(Delivered on 28/01/2019)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member.

1.         This appeal  challenges  the  order dated 28/08/2017 passed by the District  Consumer Forum, Wardha partly allowing  the consumer complaint bearing  No. CC/95/2016 and thereby directing the  opposite parties (for short O.Ps.) to  jointly and severally  pay the complainant  Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation  for  monetary loss measured  due to defective seeds, with 6% p.a. interest  from  18/10/2016 i.e.  from  the date of filing of the complaint & the  O.Ps. further  to pay Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- more  to the complainant  as compensation for physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses  respectively.  The directions mentioned above be complied by the O.Ps.  within 30 days.

2.         Respondent No. 1- Chirkutrao Sadhuji Wasekar and  respondent No. 2- Bandu Chirkutrao Wasekar are referred  as complainant Nos. 1&2  and  appellant No. 1- Syngenta India Pvt. Ltd.  is referred as O.P. No. 2 and  Appellant  No. 2- Kamal Kishor Chaturbhuj Mandhaniya , Prop. Kissan  Bandhu is referred as O.P. No. 1, for the sake of convenience.

3.         The facts in brief as set out by the complainants in the consumer complaint are as follows.

i.          The complainant No. 2 is the son of the complainant No. 1.  They are jointly engaged in the occupation of farming and that is their only source of livelihood. Complainant No. 1 owns an agricultural field at Mouza Wagholi, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha situated at survey No. 367 admeasuring 1.24 Hectare.  The complainants are cultivating crop of Cauliflower since, last 20 to 25 years.  They are purchasing the seeds of   O.P.No. 2- Sygenta India Pvt. Ltd. through its dealer O.P.No. 1 since last five years. The complainants purchased the F1 hybrid Cauliflower lucky seeds on 30/11/2015. He purchased 50 packets of 10 gms. each at the rate of Rs. 580/- per packet from  O.P.No. 1. The complainant paid Rs. 29,000/- towards the purchase of the same.

ii.          The complainants sowed the cauliflower sapling on their field on 02/01/2016. Normally it takes 3 to 4 months for the blooming of Cauliflower. As  there was no blooming  till 25/04/2016 the complainant  filed a complaint  before the Agricultural Officer, Panchyat Samittee, Hinganghat  on 26/04/2016. The Committee  inspected the spot and  executed the spot  panchanama.  As per the  said  spot  investigation report  the Committee also inferred  that  the  cauliflower plants   had just  grown  but  there was  no growth  of  flowers on it.  The  cause of which  is  defective seeds of O.P.No. 2.

iii.         The  complainant  alleging  unfair trade practice and  deficiency  in service filed a consumer  complaint  and sought for payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation as he had incurred  at least    loss of Rs. 200/- per day for  100 days. Had he  got  the expected   produce,  he would have been able to  sell the  total produce for at least 20 days. The complainant issued a legal notice to the O.Ps. calling upon  them  to  pay him a  compensation as  mentioned above. The O.Ps. despite service of notice,  failed  to take any cognizance. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint and sought for relief mentioned above.             The complainant has in addition prayed for  Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the O.Ps.  as compensation  for  physical and mental harassment and litigation expenses respectively.

4.         The  O.Ps. Nos. 1&2 resisted the complaint  by   filing the written version and denied all the adverse allegation of the complainant.

a.         The O.P. No. 1 Kamalkishor Chaturbhuj Mandhaniya has admitted  from it    the purchase of 50 packets  of 10 gms each of Cauliflower seeds   on 30/11/2015. However it has submitted  that it is just distributor  and  sells  the sealed  packets of the  seeds  manufactured by  O.P.No. 2. The  same seeds were purchased by  many farmers. However none of them have complained about  the defect in the seeds. The complainants herein  are  the only  farmers who have  complained about  the defect in seeds. The  complaint  therefore deserves to be dismissed  as frivolous

b.         The O.P.No. 2 has specifically submitted in his written version  that for blooming of  cauliflower plants, there are various  factors responsible like  weather ,  temperature,  sprinkling of  manure  etc. The seeds  cannot be  solely  held  responsible  for   the plants not  bearing  flowers.  The complaint  deserves to be dismissed as the complainant has not filed laboratory  report  in support of the alleged defect. The complainant had complained about the defect in cauliflower seeds , almost after 114 days  of  sowing  whereas  normally it takes about 75 to 80 days  for the  cauliflower plants  to bear flowers.  The O.P.No. 2 has also  submitted the spot inspection report of  the  Agricultural Committee is not acceptable as none of the other farmers have  alleged  the defect  in  cauliflower seeds.  The O.P.No. 2 therefore sought  for dismissal of complaint being devoid of merit.

