismissed with cost. He relied on the
observations made in the following cases.
i. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. Vs. Gowari Peddanna & Anr., 2006 (3) CPR 408, (NC).
In that case, it is observed that onus of proving defect in seed lies with complainant.
ii. Khamgaon Taluka Bagayatdar Shetakri Vs. Bahu Kutti Daniel, III 2006 CPJ 269, Maharashtra State Consumer Commission.
In that case, it is observed that when no reason is disclosed for proof of germination and no evidence regarding sub–standard or adulterated quality of seed is adduced, when failure of germination may be due to agro-climatic factors, no deficiency in service is proved.
- Indo American Hybrid Seed Vs. Vijaykumar Shankarrao, II 2007 CPJ 148, (NC).
In that case, it is observed that in the absence of evidence and proof, no unfair trade practice can be proved.
- J K Agro – Genetics & Ors. Vs. Siddula Ramesh etc. 2008 CPR 42, (NC).
In that case, expert report relied was found neither valid nor relating to complainant and hence there was no expert evidence to prove the case. Case was then remanded for expert evidence and decision as per law.
- The Secretary Vs. The area Manager, 2008 (2) CPR 193, (NC).
In that case, it is held that since there was no expert report of any Agricultural Officer or from any Seed Testing Laboratory, regarding poor quality of seeds, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
vi. M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar Vs. A Chudhary Amar Kumar, 2010 (1) CPR 19. (Punjab State Consumer Commission)
In that case, it is observed that defect in seed has to be proved by specialist opinion.
vii. Chenna Rayadu Vs. Prabhat Agri Bio-Tech Ltd., 2010 (1) CPR 50, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Commission.
In that case, it is observed that allegation about defective seeds has to be proved by scientific analysis.
- Ramesh Gujar Vs. Suresh Kumar Chhaged & Anr., 2010 (1) CPR 167, Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission.
In that case, it is observed that it is the responsibility of the complainant to prove failure of seeds by examining experts.
- National Seed Corporation Ltd Vs. Mohanlal & Anr., 2010(3) CPR 340, Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission.
In that case, it is held that non germination by itself cannot lead to presumption that seed was defective.
- Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sharda Motirao Kankale, 2012 (3) CPR 238, (NC).
In that case, there was no report of any agricultural expert to confirm that seeds were defective and crop failed due to genetic defects in the seeds. Hence, complaint was dismissed.
- Gujarat State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd. Vs. Ghanashyambhai Fulabhai Patel, 2011 (2) CPR 8 (NC).
In that case, it is observed that Poor germination cannot be entirely attributed to quality of seed.
- Banta Ram Vs. Jay Bharat Beej Company Ltd & Anr., 2013 (2) CPR 703 (NC)
In that case, it is observed that low germination may be due to reasons totally external to quality of seed.
8. It is pertinent to note that the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 / respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein have not filed any appeal against the impugned order in which it is held by the Forum that there was adulteration in the seeds, which caused loss of yield to the complainant / appellant. However, the Forum has not given any reason for not awarding any compensation to the complainant / appellant for the loss of yield sustained by him due to defective or adulterated seeds. The expert committee, after due inspection of the plants, submitted clear report that the seeds were adulterated. The finding of the Forum that the seeds were adulterated has become final as O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 have not filed any appeal against the said finding. It is seen that the Forum awarded cost of the seeds amounting to Rs.9,500/- and expenses of Rs.20,000/- incurred by the complainant for cultivation of the crop and compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards physical & mental harassment. The Forum erred in not awarding compensation towards the loss of yield sustained by the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation on that ground. Therefore, we proceed to assess the compensation towards the loss of yield to which the complainant is entitled.
9. Agricultural Development Officer of Zilha Parishad, Yavatmal in his letter dtd.30.04.2011 addressed to the complainant / appellant, assessed the said loss as Rs.2,16,600/- showing the loss of yield of 228 quintals. Considering said letter giving necessary details and area of crop grown and other relevant facts and circumstances we find that the Forum ought to have granted compensation of Rs.2.00 Lacs, in addition to the aforesaid amount granted by it.
10. We also find that the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned advocate of the respondents are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case since they are totally different from those facts & circumstances of the said cases. We hold that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. In addition to the reliefs granted by the Forum under the impugned order, we direct that the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 / respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall also pay compensation of Rs.2.00 Lacs to the complainant / appellant towards the loss of yield of watermelon fruits sustained by him due to adulterated seeds.
iii. The said additional compensation shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order jointly & severally by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and in case of default, they shall pay that amount jointly & severally to the complainant / appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of impugned order i.e. from 20.10.2011 till its realization by the complainant.
iv. No order as to costs in this appeal.
v. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
