1.      The appellant Maharashra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28/09/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha in Consumer complaint No.107/2016 whereby learned District Consumer Commission Wardha allowed the complaint filed by respondent No.1 Mr.Digambar Sonbaji Kawale and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,000 towards loss due to defective seeds. Learned District Consumer Commission also directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.  (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).

2.      Short facts leading to the filing of present appeal may be narrated as under. :-

3.      The complainant Mr.Digambar Sonbaji Kawale claims to be a  farmer and resident of Hinganghat, District Wardha. O.P.No.1 M/s.Ravi Seeds is a retailer of seeds and fertilizers, O.P.No.2 is Maharashra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. and is dealing in regulation of sale and purchase of seeds. Complainant has alleged that he was going to take the crop of Soyabeen in his field and so he purchased 9 bags of Soyabeen seeds, weighing 30 k.g. worth Rs.13,500/-, seeds variety No.9560, lot No.462/3. After purchasing of the seeds from O.P.No.1 M/s.Ravi Seeds the complainant had sown the seeds in his agriculture field on 30/06/2016. After sowing the seeds there were also good rains. Complainant was thereafter anxiously waiting for germination of Soyabeen seeds for the period of 5 days, but there was no germination of Soyabeen seeds and so the complainant approached the O.P.No.3/Agricultural Officer and inform him about the same. O.P.No.3 asked the complainant to approach the Block Development Officer as well as Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer. Complainant therefore lodged the proper Complaint with the Agricultural Officer. After receipt of Complaint Agricultural Officer visited the spot namely the field of complainant and also made physical inspection of the crop and prepared panchanama. Complainant has contended that O.P. namely Agricultural Officer gave false report that germination of the seeds was satisfactory and to the extent of 29%. Complainant has contended that after sowing Soyabeen seeds there should have been germination at least 42 plants but the seeds sold by O.P.No.1 M/s.Ravi seeds were of inferior quality and also having less germination capacity. Complainant has contended that it was mandatory  for O.P.Nos.3 and 4 to send the sample of Soyabeen seeds to the seeds testing laboratory but the same were not sent and same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.Nos.3 and 4. Complainant has further contended that the O.P.No.1/M/s.Ravi Seeds had also supplied inferior quality of seeds and which did not germinate. Complainant has alleged that if 45 plants of Soyabeen had germinated then the complainant would have earned income of Rs.1,57,500/- but as the seeds supplied by O.P.No.1 were of inferior quality complainant suffered monetory loss of Rs.1,81,000/-. Complainant has contended that there was also deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 in supplying inferior quality seeds, therefore complainant was also entitled  for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4.      After the filing of the complaint due notices were issued to O.P.Nos.1 to 5. O.P.Nos.1 to 4 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version. O.P.No.5 did not appear though duly served. O.P.No.1 M/s.Ravi Seeds has denied that the seeds sold by it to the Complainant were of inferior quality having less germination capacity. O.P.No.1 has contended that it was not at all responsible for the quality of the seeds. O.P.No.2 namely Maharashra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. have categorically denied that the Soyabeen seeds were of inferior quality. O.P.No.2 has denied that complainant had purchased the Soyabeen seeds of 9 bags on 10/06/2016. O.P.No.2 has categorically denied that the agricultural officer submitted false report or that there should have been germination of 45 saplings. O.P.No.2 has taken plea that the germination of seeds depends upon various factors namely quality of soil, manner of sowing, availability of rain as well as several other factors. O.P.No.2  has contended that no liability can be fastened upon O.P.No.2 in case there is no proper germination. O.P.No.2 has contended that no other cultivator in the same area has lodged any complaint regarding less germination or inferior quality of seeds. O.P.No.2 has further contended that the burden of showing that the seeds supplied to the complainant were of inferior quality was upon the complainant. Complainant has failed to show that the Soyabeen seeds were of inferior quality or having less germination capacity and for the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant regarding deficiency in service against the O.P.No.2 is devoid of any substance and deserve to be dismissed.

5.      O.P.Nos.3 and 4 have also denied the contentions raised by the complainant in the complaint.

6.      The learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha thereafter went through the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant and that of opposite party. The District Consumer Forum, Wardha also went through the written notes of argument filed by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur came to the conclusion that Soyabeen seeds sold to the complainant were defective. The learned District Consumer Commission further came to the conclusion that the complainant who was farmer had suffered huge monitory loss as a result of supply of inferior quality seeds and so there was deficiency in service. Learned District Consumer Commission therefore awarded compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.5000/-. Against this judgment and order 28/09/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Wardha, the present appellant has come up in appeal.

7.      We have heard learned advocate Mr.Dokadia for appellant and advocate Mr.Anvar Ali for respondent No.1. We have also gone through the documents which are filed on record on the basis of the facts stated above, following points arise for our determination with our findings recorded against the same as under.