5.         The Forum after hearing both the sides and  considering  evidence adduced by both the parties partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.  The Forum has recorded its finding to the effect that  the O.P.Nos. 1&2 have adopted  unfair  trade practice and  rendered deficiency  in service as  the  spot inspection report  given by the competent  authority  has clearly inferred that  defective seeds is  the only cause  for  the  loss caused to the farmer because of short coming in the growth of cauliflower plants.

6.         The O.P. Nos. 1&2 both being  aggrieved by  the said order, have  preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order  firstly on the ground  that the report  of the agricultural officer, Hinganghat should not have been accepted  as  it has failed to follow  the guidelines  /directions  at the time of  so called  inspection. The appellants have also challenged the impugned order on the second ground that the same seeds were purchased and sown by many farmers. However, none of them have complained about its quality excepting  the  respondents/complainants.  It clearly shows  that  the complaint  filed  is  of  frivolous  nature  and  therefore it should have been dismissed.

7.         We have  heard advocate Mr. J.U. Kothari for the appellant  and Advocate Smt. Banarjee for the respondent Nos. 1&2 and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties.  We have  also perused  the copies of the complaint , written version and documents filed on record.

8.         The main  issue that  requires   our consideration is whether  the Forum below has erred  in relying upon  the  report of the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, Hinganghat We perused the  report dated 18/05/2016 in which  it is  recorded in detail that  on inspection it is seen that  the  cauliflower plants had grown but none of the plants  bore  any flower. Therefore, it was inferred that  the seeds  were defective.  In the said report it is further  observed  that  the companies representative has  opined  that   the high temperature of the  weather  has probably affected  the  flowering on the cauliflower plants. The Committee has comparatively also inspected the adjacent fields where it was seen that  the cauliflower plants planted  in the adjoining  fields  have  good growth. Therefore, the opinion of the company’s representative  about  the weather  cannot be accepted. We also perused the panchanama  which  is duly signed by all the members  of the Agricultural Department , the complainants and representative of  the appellant  company. Therefore,  it cannot be accepted that  the  inspection report  is not  reliable or acceptable.

9.         The learned Forum below  while allowing the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the damage caused as against Rs. 6,00,000/- claimed in the consumer complaint, has considered the documents filed on record whereby  it has   logically  reasoned   on average basis  that the complainant  may have incurred expense of    Rs.50,000/- for  cultivation  and  damage of Rs. 1,50,000/- and therefore, it has  allowed the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for  damage incurred due to  defective  seeds. By the impugned order the Forum has allowed the  payment of interest  from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 18/10/2016.

10.       The  other challenge to the impugned order being that none of the other  farmers  have filed the complaint about  the defective seeds  excepting the complainant,  does not  hold  good as  there are affidavits filed on record of other  farmers  namely Shri Bharat Dharmaji Bhatt,  Shri Kawdu Bapuraoji Raghtate, etc.  who have mentioned in the  affidavit  that  they have purchased the cauliflower seeds from the appellant company  and that as they  did not get the proper yield, the appellant company had assured to pay compensation of which  the company has  already  paid  part of it.  The only  inference that can be drawn on perusal of these affidavits  is that  complainant  was not only person   affected due to  defective seeds but   there are others  also with whom the appellant company had accepted  the defect  and argued   to settle  the dispute.  Therefore,  we are of the reasoned  view  that  the  report of the inspection  Committee is well supported by cogent evidence. For the aforesaid reasons we find  no illegality or  infirmity  in  the impugned order and  warrants no interference in impugned order. The appeal therefore deserves to be  dismissed being devoid of merit.

            In the result we pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed.

ii.          Order dated 18/08/2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Wardha in consumer complaint  bearing No. CC/95/2016 is confirmed.

iii.         No order as to cost in appeal.

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