Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1.       This appeal is filed by the original opposite party No.2, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18/03/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum of Buldana in Consumer Complaint No.241/2011, by which the complaint is partly allowed.

2.       The case of the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein as set out by him in his consumer complaint filed before the District Forum, Buldana in brief is as under.

            The opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 is the dealer of the cotton seeds of the variety called as “Mallika B.T. 4 II” and the original O.P. No.2/appellant is its producer. The original complainant/ respondent No.1 herein is a farmer and he purchased the cotton seeds of above aforesaid variety for Rs.930/- from the original O.P.No.1/respondent No.2 herein and sowed the same in his agricultural land of two acres. He also provided the requisite fertilizer and did the proper cultivation of the land. The said seeds were germinated. The respondent No.1 also sprinkled the medicines over the crop of cotton to protect it from the insects and the disease. There was good flowering, but no cotton balls were produced by the said cotton corp. Therefore the respondent No.1 herein made to complaint  Taluka Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee on 3/11/2011 . The Taluka Agricultural Officer paid visit to the land of respondent No.1 on 04/11/2011 and prepared panchanama. The other officers of the Committee also paid visit to that land and prepared panchanama. The representatives of the original O.P.No.2/appellant and the respondent No.2 herein were also present at that time. The respondent No.1 could not get any income from the said crops. He suffered loss of 36 quintals of cotton due to said defective seeds. The rate of the cotton at that time was Rs.5000/- per quintal. Therefore respondent No.1 herein suffered total loss of Rs.1,80,000/- due to loss of yield of cotton. Moreover he also incurred expenses of Rs.70,000/- for sowing and cultivation of the defective seeds. Therefore he filed consumer complaint against the O.P.Nos.1 and 2/ i.e. respondent No.2 and appellant respectively, claiming from them compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-

3.      The O.P.No.1/respondent No.2 herein appeared before the District Forum and filed reply and denied its relationship with the respondent No.1 as dealer and the consumer. It is the case of respondent No.2 in brief that on the basis of panchanama, it can not be said that cotton seeds were defective. Moreover there is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 had sown the same seed in his land. There is no report about the test of the seeds from laboratory showing the defect in the seed. Moreover, as the respondent No.2 is not the producer of the seeds, no liability can be fasten on it. Therefore respondent No.2 herein prayed that the complaint may be dismissed as against him.

4.      The original O.P.No.2/appellant also filed reply before the District Forum and resisted the complaint. The case of the appellant in brief is as under.

There is no relationship of consumer and the produce of seeds in between the complainant and the appellant. Though the respondent No.1 purchased the above mentioned cotton seeds from the respondent No.2, but 4 bags of cotton seeds purchased by him were required to be sown in 4 acres of land, which was not in possession of respondent No.1. He therefore did not sow the said seeds in his land. The report of the Committee of District level is not filed on record and hence the report of the committee of Taluka level can not be considered. There is no conclusion of the committee that the seeds were defective. The compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- claimed by the complainant is incorrect. The appellant is a reputed company and there are various agro climate conditions which affect the yield of the crop and the cotton seeds produced by the appellant can not be said to be defective. The 7/12 extract of the land of Gat No.97 admeasuring 1 Hector 20 Ares produced on record does not show that the respondent No.1 is the owner of that land. The appellant has no concern with the seeds sown in that land as recorded in the 7/12 extract of gat No.97. Therefore it was prayed by the appellant in its reply that the complaint may be dismissed.

5.      The District Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record agreed with the aforesaid case of the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein and did not accept the aforesaid defence of the original O.P.No.2/appellant. Therefore the learned District Forum by passing impugned order directed the original O.P.No.2/appellant to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization by the complainant towards the loss suffered by him due to aforesaid defective seeds and also to pay him litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum also directed that the amount mentioned above be paid within a period of 45 days by the appellant from the date of receipt of copy of the said order and in case of default, the aforesaid amount will carry interest @ 10% P.A. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as against the original O.P.No.1/respondent No.2 herein.

6.      As observed above, feeling aggrieved the original O.P.No.2/producer of the seeds has filed this appeal. We have heard advocate Mr.Narendra Dhoot who appeared for the appellant/original respondent No.2 and advocate Mr.S.M.Kasture who appeared for the respondent No.1 herein/original complainant. The name of the respondent No.2 has been deleted in appeal as per request of the appellant.

