Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.125/2010 decided on 29/09/2011, whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Amber Seeds & Farms to pay to the complainant a sum of `1,50,000/- as damages and also `15,000/- for mental harassment and `1,000/- towards costs, org. opponent Nos.1&2 both have filed this appeal taking strong exception to the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Respondent-Mr.Govind Vishwanath Paward, resident of Anakute, Tal. Yevala, Dist. Nashik, had filed consumer complaint claiming `1,75,000/- as damages and `10,000/- towards costs and `50,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and `5,000/- towards cost of litigation alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent Nos.1&2. According to the complainant- respondent he had purchased from M/s.Nanda Seeds of Yevala, Dist. Nashik, Onion Ambar Dark Seed (APDR) having Lot No.111 on 29/06/2009. He purchased two packets of seeds worth `540/-. He then sowed it in his field and in due course he found that he was not getting proper yield and according to him seed was defective. He was getting bolted onion. He therefore, approached District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee and District Agriculture Development Officer, Zilha Parishad Nashik. The expert under the leadership of District Agriculture Development Officer visited the standing crop at complainant-respondent’s field and they opined that seed supplied by manufacturer through opponent No.1 was defective. After receipt of said report, respondent-complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opponents.
3. Opponent Nos.1&2 filed written version and admitted that seed was purchased by respondent No.1 from appellant No.2 on 29/06/2009 by paying `540/-. He purchased two bags of seeds. They however, pleaded that seeds were not defective. The seeds had germinated well and there was no genetic problem in the seeds. Bolting of onion resulted because of so many factors. Such as giving irregular water, changes in the climate, changes in the day and night temperature, onset of diseases, etc. All these factors could have been responsible for bolting of onion. They pleaded that seed developed by them was approved seed. It was tested by the National Horticulture Research and Development Foundation, Nashik. Said seeds used by other agriculturists of Nashik District had given good yield and therefore, they pleaded that they were not responsible for bolting of onion. The fault lies with the complainant and not with them.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum upon considering the documents and affidavits placed on record and particularly, relying upon the report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee held that seed was defective and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum quantified the damages at `1,50,000/- by allowing the complaint partly and directed the Seed Company as well as the Dealer to pay to the complainant a sum of `1,50,000/- as damages and also directed them to pay `15,000/- towards mental harassment and `1,000/- towards costs. Against this order, the opponents filed this appeal.
5. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.V.G. Kulkarni for the appellants and Advocate Mr.Keshav S. Shelke for the respondent/complainant.
6. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has placed reliance on the report of District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee. We perused the said report very carefully and we are finding that said District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee and its members reported that onion were smaller in size and there was bolting of onion and this was because of defective seed, onset of diseases, improper development of plants, change in day and night temperature, improper use of insecticide. So, these five grounds were assigned by the Committee of Experts on perusal of the onion plot of the complainant which was covering area of 0.40 Hector land. What is pertinent to note is the fact that this report of District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee is not bearing signature of President alias District Agriculture Development Officer of Zilha Parishad, Nashik. It is only signed by said President when it is marked for sending copy to Shri Govind V. Pawar, resident of Anakute, Tal. Yevala, Dist. Nashik. So, main report is not at all bearing signature of the President of District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee alias District Agriculture Development Officer, Zilha Parishad, Nashik. That apart, grounds given by said Committee for bolting of onion and for lesser yield or for smaller size of onion is on account of five grounds, one of the grounds is defective seed, but other grounds are onset of diseases, improper plantation, climatic changes and improper use of insecticide or pesticide. When five grounds are mentioned for defects found in the onion yield in the field of complainant-respondent No.1, it is not proper to hold that seed supplied by M/s.Nanda Seeds, Yevala and manufactured by Amber Seeds & Farms was squarely responsible for bolting of onion and for smaller size of onion as found in the field of respondent No.1 by District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee. If the Expert Committee would have mentioned in clear terms that because of defective seed only the problem faced by respondent No.1 had arisen, then we would have held that the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum granting compensation on account of supply of defective or sub-standard seed was just and proper, but in the instant case, we are finding that five grounds have been mentioned by the District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee for lesser onion crop and why there was bolting in the onion crop of the complainant. Counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon one affidavit of Mr.Anil B. Kamble, who was member of said Committee, who is attached to the Onion Crop Research Centre, Pimpalgaon. He had gone with the Expert Committee to the field of complainant and he had sworn affidavit that onion crop was not upto the mark and when this was told by the Expert Committee to the Agent of Amber Seeds & Farms, who had come for the visit, he had kept mum. He had not protested. However, this affidavit is of little use for respondent to convince us that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper. We reiterate that if there would have been unanimous decision of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee of Zilha Parishad, Nashik that crop of onion found standing in the field of complainant-respondent was not upto the mark only on account of sub-standard or defective seed, matter would have been different. But, in this case, they have cited five grounds for respondent not getting adequate yield as expected after using seeds purchased from appellant-Company. One of the grounds is mentioned as sub-standard seed, but there are four other grounds which equally contributed for bolting of onion in the onion crop of respondent. Amongst them was onset of diseases, temperature variation, not maintaining proper distance at the time of planting, improper use of insecticide and irregular water supply, these are the main reasons why double bulbs were found in the onion crop.
7. Appellants’ Counsel relied upon judgement of Hon’ble National Commission delivered in the case of Sonekaran Gladioli Growers V/s. Babu Ram, II(2005) CPJ 94 (NC), wherein the National Commission clearly held that in absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds supplied, no inference could be drawn against the seed producing company. Non-standard quality of seed must be proved by the complainant who approaches Consumer Fora. Likewise, the Supreme Court held in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. V/s. Sadhu & Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) that factors like high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, are also responsible for inadequate yield. Variation in the condition of the crop cannot be attributed to the quality of seed but it could be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. These are some of the factors which may affect the ultimate yield. Therefore, relying on these two citations of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court, Advocate Mr.Kulkarni rightly submitted before us that the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum placing all the reliance on the report of District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee to hold that the seeds manufactured by appellant No.1 were defective is not sustainable in law. The District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee had not given a clear-cut finding that only because of defective seeds yield of the onion found in the field of respondent was not as per expectation in quantity and quality and/or that the onion are having bulbs only because of defective seeds supplied by appellant No.1. Other than defective seeds, four other grounds have been mentioned. Moreover, by mere observation of standing crop in the field of respondent, we are of the view that the District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee or their Experts cannot come to a definite finding that the seed supplied by the appellants was per se defective in nature. In the circumstances, there is a room to hold or there are grounds to hold that report given by District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee was not proper and they had not given a clear-cut finding that seed supplied by the appellants was only decisive factor for not getting proper yield from the seeds manufactured by the appellant-Company. In the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is improper and erroneous and same will have to be quashed by allowing this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29/09/2011 passed in consumer complaint No.125/2010 is quashed and set aside. The consumer complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 22nd December 2011.
