(Delivered on 13/12/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The present appeal is filed against the order of the  District Forum,  Buldhana passed  in complaint  No. CC/85/2011 dated  31/07/2014 directing  as below.

a.      The complaint is partly allowed.

b.      Opposite party (for short O.P.) No. 1&2 together or severally  to pay  the complainant -Vitthaldas  Mohandas Dangara the loss due to  defective seeds of Rs. 61,768/- with  interest at the rate of 8% p.a.  from the  date of filing the complaint of  09/03/2011 and to provide  the cost of complaint  of Rs. 5,000/-.

c.       The O.P. Nos. 1&2 to comply the order in the span of 45 days  from the date of  receipt of the  order and  to provide compliance report in 15 days thereafter.  In failure the O.P. shall be liable for action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

d.      If  the above order  is not complied in the span of 45 days  then  the

amount  by payable  with   interest  at the rate of 12% p.a.  till the final  payment.

2.      The complainant herein filed a complaint that he purchased sun flower  7 bags seeds by name “Truthful Pioneer” at the rate  of Rs. 630/- per bag of two kgs. each  from the O.P. No. 2 on 21/09/2010 which were manufactured by  O.P.No. 1. He sowed them in his   eight acres of land and took proper   care. However, in spite of proper care he found irregular height of plants (grown) flower size and very few flower with sun flower seeds.

3.      He therefore,  filed a complaint  with  District Agricultural  Officer, Akola on 25/11/2010 and the  District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee (DSGRC) which  inspected  his field on 30/11/2010 in the presence of  representative of  the O.P. No. 1. The DSGRC gave a report on 07/12/2010 declaring  that the seeds were  defective. He therefore filed a  complaint  with a prayer  to provide him  a compensation of  Rs. 2,24,000/- with  agricultural expenditure  of Rs. 30,000/-, seeds expenditure of Rs. 4,410/- totaling to Rs. 2,58,410/- with  interest at the rate of 12% p.a.  from the  date of  complaint and  Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental harassment  and a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

4,.     On notice  the O.P.No. 1 appeared   and countered  the complaint  stating that  the complainant  cannot be a  consumer. It does  not come to the notice as to  in which year he  sowed  the seeds. No information  was given  to the  O.P.No. 1 regarding  inspection by the DSGRC.  The DSGRC had  no  competence   to hold  the  seeds  to be defective  which were  well certified  to be 100%  germinative  by the laboratory. The  seeds were not  examined from the laboratory approved by the Government.

5.      The O.P. No. 2 claimed that  it had  sold the seeds  but  there was no agreement  for further service. The seeds were in sealed  bags. Hence,  it has  no responsibility  of  any  defect in it.

6.      The learned District  Forum, considered  the evidence on record and  report  given by the DSGRC  Committee, Akola  and the contentions of both the parties. It believed  the  report of the DSGRC given on 07/12/2010 and held that  the report  is a conclusive  proof about the  defects in the  seeds. Hence,  the  complainant  deserves to get the compensation  because of  defective seeds.  

7.      The learned  Forum also  considered the evidence  submitted by the agricultural  officer regarding the price of sun flower and held that  in view of  the  growth of  five percent  fruit  bearing  flowers  the  complainant  deserves to get Rs.8,824/- rupees per bag of  compensation  and hence,  passed the order supra.

8.      Aggrieved against the order, the O.P.No. 1 filed  appeal  and hence, is referred as appellant.  Advocate  Smt.  Madhavi Khare appeared  on behalf  of the appellant and filed written notes of  argument. The original complainant is referred as respondent No. 1 and advocate Shri Dhande  appeared for  him.  The original  O.P. No. 2 was represented  by advocate  Smt. Madhavi Dhoble who filed written notes of argument but remained  absent at the time of final hearing.

9.      The advocate for the appellant  raised the ground that  there was no compliance of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by which the sample of the seeds claimed to be defective should have been sent for  laboratory  testing and  a proper  report  should have been procured.  She submitted that  the laboratory analysis is mandatory to  prove  the manufacturing  defect.  She also  submitted that  the germination gets affected by so many  other  climatic factors  and does not indicate that  there is defect in the seeds. It can be due to  negligence  on the part of  respondent No. 1 as  it is a  single  incident in isolation.

10.    The advocate for the appellant  further  submitted that  the report 

considered by the learned Forum is nothing  more than panchanama and does not show  reason  of the failure  and does not state that  the seeds were defective. She also  submitted that  the learned Forum discussed other  factors which affect the germination.  But relied on the report which  is not scientific in nature. The learned Forum also calculated the amount of  compensation without any basis which itself  is barred by the provisions of law.

11.    The advocate of appellant  further  submitted that the Forum  did not consider the report  placed on record by the appellant  which  pointed towards the germination percentage  and overlooked it.  She further  submitted that  the report is of  agricultural  officer, Zilla Parishad Akola where as the land as well the complainant  is from Buldhana an another  district which  discrepancy  was not considered. The advocate for the appellant  further submitted that  the learned Forum also did not consider the various  judgments  relied by  the appellant  and passed  an erroneous order which  deserves to be set aside.