7.      The learned advocate of the appellant in brief made submission as follows.

i)        The complainant has no locus-sandi to file the complaint as no land was available with him for sowing the seeds.

ii)       The panchanama drawn by the Taluka Agricultural Officer and considered by the District Forum below is against law and G.R. of the State Government and hence it can not be considered.

iii)      The complainant/respondent No.1 herein has not proved that he is entitled to compensation.

iv)      The complainant has purchased cotton seeds of different company i.e. Brahma B.T. 2 bags and he has concealed the said fact and District Forum has not considered the said fact.

v)      The District Forum has also not considered the law in respect of the panchanama. The panchanama filed on record is silent as record the quality of the seeds and hence there is no question of granting compensation on the basis of the said panchanama.

vi)      The impugned order is thus not legal, correct and proper and it deserves to be set aside.

          The learned advocate of the appellant relied on decisions in the following cases.

1. Agsun Seeds (I) Ltd……V/s…..N.Nagendra Reddy & Others, 2004 (IV C.P.J. Page No.63 (NC). It is held that as no letter of authorization is produced on record, complainants have  no privy to purchase seed and hence they are not consumer. Order of lower Forums was thus set aside.
2. Ram Nivas Soni……..V/s……Vaish Model Sr.Sec.School & others, 2013 (II) CPJ. Page No.396 (NC). It is held that  in a case of excess amount of fees charged in admission, complaint filed by complainant on behalf of his major son without any authorization was not maintainable and hence, complainant did not fall within purview of consumer.
3. Amita Sharma……V/s……B.H.E.L. & others, 2013 (II) CPJ, page No.505. It is held that there is nothing to show that petitioner’s husband had been incapacitated in any manner or was prevented in any manner whatsoever, from filing the complaint and that petitioner had not been authorized by her husband to file complaint on his behalf. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer.
4. Khamgaon Taluka Bagayatdar Shetkari and Fale (Fruits) Vikri Sahakari Sanstha Khamgaon…….V/s……Babu Kutti Daniel, 2006 (III) CPJ 269. It is held that when germination is shown to the extent of 20% and no reason is disclosed for poor germination and when panchaama is silent on quality of seeds and when no evidence is adduced regarding sub-standard or adulterated quality of seeds, no deficiency in service is proved.
5. Mahyco Seeds Ltd…….V/s…..Subhash Shrihari Devkore & otheres, 2013 (III) C.P.J. 150 (Mah.). It is held that agreement in between parties by itself cannot override statutory right conferred by provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Panchanamas appear to have been prepared as per say of complainants and other villagers without visiting Jawar crop from fields of complainants. Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal. As sample of disputed Jawar seed was not preserved, it is not possible to obtain any expert report, hence impugned judgment was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
6. Somnath Kashinath Ghodse…….V/s……Vilas Gangaram Jagtap and others, 2009 (II) C.P.J. 414 (Mah). In that case, it was alleged that poor growth of fruits resulted deficiency in service. But 100% germination was reported. Hence it is held that poor growth of fruits is not attributable to quality of seeds. But it depends upon various factors. Manufacturere/ dealer is not liable for that Field inspected by Committee. Report of Committee could not be acted upon as experts were not associated as required by Government resolution. Defect in seeds was not proved.
7. Charansing……V/s…..Hilling Tough Hospital, 200 (III) 1 (SC). It is held that, party claiming damages/compensation has to prove the same with all the requisite particulars in that behalf and the burden lies upon the said party.
8. Bhejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt.Ltd & another…….V/s……. Shivaji Anaji Ghole, 2003 (III) CPJ, 628. In that case there was  absence of expert report in support of contention. It is held that party claiming damages has to prove the same with all requisite particulars. But no evidence was produced by complainant. Hence it is held that Forum erred in allowing claim. The order of the Forum was set aside in appeal.
9. General Motors (India) Private Limited……V/s…..Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & another. It is held that affected party is entitled to be heard and mere proof of unfair trade practice is not enough, causing of loss is also required to be established.
10. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd…..V/s….Sadhu & Another, II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC). It is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case that report of Expert Committee indicates that variation in condition of crop was not and could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factos. The word “not” was inserted to favour Corporation or cause prejudice to farmers. The leanred National Commission is not right in observing that at the most report could be said to be ambiguous. Report was clear, specific and definite. Complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is also held that learned Commissions committed error of law and of jurisdication in allowing it. Orders passed by District Forums, State Commission and National Commission were thus set aside and complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
11. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd…….V/s……G.Sreenivasa Reddy & Others, II (2012) CPJ 297 (NC). It is held that report of Commissioner indicated that there was mixture of seeds and it is because of this that floweres as well as plants were of different varieties. Report no where stated that variation was because of defective seeds. No evidence was produced that petitioner’s seeds had any genetic defect. Orders of Fora below thus were set aside.
12. Mahyco Monsanto Bio-Tech (India) Ltd……Doddabasappa & Others, II (2012) CPJ 436 (NC). It is held that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributable to quality of seeds but could be due to other factors unless there is specific mention in concerned report about inferior quality of seeds. No credible evidence including expert evidence has been filed by respondent to prove that crop failed because of defective seeds. Onus to prove that there was defect in seeds was on complainants who have failed to provide any credible evidence in support of same. Orders of Fora below were therefore set aside.
13. Syngenta India Ltd…….V/s…..Velaga Narasimha Rao, 2011 NCJ 181 (NC). In the said case no instance of any deficiency in service on part of appellant was substantiated by complainant nor was this finding of State Commission based on any cogent evidence produced before it. Therefore it is held that order of State Commission allowing compensation is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
14. Sonekaran Gladioli Growers…….V/s…….Babu Ram, 2005 (2) CPJ National Commission, 94. It is held that in the absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds supplied, no inference can be drawn against petitioner. Non-standard quality of seed is not proved and hence complaint was dismissed by Forum. That order was set aside in appeal. But it was restored by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition.    