8.      It is not seriously disputed that the complainant Mr.Digambar Sonbaji Kawale  was a cultivator and had purchased nine bags of Soyabeen weighing 30 kg. worth Rs.13,500/-, seeds variety No.9560, lot No.462 from O.P.No.1/M/s.Ravi Seeds. It is submitted by the learned advocate for appellant that the learned District Consumer Commission Wardha has not properly appreciate the pleadings and the documents placed on record and had therefore arrived at conclusion which is erroneously in nature. At the outset it is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Commission had failed to see that the burden of establishing that Soyabeen seeds supplied to him were of inferior quality or less germinating capacity was on the complainant/consumer. It is submitted that the complainant had not sent the sample of seeds to the laboratory for testing and so had no reason to come to conclusion that the Soyabeen seeds have no germination capacity. It is submitted further that seeds supplied to complainant were certified seeds and then they were marketed. Learned advocate for respondent/complainant has strongly rebutted this contention and has drawn our attention to the various documents filed on record alongwith the complaint. Learned advocate for respondent has placed on record one copy of the bill regarding purchase of Soyabeen seeds on 10/06/2016. Complainant has also placed on record one copy of letter dated 11/07/2016 written by the complainant Mr.Digambar Kawale  to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,  Hinganghat wherein it is informed by that though the Soyabeen seeds were sown on 30/07/2017 there was no germination. Learned advocate for respondent/complainant has submitted that after information was received from the complainant committee consisting of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer and representative of the appellant visited the field of complainant and had also carried out inspection of the field where the seeds were sown. After carrying out the inspection of the field the said committee consisting of Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer submitted the report that there was germination of Soyabeen seeds to the extent of 29% only. Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer also submitted the report that there was only germination of only 12 saplings in an area of one sq.mtr. where as the same should be 42 saplings. If we go through  the record and the documents filed alongwith the complaint lodged by the complainant there is no material to show that after receipt of complaint from the complainant Mr.Digambar Kawale regarding inferior quality. Soyabeen seeds were sent to the competent authority namely Seeds Testing Laboratory for testing the quality of seeds. It is necessary to point out that as per provisions of the Seeds Act 1966 and Seeds Rules it is the bounden duty of the O.P.No.1 M/s Ravi Seeds to see that that the seeds sold or marketed were duly certified. It is further necessary to send the sample of Soyabeen seeds to the Testing Laboratory immediately on  receipt of complaint regarding inferior quality of seeds or regarding low germination capacity. If we go through the judgment and order under challenge dated 28/09/2018 the learned District Consumer Commission Wardha has also referred to the fact that the Soyabeen seeds were not sent for proper analysis to the Seeds Testing Laboratory. In this regard if we go through the copy of spot panchanama prepared by Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer Hinganghat he has specifically mentioned that  since the sample of seeds of lot sold to the complainant were not available, the same were not sent for analysis. It is significant to note that the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer who visited the field of complaint has no where mentioned that the soil in the field of the complainant was not of good quality or not conducive to germination of Soyabeen seeds or that there was lack of proper rainfall. As such the contention of learned advocate for appellant that adequate germination of Soyabeen seeds may not have taken place due to poor quality of soil or lack of rainfall etc. cannot be accepted. On the other hand Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer has himself stated in the report that the germination of Soyabeen seeds was only to the extent of 29% which cannot be termed as adequate. It is necessary to mention that the spot panchanam which is part of the report is also duly signed by the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer as well as other experts in the field. Further it is apparent that in the present case though there was complaint of inferior quality of seeds and lack of germination still the seeds were not sent to the seeds testing laboratory though it was the bounden duty of the appellant as well as Competent authority who are the opposite parties.

9.      If we go through the judgment and order dated 28/09/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission it has also observed that the appellant/O.P.No.2 Maharashra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. had also not performed his obligation of storing Sample of seeds for sending the same for analysis. It is clear that since the samples of seeds of the variety purchased by the complainant were not preserved, the same could not be sent to the Seeds Testing Laboratory and thereby irreparable loss including monetory loss was caused to the complainant. Digambar Sonbaji Kawale  who was the cultivator and had sown Soybeen seeds. The learned District Consumer Commission has also observed that the O.P.No.2 was responsible for the lapses and same amounted to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

10.    So far as the contention that the burden of establishing the inferior quality of Soyabeen seeds was on complainant is concerned we are unable to accept this contention in view of the specific provision of Seeds Act of 1966 which lay down the procedure for analysis of the seeds and the duties cast on Seeds inspector as well as Agricultural Officer.

11.    In the light of the aforesaid discussion we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by Shri.Mr.Dokadia learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer  Commission Wardha has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record and so we proceed to pass the following order;          

                                       // ORDER //

1. Appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
3. The copy of  order be furnished to both parties free of cost.