1.This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12/07/2002 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No. 439/2001 by the District Forum, Buldhana 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 a farmer and the opposite party (for short OP) is the Seeds manufacturing company. He entered into agreement with the OP to produce the seeds under the supervision of OP on the basis of the foundation seeds supplied by the OP. The OP had agreed to repurchase the said seeds from the complainant. Accordingly, complainant purchased foundation seeds of ladies fingure from OP on 10/7/2001 and he had sown the same in his land. He did proper crossing of the crop and cultivated the same under supervision of the OP. However, it was found that the said crop did not bear the pods. Therefore he made complaint from time to time to the OP and also to Agricultural officer. The Seeds Committee paid visit to his land and submitted the report. The complainant claimed Rs.30000/- from the OP towards the loss sustained by him. He also claimed from OP Rs.3000/- towards mental harassment, Rs.5000/- towards cost of cultivation and Rs.500/- towards cost of complaint.
3. The OP resisted the complaint by filing written version. It submitted that there is failure of the crop due to wrongly doing crossing of male and female plants and due to the reason that the crop was infested with a disease named Dahiya. It, also submitted that otherwise also the complaint is not maintainable as the foundation seeds were purchased for commercial purpose by the complainant and hence it submitted that complaint may be dismissed.
4. The District Forum below, after hearing advocates of both parties and considering evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and that it has got jurisdiction to decide the complaint and that the foundation seeds supplied to the complainant by OP are defective. Therefore, the Forum below directed the OP to pay to the complainant amount of Rs. 2375/- towards compensation and Rs.350/- towards cost of complaint within 30 days from the receipt of the order, The Forum also directed that in case of failure to pay the said amounts, as above, they will carry interest @10% p.a. till full payment.
Feeling aggrieved by that order the original OP has preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard learned advocates of both parties and perused the written notes of arguments and other documents filed by them.
6. It is not disputed that the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee appointed as per circular of Maharashtra Government paid visit to the land of the complainant and submitted a report that though there is a proper crossing and cultivation, the ladies fingure crop did not bear the pods & therefore, the complainant could not get the yield. The said committee also noted in the report that the seeds supplied to the complainant are defective.
7. The learned advocate of the appellant submitted that the inspection report submitted by the committee can not be relied upon as inspection was carried out after 110 days of sowing and no notice of inspection was given to the appellant. However, we find that the ground raised by the appellant’s advocate is untenable since the District Committee comprising of the experts duly inspected the field of the complainant. Moreover, the complaint was also made to the appellant by the original complainant/respondent herein in this regard. The Forum below also found from the evidence of Shri.Dnyandev Omkar Supe, who was one of the member of that committee, that he had informed the appellant seeds company to remain present on 4/10/2001 for inspection of the land. We find that the Forum below has thus rightly believed the said inspection report of the District Seeds Committee which fully supports the case of the complainant/respondent herein.
8. Thus, the said report proves that the foundation seeds supplied to the respondent herein by the appellant were defective. The Forum below has rightly assessed the compensation of Rs.2375/- to be paid to the respondent herein. The other agriculturists got yield of Rs.2375/- on the basis of the foundation seeds of the same crop purchased from the appellant.
9. As regards objection relating to the maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Forum to decide the complaint, is concerned, we find that useful reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s National Seeds Corpn.Ltd.Vs. M.Madhusudan Reddy & Anr. Civil Appeal No.7543/2004 decided on 16/01/2012. The Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar facts and circumstances, in the said judgment observed that it is not possible to take a view that the growers had purchased the seeds for resell in open market or to any other person than the appellant or for any commercial purpose and, therefore, they are excluded from the definition of the term “Consumer”. It is further observed that as a matter of fact, the evidence brought on record shows that the growers had agreed to produce seeds on behalf of the appellant for the purpose of earning their livelihood by using their skills. Thus, the ratio of law laid down in that case is that the growers of seeds who had entered into agreements with the seeds manufacturing company are covered under the definition of “Consumer” given in Sec.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
10. Thus, applying the said decision to the present case, we hold that there is no substance in the aforesaid objection raised by the appellants advocate. Thus, the District Forum below has rightly entertained the complaint and reached to correct conclusion and finding . We find that this appeal is devoid of merits and hence it deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. No orders as to cost in appeal.
iii. Copies of the order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