8)      On the other hand, the learned advocate of respondent No.1/original complainant supported the impugned order and submitted that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the documents and evidence considered by the District Forum proved that the seeds purchased by the original complainant/respondent No.1 were produced by the appellant and he had sown those seeds in the land belonging to him and the said seeds though germinated, no cotton yield received from the same and hence he suffered loss due to said defective seeds. He therefore requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

9)      We find from the receipt dated 07/06/2011 which is not disputed by both the parties, that the seeds of the variety called as “Mallika B.T. 4 II”  in two bags were purchased @ Rs.930/- per bag by the respondent No.1 herein, from the respondent No.2/dealer. It is also not disputed that the said seeds were produced by the company. No doubt, the respondent No.2 had also purchased under that receipt other two bags of Paras company having the variety as “Brahma B.G. II”. However we find that simply because seeds of that Paras Company are also purchased under same receipt, it can not be said that the seeds produced by the appellant were not sown by him in his land and only seeds of Paras company were sown by him in his land. It can not be presumed that the respondent No.1 is claiming compensation from the appellant towards the loss sustained by him due to defective seeds of Paras company purchased from the respondent No.2 under the same receipt.

10.    We thus hold that as the seeds produced by the appellant company were sold by its dealer i.e. respondent No.2 to the original complainant/respondent No.1 under that receipt dated 07/06/2011, the relationship of the consumer and the trader/manufacturer is established in between both parties and hence complaint filed before the District Forum is maintainable.

11.    We also find that the 7/12 extract of Gat No.97 filed on record shows that the said land is belongs to the wife of respondent No.2 namely Druptabai. 7/12 extract also shows that the cotton was sown on 80 Ares i.e. 2 acars land, in the year 2011/2012. Moreover as the above seeds were purchased by the respondent No.1 himself and he had sown those seeds in the land belonging to him and his wife jointly, then the complainant/respondent No.1 herein has rightly filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum below.

12.    We also find that admittedly the committee comprising expert had paid visit to the above land of respondent No.1 and prepared panchanama and submitted the report, which is relied on by the respondent No.1 herein. It is also seen from documents filed on record that the representative of the appellant as well as that of respondent No.2 were present at the time of said inspection and they signed the said document. They did not raise any objection about the correctness of the said documents. The said documents were prepared by the expert and they are very specific. They show that the seeds produced by the appellant were found defective. The said panchanama and report are very specific in all respect. The Committee comprising of experts has drawn a conclusion to the effect that on the basis of characteristics of crops found after inspection, it is proved that the said crops does not have characteristics of seeds produced by the appellant.

13.    We thus find that the aforesaid documents were properly considered by the District Consumer Forum below and it has rightly come to the conclusion that as it is proved that as characteristics of the seeds of “Mallika B.T. 4 II” variety are not found in the seeds sold to the complainant/respondent No.1 herein and as they are found defective and as they were produced by the appellant, the respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation for the loss caused to him due to that reason. The District Consumer Forum has assessed the compensation at Rs.50,000/-. The respondent No.1 has not challenged said quantum of compensation by filing separate appeal. We find that the quantum of compensation assessed by the District Forum is also correct and proper. Moreover, the District Forum has rightly awarded that compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. We also find that all aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of the appellant are of no assistance to the appellant since the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above are totally different from those of the said case. Thus the said decisions are not applicable to the present case.

14.    We have thus found that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is legal, correct and proper and appeal is devoid of merits and hence it deserves to be dismissed.     

                                     // ORDER //

1.       The appeal is dismissed.
2.        No order as to cost in appeal.
3.  The original record of the complaint bearing

               No.241/2011 called from the District Forum,  Buldana.

            be sent back forthwith

4.  Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of  

           cost.