Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/1439

BIJO SHEETAL SEEDS LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BENIRAM - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.1439 / 2012.

Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,

Post Box No.77, Bejo Sheetal Corner,

Mantho Road, Jalna.                                                           …. APPELLANT.

 

VERSUS

 

1.         Beniram s/o Shri Harikaran Gujar,

            Dhakalgaon, Tehsil Barwah.

 

2.         M/s Lakhan Enterprises,

            Subhash Road, Sanawad.                                                …. RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

 

HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :

 

Shri Mohan Chouksey, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondents.

 

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

 

O R D E R

 

(Passed on   19  / 1 / 2021)

 

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Smt) Monika Malik, Presiding Member :

 

1.                     This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order dated 26.5.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

- 2 -

 Mandleshwar (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.150/2010, whereby the complainant’s complaint has been partly allowed and the opposite parties have been directed to refund the cost of the seeds i.e. Rs.2500/- along with compensation @ of Rs.1000/- per packet, i.e. to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, another Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to the complainant alongwith Rs.500/- as costs.

2.                     Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased 100 grams ( 10 packets of 10 grams each) of seeds from the opposite party no.1 after paying a sum of Rs.2500/-.  The complainant alleged that the flowering in the plants was not optimum, and the flower size was irregular.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, he filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                     The opposite party no.1 failed to file reply before the District Commission.  The opposite party no.2 challenged the submissions of the complainant and submitted that they had sold seeds from same lot number to other farmers as well, but received no complaints.  The complaint is based on false allegations deserves to be dismissed.

4.                     Heard.

5.                     Learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party no.2 argued that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint merely on the basis of the submissions of the complainant, without realizing that there is no expert report, available on record which could suggest that the seeds were of the inferior quality and that the crop production was poor.  On the contrary, there is

 

• 3 -

 

a germination report filed by the appellant, in the record of the District Commission which shows that the percentage of germination of the seeds, manufactured by the appellant is very good.  He argued that the proper sprouting in the seeds had taken place, which shows that the seeds were not of inferior quality.  Moreover, the appellant were never informed by the complainant in this regard and, therefore, they could not verify the alleged poor condition of the crop.  Arguing on the point of compensation awarded by the District Commission, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned order.

6.                     As we carefully go through the evidence placed before us, we observe that the complainant has categorically alleged that there was inadequate flowering on the chilli crops, which he had grown after sowing the seeds obtained from the opposite parties.  The complainant has alleged that the seeds appeared to be downgraded and the crop was not uniform in nature.  The complainant had allegedly complained in this regard to the District Collector.  There is an inspection report signed by the Udhyan Adhikshak of Shaskiya Paudhshala, Vikas Khand mentioning regarding the inferior quality crop, obtained by the complainant, after sowing of the seeds, purchased from the opposite parties.

7.                     On the basis of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to doubt that the flowering in the plant and nature of chilli appearing on the complainant’s crop was not adequate.  Also we do not find an apparent requirement of an

 

• 4 -

 

expert opinion, when there are clear allegations by the complainant, that there was inadequate flowering and the crop was not uniform in nature.  It is the responsibility of the appellant to sell good quality seeds to the complainant.  The appellant cannot escape from the liability for any inquity on part of the opposite party no.1, who sold the seeds manufactured by the appellant, to the complainant. 

8.         Therefore, in view of the above, we do not intend to interfere in the impugned order, with regard to the observation and inference.  The opposite parties have rightly been held deficient in service in the instant matter.

9.                     However, considering the inconvenience incurred by the complainant when Rs.10,000/- under the head of mental harassment suffered by the complainant has already been awarded, a separate sum of Rs.10,000/-, which is awarded as compensation, @ Rs.1000/- per packet appears to be non-reasonable.  Therefore, we set-aside the direction pertaining to the aforesaid award, in impugned order and maintain rest of the order.  The complainant also deserves cost of this appeal, which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 

10.                   This appeal is allowed, to the extent indicated hereinabove with the aforesaid observations and modifications.             

 

Dr. (Smt.) Monika Malik                      ( S. S. Bansal )

             Presiding Member                                     Member

 

 

phadke