Per Mr.Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member: (1) All these appeals are disposed of by this common order as Appellant has preferred appeals separately against the common impugned order in Consumer Complainant Nos.(1) 266/2006 (Shri Ramchandra Pundlik Parit V/s.Akshay Agro Services & Anr.), (2) 267/2006 (Shri Shri Dattatraya Balwant Davang,V/s.Akshay Agro Services & Anr.), (3) 268/2006 (Shri Niwas Nivrutti Patil V/s.Akshay Agro Services & Anr.) and 269/2006 (Shri Dattatraya Maruti Patil V/s.Akshay Agro Services & Anr.), passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur (‘the District Forum’ in short) on 30.06.2009. The District Forum by way of the said impugned order allowed the consumer complaints and directed the Appellant Company to pay compensation in each complaint separately. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order the appellant Company has preferred these appeals on the ground that the required time was of 82 to 85 days for harvesting of the watermelon fruits. Respondents/Complainants have filed the consumer complaints alleging size of fruits were small and not upto the mark and therefore, the fruits were not fit to sell in the open market. Watermelon seeds manufactured by the Appellant Company purchased by the Respondents/Complainants from the dealer of the Appellant Company i.e. Respondent No.2/Opponent No.2 – Akshaya Agro Services, was not defective. It had good germination. Harvesting of watermelon fruits depends on variety of factors like climate, proper watering and therefore, no defect can be attributed to the seeds purchased by the Respondents/Complainants, manufactured by the Appellant Company. The Ld.District Forum did not consider all the aspects and arrived at the conclusion thereby allowing the consumer complaints of the Respondents/original Complainants by way of impugned order. (2) Heard Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Case of all these four Respondents/original Complainants is that they cultivated the ‘watermelon seeds’ for harvesting of watermelon fruits purchased from the authorized dealer of the Appellant manufacturing Company. However, in spite of proper attention, watering etc. the expected yield as promised by the appellant Company did not result. Therefore, all these Respondents/original Complainants have made complaints to the Appellant Company, thereby complaining about small size of the fruits which cannot be marketed and they did not grow as assured by the Appellant Company, therefore, they were made to sustain losses. On receiving the complaint the Appellant Company Officers visited the field and arrived at conclusion that poor fruit seed of watermelon is usually attributed to poor pollination, therefore, the watermelon flowers not nutritiously attractive to honey bees and therefore, affected the pollinations resulting proper pollination and low yield. The Respondents/Complainants have made complaint to the District Committee stating the prevailing condition of the field situation. There is detailed report on record of the visit of the District committee where all the Respondents/farmers along with the representatives of the appellant Company and the authorized dealer were present. The committee inspected the field of watermelon and arrived at conclusion that the watermelon fruits were of small size (of coconut size) though the Appellant Company’s information booklet states the period of 80 to 85 days required for field harvesting. Committee opined that the fruits will not grow of the marketable size and concluded that during the routine period of harvesting the fruits will not be of the size as claimed because of the inherent defect. The Ld.District Forum relying on the report of the District committee and the affidavit of the Chairman of the Seed Committee (Agriculture Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur) arrived at conclusion that there was no laboratory report in respect of the seeds produced on record by the Appellant Company and passed the impugned order holding deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Seed Manufacturing Company. (3) It is the contention of the Appellant Company that all these Respondents/Complainants harvested watermelon fruits as an intercrop in the standing sugarcane field and not exercised the care as required at each stage right from sowing of the seed to the stage of harvesting and the Ld.Advocate for the Appellant company pleaded that there was no defect in the germination and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed against the Appellant Company. The submission of the Ld.Counsel of Appellant Company is not acceptable in as much as they have failed to discharge the onus by producing laboratory test report in respect of seeds manufactured and supplied by them to the Respondents/Farmers. Respondents/Complainants farmers cannot be denied the right of compensation for the losses they have suffered as promised and assured harvesting of the watermelon fruit did not yield as recently observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7543/2004 (in the matter of M/s.National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another). (4) For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, impugned order passed by the Ld.District Forum cannot be faulted with. In the circumstances, we proceed to pass the following order: O R D E R (i) All the appeals i.e. Appeal Nos.1207/2009, 1208/2009, 1209/2009 and 1210/2009 stand dismissed. (ii) Parties to bear their own costs. Pronounced on 13th April, 2012. |
