Date : 28.02.2013
Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. This appeal is filed by original complainants directing against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by Dist.Forum Ahmednagar in C.C.No.315/2007, whereby complaint came to be dismissed. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the original opponent NO.1 & 2.
2. Facts leading to the present appeal in brief are as under.
That, appellant/org.complainants are real brothers belonging to the same family. They have owned irrigated agriculture land from Gut No.21(22) at village Miri, Tq.Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. That, they had purchased seeds of wheat of the variety GW-496 from respondent No.2(hereinafter referred as “dealer”) on 5.11.2006 as manufactured by respondent No.1 ( hereinafter referred as “seed company”). That, these seeds were sown in the land admeasuring 1 hector 60R from the said gut number after having cultivation of said land properly. That, they had taken all precautions such as proper application of fertilizers, timely watering to the said crop and weeding etc. However after 60 days from the date of sowing of seed it was noticed that all plants of said crop were not of the same height and also of same colour. That, some plants were white and some were of green colour. They had therefore apprehended that there was adulteration in the seeds and hence approached to the Agriculture Officer, Z.P. Ahmednagar vide application dated 13.2.2007. That on the basis of the said application the Agriculture Development Officer, Z.P. arranged for the inspection of the said crop by District Seed Company of Ahmednagar and committee`s report was submitted on 26.3.2007. That, as per committee`s report about 35% adulteration was found. Appellant/complainant had therefore contended that due to the said adulteration they received yield of said crop only to the tune of 30 quintals and market rate which was fetched by the said wheat was only Rs.900/- per quintal whereas he had received in the earlier year the yield of 18 quintals per acre from the same variety of the said wheat and rate fetched in the market was Rs.1400/- per quintal. He thus contended that due to adulteration in the seed he had to sustain total loss of Rs.73,800/- in the yield of wheat crop. The appellant had therefore sent legal notice dated 6.6.2007 to the respondents to pay him total amount of Rs.1,69,700/- which included loss of income from the said crop at Rs.73,800/-, cost of cultivation at Rs.24,900/-, mental agony Rs.25,000/-, notice charges Rs.1000/-, compensation Rs.25,000/- and cost of complaint Rs.10,000/-. However, no cognizance of the said notice was taken by the respondents and hence they filed complaint before District Forum seeking directions to the respondents to pay them the said compensation of Rs.1,59,700/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.
3. Respondent No.1 & 2 had appeared before the Forum and filed their written version whereby they had denied the claim of the appellant. It was contended by respondents that the said variety of the seed was of high quality and it was brought in the market for sell only after laboratory test and having confirmed its standard. It was also contended that District Seed Committee had not informed to the respondent regarding inspection of the plot and inspection was done behind their back. Therefore the said report was not binding on them. It was also contended that as per District Seeds Committee`s report crop of wheat was affected by disease of Tambera and therefore whatever loss was claimed by the appellant, seeds are supplied by respondents were not responsible but the agro-climatic condition. It was therefore contended that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent and complaint be dismissed.
4. District Forum on the basis of record and after hearing the parties has dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeal is filed in this Commission by original complainant which was finally heard on 29.1.2013. Adv.Shri.M.R.Sonawane was present for appellant, none was present for respondent. We heard advocate Shri.Sonawane for appellant at length and appeal was reserved for the judgment. It was contended by learned counsel Shri.Sonawane that as per the report of District Seed Committee there was clear conclusion of Committee regarding adulteration of seed upto 35%. That, disease was also due to lower resistance power of adulterated seeds. Therefore there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents as they had supplied adulterated seeds. It was therefore contended that District Forum failed to consider these aspects and erroneously passed the impugned judgment by dismissing the complaint.
6. We have considered in detail the record before us and also oral submission as put forward by learned counsel Shri.Sonawane for the appellant. From the District Seeds Committee`s report dated 26.2.2007 it is revealed that there was 30 to 35% of adulteration in the seeds of wheat as purchased by appellant from the respondents. Committee has also observed that about 90% plants of wheat were affected by the disease of Tambera. The Dist.Forum has placed it`s reliance on the District Committee`s report to the extent of said disease of Tambera which had affected the wheat crop in question at about 90% and held that said disease was not due to any defects in the seeds but it was the result of weather and environment. Accordingly, complaint has been dismissed. However, Dist.Forum has not considered other observations of District Committee regarding quantum of adulteration which is mentioned in the said report at 35%. District Seeds Committee`s said report also consists of inspection and observation in respect of other farmers from the same village regarding same variety of wheat crop. It is in respect of farmer Shri.Kailas Kapse, the Committee has reported that there was 30 to 34% adulteration in the wheat seeds due to which the crop cannot be harvested at one time and it would fetch less market rate due to adulteration. We therefore find that since the District Committee had concluded that there was adulteration of 35% in the wheat seed of appellant, naturally they would receive less market rate for such adulterated wheat crop.
7. Appellant in his complaint has calculated loss of wheat at Rs.73,800/- due to the said adulteration. In addition he had also claimed compensation towards cost of cultivation of land. However when we consider the yield of crop, cost of seeds, cost of cultivation etc. are covered in the expected income from the said crop and there is no need to consider separately such expenditure as it is covered under the yield of crop. We therefore consider only said loss of expected yield of crop at Rs.73,800/-. However as mentioned by District Seed Committee 90% of crop was affected by disease Tambera. Hence the entire loss cannot be attributed to the seeds. We are therefore of the opinion to consider the loss at 35% i.e. equal to the percentage of adulteration of the total loss of Rs.73,800/- which comes to Rs.25,830/-, Say Rs.26,000/- and the rest of the loss has to attributed to the said disease of Tamhera. In our view the appellant/complainant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.26,000/- towards loss of crop due to adulterated seeds. Respondent No.1 is manufacturer of seeds and respondent No.2 is the dealer. Although the appellant/complainant has purchased the seeds from the dealer. It is in the form of sealed packet and therefore for adulteration of said seeds the dealer cannot be held responsible but only the manufacturer of seeds i.e. respondent No.1.
8. The above said facts and observation have not considered by District Forum and it is only on the basis of partial consideration of the report of the District Seed Committee the impugned judgment and order is passed. The said report is considered only to extent of the disease of the Tambera and without considering percentage of adulteration as concluded at 35% by the Committee is neglected. Therefore we have to allow the appeal and set aside judgment and order passed by District Forum. Hence we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Respondent No.1 i.e. seed company is directed to pay to the appellant/complainant a compensation of Rs.26,000/- towards the loss of income from said crop within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, respondent No.1 shall have to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the said amount till it`s realisation.
4. Respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on dated 28.02.2013.
