Per Shri Dhanraj Khamat – Hon’ble Member:
(1) These appeals take an exception to an order dated 10.02.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.376/2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (‘the Forum’ in short).
(2) Facts leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:
The original Complainants, the Appellants in Appeal No.09/1249 are agriculturists and they had purchased the seeds of bitter gourd from Original Opponent No.2 on 15.09.2006 and 07.10.2006. Seeds of bitter gourd of Golden Seeds Company of ‘Vishwas variety’. They had sown the seeds in their agriculture land. They had used fertilizers and sprayed pesticides as per the instructions given by the Opponent No.2. However, it is the contention of the original Complainants that there was no growth of seeds till 07.10.2006. From December, 2006 there were flowers, however, because of the absence of female flowers there were no bitter gourd. The original Complainants had sent their complaint to the Taluka Agricultural Officers, Superintendent Agricultural Officers and the Block Development Officer. Accordingly, the Taluka seeds Grievances Committee had visited the field, inspected the crop and the Committee arrived at the conclusion that in the crops there were nearly 70% to 75% adulterated crop and only 25% to 30% was of variety which was sown in the field. The Committee calculated loss to the crop to 70% to 75%. The original Complainants had contended that supplying adulterated seeds is the deficiency on the part of the opponents. They had filed a consumer complaint praying to direct the Opponents to pay for loss of `4,46,479/- along with interest @18% per annum, `25,000/- for mental agony and `5,000/- as costs.
(3) Opponent Nos.1 and 3 had contested the complaint by filing written version. Opponent Nos.1 and 3 had denied the allegations of the complainants. They contended that the Complainants had claimed that they have spent `90,000/- for growing the crop which is not true. They further contended that the Taluka Seed Grievances Committee had carried out the field inspection after five months from the sowing of the seeds and they had noticed that there was a crop to the extent of 25% to 30% and hence, the seeds sold to the original Complainants are not adulterated. They further contended that because of the change in temperature the flowers of the crop fall down and it affects the yield of the crop and Committee has not taken into consideration this fact and as regards the loss of the crop arrived at by the Committee is only prediction. They further contended that there was no fault with the seeds and prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed.
(4) The Opponent No.2 had filed written version stating that he is not the manufacturer of the seed and he is not responsible for any deficiency in the seed and he is not concerned with the yield of the seed and there is no deficiency in service and he prayed that the complaint against him may please be dismissed.
(5) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponents, evidence filed on affidavits by both the parties and the pleadings of their Advocates have arrived at the conclusion that the Complainants could not get the crop despite of properly cultivating the crop and it amounts to deficiency on the part of the Opponent Nos.1 to 3 and passed the order directing the Opponents to pay compensation of `14,400/-, `1,01,479/- for the cultivation costs, `5,000/- for mental agony and `2,000/- as costs within a period of 30 days, failing which an interest @9% per annum till realization of the amount would be charged. Aggrieved by this order the original complainant has filed Appeal No.1249/2009 for the enhancement of the award and the original Opponents no.1 has filed Appeal No.274/2009 for setting aside the order.
(6) Since both the appeals are against the same order and both the appeals challenge the same order and involves identical question of law, both the appeals are clubbed together and common order is passed.
(7) We heard Advocate Mr.Vinayak Kulkarni, for Golden Seeds Pvt. Ltd., original Opponent No.1 and Advocate Mr.Talkute for Balasaheb Nivrutti Ghanwat & Sou.Nirmala Balasaheb Ghanwat, original Complainants. During the course of hearing Advocate Mr.Talkute had filed an affidavit of one Mr.Sagar Gulab Shirolkar, in the capacity of Secretary of Taluka Seeds Grievances Committee which had carried out inspection of the crop on 28.02.2007. In his affidavit he had stated that along with the Committee he had visited the field on 28.02.2007 and submitted the report of the Committee on 21.03.2007. He further affirmed that whatever stated in the report is true as per the factual situation in the field. Admittedly, Balasaheb Nivrutti Ghanwat Appellant in Appeal No.1249/2009 is an agriculturist and he had purchased the seed of bitter gourd from original Opponent No.2 of Vishwas variety manufactured by the Appellant in Appeal No.274/2009. There is no dispute of sowing of the seed. The dispute pertains to the adulterated seed and because of the adulterated seeds there was a loss of the crop to the extent of 70% to 75%. There is a Taluka Grievances Committee appointed by the Government. The Committee visited the Complainant’s field on 28.02.2007. The Committee had heard the representative of Distributor and the representative of the Golden Seeds Company and observed that 70% to 75% crop was of adulterated crop and the loss of the crop was estimated to 70% to 75%. The Committee also observed that the original Complainant had used the fertilizer and pesticides as per the requirement of the crop and because of the adulterated seeds there was loss of crop to the extent of 70% to 75%. The Ld.Counsel for the Golden Seeds Company had contended that the seeds used by the original Complainants were not sent for the scientific testing and the Committee has arrived at the conclusion on usual inspection and conjectures. The crop depends upon various factors including fertility and type of land and proper use of fertilizers and pesticides, proper water management, environmental condition etc. and the loss of crop cannot be attributed to the seeds only. The Counsel for the Golden Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Company vehemently argued that the District Forum had failed to appreciate these important facts and only relied on the report of the Seeds Grievances Committee. Therefore, he argued that the appeal may please be allowed and the order of the District Forum may please be set aside.
(8) We have gone through the report of the Taluka Grievances Committee. The Taluka Grievances Committee visited the field and gone through the fertilizers and pesticides used by the original Complainant. After seeing the fertility and type of land the Committee has arrived at the conclusion that there is a loss of crop to the extent of 70% to 75%. In a judgment reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506, National Seeds Corporation Limited V/s.M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., Apex Court observed that “the report of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum revealed that the crops had failed because of the defective seeds/adulteration seeds”. After examining the report, the District Forum was satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is a reason why the Complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same tested in the appropriate laboratory. Further, the Apex Court also observed that the Appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers, therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the seeds sold/supplied to the Respondents, such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forum for being sent to appropriate laboratory for the purpose of the laboratory tests. Thus, it is an established fact that the seeds were defective and because of defective seeds there was a loss to the extent of 70% to 75%.
(9) The original Complainant has filed Appeal for the enhancement of the award. However, he has not led any evidence to support his case for the enhancement of the award. The District Forum after taking into consideration the evidence led by the original Complainant arrived at the decision and we do not think that award passed by the District Forum is inadequate. The award passed by the District forum is just and proper and there is no substance in the appeals filed by the Appellants. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) The appeals are dismissed.
(ii) The order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 25th April, 2012.
