Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/11/2004 passed by Addl. District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.144/1999.
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :-
The respondent/original complainant had filed a consumer complaint alleging that he had purchased onion seeds manufactured by the appellant from original opponent No.1 and sown in his agriculture land on 15/08/1998. However, there was no germination. He has complained about non-germination of the seed to original opponent No.1/respondent No.2. However, they have not taken the cognizance. Hence, he filed a complaint of defective seeds to the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee. He further stated that the Committee visited the field on 13/11/1998 and the Committee has observed that because of sub-standard seed there is a loss of 10.50 MT. loss of crop yield. Alleging that the loss is because of sub-standard seeds purchased from opponent No.1/respondent No.2 and this amounts to a deficiency in service, the original complainant/respondent No.1 has filed a consumer complaint praying that the opponents be directed to pay `1,25,000/- for the loss of crop, `2,000/- for mental agony, `10,955/- for cultivation charges and `1,000/- as costs.
3. The opponents challenged the complaint by filing written version stating that there is no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponents, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of Advocates, allowed the complaint partly directing the opponents to pay `50,000/- jointly and severally within a period of six weeks. Being aggrieved by the order, the opponent No.2 who is a manufacturer of seeds filed this appeal.
5. We heard Advocate Mr.H.G. Misar for the appellant and Advocate Mr.S. Jadhav for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 remained absent though duly served.
6. Advocate Mr.Misar had pointed out to the report submitted by the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee. We observe that the findings given by the Committee are in respect of the seeds purchased from Mahico Company. In respect of the seeds manufactured by the appellant, there are no specific observations by the Committee.
7. The District Forum miserably failed to look into the findings of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee and arrived at the conclusions which are not supported by the facts. In view of this, the order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and cannot be maintained.
8. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint No.144/1999 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th December 2012.
