1. This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party (for short OP) No.1 against the order dated 16/12/2011 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No.82/2011 by the Additional District Forum, Nagpur, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is an agriculturist and he had purchased 30 bags each containing 25 kgs of soybean seeds on 2/6/2011 from the OP No.2, who is the respondent No.2 herein. The said seeds were produced by OP No.1/appellant. The complainant had sown the said seeds in his 30 acres of agricultural land on 16/6/2011 and 17/6/2011. However, those seeds were not germinated though a period of five to seven days was passed after sowing. Therefore, he made complaint to OP No.2 and also to Taluka Agriculture Officer, Block Development Officer, Agriculture Officer and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer. On his complaint, the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee paid visit to the field of complainant on 12/7/2011 and submitted a report about non germination of seeds. Therefore, the complainant was required to sow other seeds by re preparing the land for cultivation. The complainant, therefore, sustained loss. He filed the complaint and claimed refund of Rs.30,000/- towards price of Soyabean, compensation of Rs.3 lacs towards loss of yield and exenses of Rs.1 lac towards preparation of the land for recultivation and Rs.50000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment. Thus, he totally claimed Rs.4,80,000/- from OP Nos.1 & 2.
3. The OP No.1/appellant resisted that complaint by filing its written version/reply. It denied the case of the complainant and submitted that the OP No.2 refunded Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on 21/6/2011 who surrendered his right of making complaint in future about the same and, thereafter, he recultivated the said land. Therefore, he sustained no loss. It, therefore, submitted that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The OP No.2 did not appear before the Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, the Forum proceeded exparte against OP No.2 as per order dated 14/11/2011.
5. The Additional District Forum below, after hearing aforesaid parties and considering evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac towards the expenses incurred by him for recultivation of land, Rs.1,20,000/- towards the loss sustained by him for short of yield and Rs.30000/- as compensation towards harassment. Therefore, it directed the OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay to the complainant total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and to pay interest @9% over Rs.2,20,000/- from 30/8/2011 till its realization by the complainant and in case of default, they will be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. over the said amount and also to pay him Rs.2000/- towards cost of complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the OP No.1 has preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned advocate of the respondent who was present at the time of final hearing of appeal. None appeared for the appellant at the time of final hearing. Respondent No.2 is proceeded exparte as it remained absent though served with the notice. We have also perused copies of the impugned order, complaint, reply filed by appellant to complaint, the seeds purchase bill, acknowledgment for refund of seeds, inspection report, rejoinder of the complainant and the rejoinder of the appellant. We have also perused the Written Notes of Arguments filed by learned advocate of the appellant and respondent No.1.
8. The learned advocate of the appellant in its Written Notes of Arguments submitted in brief that the second time sowing of the seeds resulted into satisfactory germination and had good growth and, therefore, no loss was caused to the complainant. The complainant filed no document showing loss of yield in second cultivation of crop. The complainant has not stated in the complaint as to how he expended Rs.1 lac for recultivation. He has not proved that the seeds are defective. He, therefore, requested that the impugned order maybe set aside.
9. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and it may be dismissed with cost.
10. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased 30 bags of soyabean seeds each containing 25 kgs i.e. total 750 kgs from the respondent No.2 as produced by appellant and he had sown the said 750 kgs of seeds in his 30 acres of agriculture land and those seeds were not germinated, and, therefore, he was required to recultivate the land and he again sowed the seeds. The District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee had also visited his field and submitted a report which also supports the aforesaid case of the complainant. The said Committee also opined that the seeds produced by the appellant were defective and, therefore, the complainant sustained loss and he was required to again sow the seeds.
11. The Forum, therefore rightly granted compensation of Rs.1 lac towards expenses incurred for cultivation, sowing of seeds and putting fertilizer in 30 acres of land. As those seeds were not germinated. He was required to incur the same expenses for second time cultivation, sowing and putting fertilizer in the land. Therefore, grant of compensation of Rs.1 lac on that count is justified.
12. Morevover the Forum has also rightly observed in the impugned order that as some period of rainy season was already over before resowing of the seeds, it must have caused adverse effect on the yield of the subsequent crop. Forum has assessed the loss of yield in second crop at the rate of Rs.4000/- per per acre and accordingly it granted compensation of Rs.1 lac for 30 acres of land. We find that the said compensation is properly assessed by the Forum under aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Moreover, we also find that the Forum has rightly assessed compensation of Rs.30000/- for mental harassment caused to the complainant due to non germination of 750 kgs of soyabean seeds and recultivation by sowing domestic seeds.
14. We, therefore, hold that there is no error in appreciation of evidence and the conclusion drawn by the Forum. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs in appeal.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
