(Passed on 25.09.2013)

Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member

          This is an appeal filed by the original complainant against the order dtd. 31.07.2007 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur dismissing the complaint No. CC/28/2007.

The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

1.      According to the complainant he purchased Binny Bt Cotton Seeds manufactured by O.P.No.1 from O.P.No.2. The seeds sown in his two fields were having poor germination. Accordingly, he has made complaint to the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Parshevani for inspection.  The Taluka Agriculture Officer visited his field on 28.07.2005 alongwith other officers and made Panchanama, which states the germination was 43% and 52%.  Hence, he filed the consumer complaint before the Addl. D.F. Nagpur for claiming a total amount of Rs.2,20,746/- alongwith 18% interest.

2.      The O.P. filed its Written Version and affidavit and resisted the complaint stating that the complainant filed complaint after 14 months of purchase of seeds.  The original Panchanama prepared by the Taluka Agriculture Officer was not submitted alongwith the complaint and some other manipulated Panchanama was submitted and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties and perusal of the case papers, the Forum below dismissed the complaint, holding that did not produce enough evidence to prove that the seed was defective.

4.      Being dissatisfied with the order the original complaint preferred the present appeal.

5.      Appellant appeared in person and argued that he purchased the disputed seeds from the O.P.No.2 which was manufactured by O.P.No.1. The entire seeds sold by the O.P. No.1 - company were defective.  There was hue & cry among the farmers in the District of Nagpur it was largely published in the newspapers regarding poor germination. Accordingly, he also filed a complaint with Taluka Agriculture Officer visited his field and prepared Panchanama which states about poor germination. The Forum below wrongly, held that there is no evidence to prove that the seed was defective.  Hence, he prayed that the order of the Forum needs to be set aside and his complaint needs to be allowed.

6.      Adv. Mr N Dhoot appeared for the O.P. – seed Co. and argued that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint because he never purchased the disputed seeds from O.Ps. He further argued that the Panchanama of Taluka Agriculture Officer submitted alongwith his complaint is of manipulated one. The complainant taken the Xerox copy of the other Panchanamas and manipulated to his favour. The Forum below rightly appreciated this fact and dismissed the complaint. He finally argued that since the appeal has no merit hence, the Advocate prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7.      After hearing of both the parties and perusal of the case papers, we observe that the Panchanama of Taluka Agriculture Officer submitted by the complainant is stereotyped and not prepared after actual paying visit to the field of complainant.  The date of visit is corrected on it.  But Correction is not attested by person who prepared said Panchanama. Hence, it cannot be treated as the Panchanama prepared by the Taluka Agriculture Officer. Further there is no evidence that Taluka Agriculture Officer forwarded his Panchanama to the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee for the necessary action. The Forum below elaborately discussed these facts, in its order. In the absence of any concrete evidence, we cannot hold that the seeds manufactured by the O.Ps. are defective. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Forum below appreciated all these facts and dismissed the complaint which needs no interference.

We therefore, pass the following order

ORDER

i.                    Appeal is dismissed.

ii.                  No order as to cost.

iii.                Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.