Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

1.       This appeal is preferred by the original opponent No. 1 which is a seed producing company against the judgment and order  passed by the Dist. Forum, Ahmednagar on 26/09/2007 in  CC.No.249/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 is the original complainant ( herein after termed as “Complainant”) whereas the respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 1 who is the authorised dealer of the appellant seed company ( herein after termed as “Dealer”)

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

          Complainant is a farmer having agricultural land admeasuring 1.60  R from G.No. 290 at village Aradgaon Tq.Rahuri Dist Ahmednagar in the name of his wife.  That, he had decided to take the crop of groundnut in the summer season. That, on enquiry with the  dealer he was told that the seed of groundnut bearing tag No. 24 and lot No. 6 K.N.L.No. 622526 was of good quality and that it was a high yielding  variety which is produced by the appellant seed company. He had therefore purchased the said seed on two dates i.e. on 12/03/2007, 5 bags and on 16/03/2007, 2 bags each containing 20 kgs of seed. Thereafter, he sown the seed on or about 29/03/2007 in his above said land admeasuring 4 acres but even after the lapse of 15 to 16 days there was no germination of above seeds. He therefore complained to the dealer who assured him that the representative  of the appellant seed company would visit his field  on 14/04/2007. However, nobody from the dealer or the seed company  visited his field . Therefore, he made complaint with the Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Rahuri on 13/04/2007 and also to the Dist. Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar. Accordingly, the Dist. Agricultural Officer  arranged for the visit of the  Dist. Committee  to the complainant's  field  on 25/04/2007 when the appellant seed company's  representative were also present. That, on 07/05/2007 the Dist. Agricultural Officer submitted the report of the Dist. Seed Committee from which it was revealed that the seeds in dispute were of sub-standard quality having low germination power due to which average germination of seed was only at 23.78 %  and hence it was contended by the complainant that due to defective seed he had to sustain the loss of 75 to 85 % of the expected yield and  in terms of money total loss at Rs 2,00,000/- and also the amount of  expenditure of Rs 34,504/- which he  had incurred for the cultivation of the said crop which has  gone waste.  Therefore   he issued legal notice to the appellant seed company and the dealer to pay him total compensation of Rs 2,84,500/- which included Rs 50,000/- towards mental harassment. However, no cognizance  was taken by the appellant seed company and the dealer of seed company. Therefore, he filed complaint before the Dist. Forum seeking direction to pay him total compensation Rs 2,84,504/-.

3.       Both the appellants seed company and the dealer appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was contended by the dealer that the disputed seed were not purchased by the complainant from him as alleged. They have  also denied the Dist. Committee’s report and contended that the compensation as claimed by the complainant is arbitrary  and baseless and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The appellant seed company submitted that the seed which the complainant had purchased is different from the one as he has  mentioned in the complaint. It was contended that as per the bill dated 12/03/2007 and 16/03/2007 the alleged number mentioned is 06-K.N.L.01-6225. However, as per the tag number of the seed variety of seed the lot number is 06-K.N.L.622-526 hence the complainant is not a consumer of the appellant seed company. It was also contended that there was no complaint made by the complainant either to the dealer or to the appellant seed company regarding non germination of the seeds. It was also contended that on the bill dated 16/03/2007 there were a instructions put  by the dealer as “goods are to be delivered” which means that he had sown only 2 bags in  4 acres of his land and hence the seeds were sown in the scattered manner for which seeds were not responsible. It was further averred that the seeds under dispute were not tested in the laboratory and therefore only on basis of the inspection of the said crop it can not be concluded that the seeds were defective. Hence, it was contended by the appellant that the Dist. Committee's report can not be taken as basis for arriving at the conclusion that the seed is  of sub standard quality and of having low germination power. On this ground it has contended that  the complaint is false and baseless and be dismissed with cost.

5.       The Dist. Forum after going through the papers and hearing  the parties  partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant as well as dealer to pay to the complainant jointly and severally the compensation of Rs 75,000/- towards loss of the income from the  crop, along with interest @ 10 % p.a. on the said amount from the date of decision till its realisation. In addition it was also directed to pay Rs 10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs 3000/- as cost of the complaint.

6.       The Dist. Forum has observed that the mistake in the lot number is only of last two numbers which might be a clerical mistake done by the dealer for which complainant can not be held as responsible  and therefore held the complainant as a consumer of the dealer as well as appellant seed company . It is further held by the Dist. Forum that the Dist. Seeds Committee’s report clearly concluded that the germination of the seed was only at 23.78 % and that at the time of inspection of the crop by the Dist. Seeds Committee the company's two representative namely Shri.Vijay Pawar ( Marketing Executive) and Shri.Yogesh Shahaji Matkar were present and they have signed the report. It is further held that both these representative have not taken any objection to the said report of the committee and hence the said report had gone unchallenged. Thus, with these observations the Dist. Forum passed  the impugned  judgment and order.

7.       Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed by the appellant seed company which was   finally heard on 03/09/2013. Adv.Shri.V.Y.Bhide was present for the appellant whereas  Shri. K.N.Lokhande was present for the respondent No. 1. Both the advocate have submitted written notes of arguments. None was present for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the dealer although served with the notice and hence the appeal was proceeded exparte against him. We heard counsel for the appellant seed company and complainant finally and appeal was reserved for judgment and order.

