(Per Mr.P.B.Joshi, Judicial Member)

[1]     Being aggrieved by the order in consumer complaint no.118/2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘learned District Forum’] partly allowing the consumer complaint granting Rs. 63,500/- as damages with interest @9% p.a. and again granting Rs.15,000/- as damages for mental agony and physical hardship and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint, the present appeal has been preferred by the original opponent. 

[2]     Facts necessary to decide the appeal are as under:-

          Complainant owned a land bearing No.Gat No.42 at Village Vadale, Tal.Phaltan, Dist. Satara.  Opponent no.1 is a seed company and opponent no.2 is agent of the opponent no.1.  On 27/02/2013, complainant purchased two packets of cucumber seeds for Rs.860/- from opponent no.2 and obtained receipt for that.  The complainant after sowing those seeds noticed that germination was very less and thereafter there was very less fruit bearings.  Then, the complainant made complaint to the opponents.  However, opponents did not visit the field of the complainant and tried to avoid responsibility saying that there must be fault on the part of the complainant.  Then, complainant made a complaint to Agriculture Officer, Phaltan.  The said officer visited field of the complainant on 27/04/2013, saw the crop of cucumber.  Seeds of cucumber were sent to laboratory.  As per the report of laboratory, the germination capacity of the said seeds was 40% and capacity of the fruit bearings was only 5%.  As per the complainant, as per the claim of the opponents, germination capacity was 60% as that is mentioned on the packet of the seeds.  The complainant contacted opponents.  However, opponents avoided responsibility.  Then, legal notice was issued by the complainant and claimed Rs.1 lac as compensation.  As that was not complied, the complainants filed consumer complaint.

[3]     Opponent no.1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing written version and admitted the fact that complainant has purchased seeds of cucumber from the opponents.  However, they contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.  They have also denied that germination and fruit bearings were less.  It was contended that germination depends on so many factors.  It was contended that the seed of the said cucumber was sent to laboratory and report was received on 12/07/2013 and as per the said report, the sample of the seeds sent to the laboratory was confirmed to minimum limit of physical purity and germination specified.  Opponents prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

[4]     Considering the evidence led by the parties, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and it is against that order, the present appeal has been preferred by the opponent no.1. 

[5]     Considering rival contentions of the parties, considering the record and keeping in view the scope of the appeal, following points arise for our consideration and our findings on them are noted as below:-

Point-I       

Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that seeds from said lot which was given to the complainant was sent to Seed Testing Laboratory, as the complainant complained about it.  Said report is at page no.94 of the appeal compilation.  It is dated 12/07/2013.  After perusing the said report, it is clear that the seeds of the lot no.NU-639388 were sent to the said laboratory.  It is material to note that at page no.90, there is one report of Taluka Agriculture Officer.  That report was relied by the complainant showing that germination is very less and fruit bearing is very less.  From that report, it is also clear that lot in the said report and lot mentioned in the report of Seed Test Laboratory is the same.  Thus, it is clear that the seeds from the said lot sent toe the Seed Testing Laboratory, which is at page no.94, shows that Pure seed - 100%, Germination 67%, fruit bearing. In said report it is concluded that ‘the same conforms to minimum limits of physical purity & germination specified’.  We have already mentioned about that, even as per the complainant, the opponent’s claim, the capacity of the germination is 60% whereas report of Seed Testing Laboratory at page no.94 shows that the seed sent to the said laboratory was having germination capacity of 67%.  The learned advocate for the original complainant has drawn our attention to the report of Taluka Agriculture Officer which is at page no.91, 92 and 93 and contented that germination is 40% i.e. less than 60% as claimed by the complainant.  However, it is material to note that said per centage was written on the basis of the laboratory test, but that was given on the basis of information given by the agriculturist i.e. complainant as mentioned on the top of the report.  Complainant has not filed any report of Seed Testing Report to support their contention that the seeds given by the opponent to the complainant were of inferior quality than what was claimed by the opponents.  On the other hand, opponent sent the seeds from the same lot to the Seed Test Laboratory and report is at page 94 as discussed above.  Thus, we find that the seeds supplied by the opponents to the complainant were not of inferior quality.  Thus, we find that the opponents cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on their part in supplying quality seeds.  Hence, we answer to the Point-I in negative.

Point-II

          In view of the answer to the Point-I, complainant is not entitled to compensation.  Apart from that there is absolutely no evidence about any loss suffered by the complainant because of said crop.  Without any evidence, only contention of the complainant is of no value.  Hence, we answer Point-II in negative.  The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed.  Hence, the order.

ORDER

1.Appeal is allowed

2.Impugned order is quashed and set aside.

3.Consumer complaint stands dismissed.

4.No order as to costs.

5.One set of appeal compilation be retained. Rest be returned to the appellant forthwith. 

6.Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith.

Pronounced

Dated 25^th March, 2015.