12.    The advocate for the respondent No.1 reiterated  the  contentions of the complaint and submitted that  the  District Seeds Grievance Redressal  Committee had  included  the representative of the appellant  who was on the spot along with the DSGR Committee when respective fields of  19 farmers  were inspected in the vicinity. The advocate  for the respondent   further submitted that  the  DSGRC considered various  aspects and  weather   conditions  and found that  the other farmers in the  vicinity  who had  sown  the sun flower seeds of other  manufacturer had grown  nicely  with  big flowers.  Hence,  the  said  Committee submitted the enquiry  report  on  07/12/2010 and  gave a copy to all 12 farmers.

          The representative of the appellant  did not protest  the  observations  of the said Committee and the appellant  made the false submission that  they were not  called  for the inspections. The enquiry report of said Committee itself is a conclusive  proof of the  defective seeds.

13.    The Advocate for the respondent  further  submitted that  the respondent No.1 is staying  in Shegaon  and has land  in the District Buldhana. However the appellant  never raised  this ground  before the  District Forum. Also  the  respondent  had sown  all the seeds in his field & hence, there cannot be any ground  to take the  laboratory  report of the seeds by the respondent.  The advocate for the respondent No. 1 relied on the following decisions in following cases, .

i.        National Commission Judgment passed in Super Agri Seeds Pvt. Ltd.  Vs.  Ram Chandra Reedy published at  I(2017) CPJ 112 (NC). Wherein  It is held that  the  Commission  relied on the data given by Indian Metrological  Department and  confirmed  the order of the  learned Forum which was upheld by the National Commission.

ii.       The Maharashtra High  Court Judgment passed in Bayer Bio Science Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad Vs. State of Maharashtra reported at 2013 (1) Mh LJ 934 wherein  the Hon’ble High  Court held that  if a claim  is made  in a leaflet that is sufficient  to attract the  prohibition  of misbranding (bar under the  provisions  of Maharashtra  Cotton Seeds Act 2010).

iii.      The Supreme Court Order passed in National Seeds  Corporation Ltd.  Vs.  Madhusudan Reedy published at 2012(4) Mh.L.J.  118 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that  the farmers  purchasing  seeds  from the  National Seeds Corporation  would fall in the ambit of  Section  2(1)(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act and can avail the remedy.

          Therefore, the advocate for the  respondent  No. 1 submitted  that the learned Forum has passed the correct order which  deserves to be  confirmed.

14. The advocate for the respondent No. 2 submitted in the written notes of arguments that the Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is mandatory which is not complied by the respondent No. 1 by submitting the laboratory analysis of the seeds  to show their defects. The advocate for respondent No. 2 further submitted that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 reside in Buldhana District whereas the farm where the seeds were sown is in Akola District. The DSGRC, Akola has given the report. Hence the District Forum, Buldhana could not have considered it but it wrongly considered and passed the order. Also the respondent No. 2 is a dealer who sales packed and sealed bags & hence is not responsible for the seeds and their defects. Hence the learned Forum has passed a wrong order by levying the blame of deficiency in service upon respondent No. 2 which deserves to be set aside.

15     . We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that the respondent No. 1 has a farm in District Akola but purchased the seeds from respondent No. 2  which is in District Buldhana which is also the dealer of appellant in Buldhana. However the DSGR Committee of Akola District visited his farm and gave the report.

16.    However the appellant as well respondent No. 2 did not raise the ground of anomaly before the learned Forum of Buldhana We also find that when the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 who are dealer of appellant are from  one district there cannot be breach of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the District Forum, Buldhana to take cognizance of the complainant. The seeds are purchased from the District of Buldhana. Hence the learned Forum was right in taking the cognizance of the complaint. We further find that there is no bar for the Forum of one district to consider the report of the expert DSGR Committee of another district. Hence we find no breach of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

17.      We further find that the DSGR, Committee consisted of the expert members of the agriculture university of Akola and the District Seed Certification officer also contained the representative of the appellant by name Mr. R.V. Deshmukh.

18.    When the said  Committee has given a very clear observations which are recorded by the President of the DSGRC  and when the recording of observations is done in case of 19 farmers and their farms, the report cannot be questioned. The report itself includes that the committee has considered the other climatic factors which can affect the growth of the flowers and crop. We also find the representative of the appellant has not raised any objection to the observations make  in the report.

19.    We further find that the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted to maintain the samples of the seeds with the expectation that the seeds would not germinate  and he would be required to send them for laboratory test. In the normal circumstances, the farmer believes the labels  affixed on the bags and uses them. He is eager to get maximum plants out of the seeds and hence sows them complete. He  cannot be expected  to preserve a portion of it for laboratory testing in future. We also further find that the DSGRC is a expert Committee which must have considered this issue and hence has given the opinion which we find no reason to disbelieve it.

20.    We also find that the learned Forum has rightly considered the report of DSGRC, Akola and the contentions of both the parties and passed the correct order.  Hence the order being correct. it deserves to be confirmed. We also  find that case laws relied  by the appellant before the learned Forum are considered by the Forum properly  and do not come to the help of the appellant. Hence the order below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is dismissed.

ii.       The order of the learned Forum is confirmed.

iii.      Parties to bear their own cost.

iv.      Copy of the order be provided to both parties, free of cost.