(Delivered on 10/11/2017)
Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member
1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Buldhana passed in complaint No. 260/2002 dated 08/01/2003 dismissing the complaint.
2. The complainant in short filed a complaint that he purchased five bags (each of 30 Kg.) of Soybean seeds from the shop of opposite party (in short O.P.) No. 1- manufactured by O.P. No. 2. He sowed them in his five acres of land on 28/06/2002. However, as there was no germination, he filed complaint with the Taluka Agricultural Officer (TAO) Buldhana. The TAO inspected his field along with officers of O.P. No. 2 on 09/07/2002 and prepared panchanama of the less germination of the seeds. Also the O.P. No. 1 wrote wrong lot number on the receipt of the seeds and committed unfair trade practice. He therefore, filed a complaint claiming deficiency in service with a prayer to provide him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss of crops and Rs. 20,000/- for physical and mental harassment with Rs. 15,000/- as expenditure and Rs. 5,000/- as cost.
3. On notice the O.P. Nos. 1&2 countered the complaint, by filing reply before the District Consumer Forum below.
(a) The O.P. No. 1 claimed no deficiency in service stating that the lot number was wrongly written due to inadvertence.
(b) The O.P.No.2 denied the seeds to be defective and submitted that the seeds are sensitive to the climate. As there was heavy rains in the Taluka of the complainant on 25th ,26th ,27th of June, 2002 and the complainant sowed the seeds on 28/06/2002 the seeds did not grow properly. The complainant also accepted in front of Enquiry Committee that the seeds germinated satisfactorily in one acre of his land. Therefore the complainant himself is responsible for the non germination of the seeds in his field. The seeds were certified to be 100% pure with 74% germination capability by the certification agency . Therefore, the complaint being false, it be dismissed.
4. The learned Forum considered the evidence submitted by both the parties. The learned Forum also recorded the evidence. The learned Forum held that the wrong mention of the lot number on the receipt is a human mistake. The inspection Committee has recorded that the germination percentage is 24.6% less than the standard germination. The District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee also inspected the field of the complainant on 01/08/2002 and has held the growth to be 30% due to defect in the seeds.
The complainant accepted that the seeds from the one bag were satisfactory. However, as the growth on remaining area was not satisfactory, he again sowed seeds in the same land to protect him from the loss. The learned Forum held that the germination in one acre of land was satisfactory and the germination in the rest of the field was not satisfactory. The learned Forum further considered that if the seeds are sown deep and as there was heavy rains prior to sowing the seeds might have suffered due to climate change. The learned Forum therefore, held that few of the seeds from the same lot grew well whereas the remaining did not grow well. The seeds were certified to be pure with proper growth capability. The seeds also suffer in germination due to climatic impact. The learned Forum further held that the neighbouring farmers of the complainant who were alleged to have suffered due to non germination had submitted that there was no defect in the seeds.
The learned Forum recorded that the O.P.No. 2 sold massive amount of seeds in the District, but except the complainant no one found defect in the seeds. Therefore, the learned Forum holding that the seeds were defective does not get proved, passed the order supra.
5. Aggrieved against the order the complainant filed an appeal & hence, is referred as appellant. Advocate Mr. Shrikant Saoji filed power for the appellant. But he was not present at the time of final hearing. Advocate Mr. Dakodiya appeared for the original O.P.No.2 now respondent No.2. The original O.P.No. 1 is referred as respondent No. 1. However, did not remain present & hence, was declared ex-parte. The appellant filed the written notes of argument.
6. The advocate of the appellant relied on the following judgments.
i. National Commission Judgment passed in Kala Gonda Dhul Gonda Patil Vs. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation published at I (2012) CPJ 160 (NC). Wherein the Hon’ble Commission in case of adulterated seeds held that the contentions that no other farmer in the area made a complaint is not acceptable and also set aside the order of the State Commission regarding growth of crops not satisfactory and maintained the order of the District Forum being based on the reasonable estimate of crop yield and prevalent market rate .
ii. National Commission Judgment passed in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhim Reddy Mallay Reedy published at 2008(I) CPR 459 (NC). Wherein it was held that nothing is brought on record by the petitioner to contradict report of agricultural officer of the district showing that the loss of crop was on account of seeds supplied by the petitioner. Hence, confirmed the order.
iii. Maharashtra State Commission order passed in appeal No. 195/2008 between Mosanto Performance Enquiry System Vs. Samadhan Rajaram Dabare, dated 02/03/2015, wherein the Hon’ble Commission believed the report of District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee and the affidavit of the respondent which had given a specific report regarding non germination of the seeds. Hence, dismissed the appeal.
The advocate for the appellant submitted in his written notes of arguments that the learned Forum did not properly consider the report of the above referred District Committee which pointed out the factual position of 30% germination and also the affidavit filed by the Neighbouring farmer who also suffered the same loss. The advocate of the appellant therefore submitted that the learned Forum passed the order based on presumptions and assumptions & hence, it needs to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
7. The advocate for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand reiterated the same contentions as were raised before the Forum submitting that the non germination could have been because of so many reasons other than the quality of the seeds which was well certified by the laboratory. Also the expert of agricultural department had admitted in the cross examination that if the seeds are sown deep in the soil the germination gets reduced. The seeds supplied were well certified and were of 100% purity and no other farmers who purchased those seeds in the entire district had raised any complaint against it. Hence, the learned Forum rightly considered the facts and passed the order which needs to be confirmed.
8. The respondent No.1 remained absent and did not file the written notes of argument.
9. We considered contentions of both the parties. The District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee had inspected the field of the respondent in which they have recorded that the appellant had re-sowed the field after finding that the germination is not satisfactory which indicates that when the above Grievance Committee had inspected the plot, the original sown field was not available to them for inspection. Also the appellant accepted that out of the five bags of seeds purchased by him the seeds in one bag had satisfactory germination. The above Grievance Committee did not specify except the percentage of germination the exact reason as to how the committee came to the conclusion that there was less germination, when other seeds were sowed in the land before their visit. Therefore, their report carries no weight. There is no evidence other than said report to hold that the seeds could not generate due to their defectiveness. Also we find that the heavy rains had taken place prior to sowing of the seeds and part of the seeds had germinated satisfactorily. It indicates that the non germination by some portion of the seeds can be due to other reasons. It supports the contentions of the respondent No. 2. Also we find no complaints from rest of the farmers in the District. Under all these circumstances the contentions of advocate of appellant do not hold ground. The decisions relied on by appellant’s advocate are thus not applicable to present case under above discussed facts & circumstances.
10. Thus , we find that the reasons discussed by the learned Forum become acceptable and therefore, the order passed by the learned Forum proves reasonable and correct. It therefore, deserves to be confirmed. 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 costs.
iv. Copy of order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.