8.       The Ld. Counsel Shri. V.Y.Bhide appearing for the appellant made the same averment in his arguments as are made by the complainant in his complaint and hence they are not reproduced here. The Ld. Counsel Shri. Lokhande on the basis of the Dist. Committee’s report and contended that there is a clear conclusion of the committee about the germination of the seed at only 23.78 % from which it is clear that about 75 % of the seed were not germinated resulting in to the considerable loss of excepted income for the said crop to the complainant and hence contended that the Dist. Forum has rightly appreciated the Dist. Committee’s report and other aspects of the complaint and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order which need to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

9.       On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant also made the same averments as made by the appellant seed company in its written version. However, in his arguments he has specifically emphasised regarding the necessity  of laboratory test of the disputed seed as the complaint is regarding germination of seed. He therefore  contended that as there was no such laboratory test carried out the complaint regarding germination can not be decided by simply  observing    the standing crop. He therefore contended that other aspects have not been considered by the Dist. Forum and by relying on the committee’s report wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order which requires to be  set aside. In support of his above said contention he relied on the following authorities:

i.        The judgment and order dated 23/05/2011 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No9. 2046 of 2007  in case of Mahyco Seeds Ltd – V/s- Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors.

ii.       The judgment and order dated 18/12/2006 passed by this bench in FA.No. 1641/1998 in case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Ltd –m V/s- Shri.Maruti Pandurang Jadhav.

iii.      The judgment and order dated 12/09/2006 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2978 of 2007  in case of Consumer Protection & Guidance Socity – V/s- National Seeds Corporation.

iv.      The judgment and order dated 15/04/2005 passed in FA.No. 371/2005 by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Syngenta India Ltd – V/s- Velaga Narasimha Rao.

v.       The judgment and order dated 23/08/2010 passed in FA.No. 490/2010 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai  in case of M/s.shetkari Shetiseva Kendra Kuditre Co-operative Tq  Karvber Dist. Kolhapur Maharashtra – V/s- Ganpatroa Bajirao Gaikwad Kuditre Tq Karvir Kohapur

10      Whereas Ld. Counsel Shri.Lokhande appearing for the respondent No. 1  submitted that the District Level Seeds Redressal Committee has visited field   of the complainant on 25/04/2007 and carried out the panchanama. That, at the time of said panchanama the representative of the appellant seed company namely Shri. Vijay Pawar was present whereas respondent No. 2 i.e. dealer through his  representative Shri. Yogesh Matkar was present. In their presence the committee concluded that the germination of the seed was only to the extent of 23.78 %  and thus the complainant had to bear the loss of affected crop about 75 to 80 %. The Ld. Counsel thus contended that considering the standard norms of yield and the market rate the amount of compensation as awarded  by the Dist. Forum is quite proper and therefore the same be confirmed.

11.     We have perused the record as well as written notes of arguments as submitted by Ld. Counsel of rival parties. The important question which arise for our consideration are :

i.        Whether the defectiveness of seeds under  is proved ?

ii.       Whether compensation as awarded by the Dist. Forum is proper and reasonable.

          As regard the allegation of the complainant about the defectiveness of the disputed seed, the first defence of the appellant seed company and dealer is that the lot number of seed as mentioned by  the complainant in his complaint does not tally with the same as mentioned in the bill issued by the dealer and hence, complainant is not their consumer. In fact this objection can not hold good because lot number as mentioned in bill is only missing it's last two numbers  i.e. the number shown in bill is “6225, whereas number mentioned in the complaint and on the seed bag  is “622526” and tag No. 24. Moreover, for the mistake of quoting incomplete number on the bill the dealer is responsible and not the complainant. Secondly, due to such  clerical mistake the complainant's allegation about the defectiveness of said seed does not affect. The next defence of the appellant seed company is that there is an endorsement on the bill dated 12/03/2007 that “ the goods are tobe delivered” and hence, the complainant had sown only 2 bags as purchased on 16/03/2007 can not be sustained, as the complainant in his rejoinder affidavit has made this point clear, that on the next date he received the goods i.e. seed as per the said bill.

12.     Further contention of the appellant is that Dist. Seed Committee’s report can not form the basis to arrive at the conclusion about defectiveness of seed in absence of laboratory testing report of this seed. In fact, this committee is constituted by the Government which consists of experts from  the field of agricultural. Hence, its report is relevant and has to be taken in to consideration. It is also to be noted that the two representatives of the appellant seed company and the dealer were  also present at the time of  spot inspection of disputed crop. The statement of these representatives have also been recorded by the Dist. Seed Committee in which they have made averments that the inspection was done in their presence. Not only this but either of the representative Shri. Vijay Pawar has admitted the conclusion as arrived by the committee in it's report  regarding germination of seed which is only 23.78 %. The ratio given in the citation by the appellant seed company  do no support its contention as the facts and circumstances of those cases differ from those which exists in the present case. In the  case under citation the representative of the appellant seed company were not present, however in the instant case they are present at the time of spot inspection and one of them has admitted the observation of the committee about defectiveness of seed. Thus on the committee's report it is clearly  revealed that the seeds were defective  due to which there was poor germination of only 23.78 % causing loss of yield of crop at 75 yo 80 %.

13.     Now, as far as compensation towards loss of expected  income as awarded by the Dist. Forum is concerned the same also appears to be  proper and reasonable. The complainant has produced on record the copy of  the publication about the average yield of groundnut as published by Mahatma Phule Agricultural University which indicate  per hector average yield of crop of groundnut   at 20 to 25 quintal per hector which comes to 8 quintiles per acre. The complainant had sown the seed in 4 acres, hence, the yield excepted  was about 32 quintal. The rate per quintal during relevant year as given by the Dist. Forum is Rs  2500/- to Rs 3000/- per quintal. So  even considering lowest  rate at Rs 2500/- per quintal the expected  income comes to Rs 80,000/- and hence the compensation as awarded by the Dist. Forum at Rs 75,000/- is quite proper.

14.     Thus we find no reason to interfere  the impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum. The present appeal has no  material and hence  needs to be dismissed. We therefore  proceed  to pass the following order.

                   O   R    D    E   R

1.                 Appeal is dismissed.

2.                 No order as to cost.

3.                 Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.