(Passed on 9/6/2014)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1. The instant appeal is filed against the order dated 28/02/2007, passed by DCDRF, Washim in CC No. 100/2006 (Old) and 25/2006(New) granting the complaint and providing the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and cost of Rs. 100/- to the complainant to be paid in the span of 30 days and failure to pay with a interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum.
2. The brief facts in the background are that the complainants  Mr. Purushottam Namdeo Idhole and his father Namdeo Uddhav Idhole filed complaint against the OP No. 1 Syngenta India Ltd. a Manufacturer of seeds of Cauliflower,  and OP No. 2 OM Krushi Seva Kendra, Washim, (the dealer). The complainants complained that they are son and father and have excellent quality of land in Gut No. 538 at village Adholi. In the year 2005 they decided to take the crop of Cauliflower in 0.40 Hectre of land. The complainant therefore purchased 7 packets of 10 gm of Cauliflower seed, each of ‘Badal F1 hybrid’ variety of lot No. 1414589 costing Rs. 150/- per packet,   on 18/10/2005, 22/10/2005 and 2/11/2005. The seeds were manufactured by OP No. 1 and the complainant purchased them from the shop of OP No. 2.
3. The complainant complained further that there are 3 varieties of F1 Hybrid Badal Cauliflower of which one flowers in short time, the other takes medium time and the third one is a slow growing variety. All the varieties need different time and season for sowing. It is therefore necessary that each packet sold by the OP No. 1 should have the information about the required time of sowing of the variety printed on the packet. Such information was not printed on the packet which had information that the seeds are valid up to 3/2/2006. Thus, by not printing the time and season required for sowing the particular variety, the OP No. 1 committed deficiency in service towards their consumer, the complainant.
4. The complainants stated that he purchased the seeds from the shop of OP No. 2, who lured him by saying that the seeds are valid and did not tell him that the sowing period is over. Therefore the OP No. 2 also committed deficiency in service.
5. The complainants after purchasing the seeds prepared his field with a process of ‘Waramba’ and planted the seeds on 12/11/2005. He then transported the seedling to his field on 9/12/2005, at the rate of 10,000 seedlings per acre and started rearing them.
6. After 15 days, he noticed that the seedling have developed into small balls of cauliflower weighing 40-50 gms and suddenly realized that the growth is not what he expected and is suffering heavy loss. He expected a crop of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- kg per hectre and thus realized that he suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/-
7. The complainant complained to the District Agricultural Committee which inspected his field on 3/1/2006 and certified that the complainant suffered the loss as above.
8. The complainant, thus, complained that the OP No. 1 and 2 by not printing the exact sowing period of a particular variety on the packet of the seeds misled the complainant. He thus, suffered the loss because of the deficiency in service rendered so by OP No. 1 and also by OP No. 2 who lured him to purchase the seeds saying them to be in the valid period.
9. The complainant therefore made a complaint to DCDRF, Akola from where it was transferred to DCDRF, Washim. He made a request to provide him the compensation Rs. 80,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-
10. After notice, the respondent appeared before Forum, and through written version, denied the allegations of the complainant. The OP No. 1 submitted that OP gives the detailed information of the seeds, sowing, seasons, quality of the seeds sold by them in the various brochures. The seeds are manufactured and are tested by the expert and are put on sale after the regular permission from the Government.
11. The complainant intentionally hid the correct information of sowing and has sown the seeds in December which are meant for sowing in hot and dry season. The December season is cloudy and cold which is not conducive to the growth of variety. Thus, he suffered loss because of his own mistake. From OP No. 2, about 39 packets of the variety were sold to various farmers who sown them appropriately and they have no complaint about the seeds.
12. The OP submitted that the seeds are properly packed and printed with the required information as per the directions of the Government. The validity printed on the packet is for the germination capability of the seeds and has nothing to do with the sowing season. Therefore the OP No. 1 and 2 did not commit any deficiency in service. The Ops requested to dismiss the complaint.The Forum, considered the evidence, material, contentions before it and came to the conclusion that;-                                                     The complainant is a consumer.                                                                                                                                                            He has sown the seeds in his own field.                                                                                                                                                  He did not get proper crop and hence suffered the loss as per the enquiry report of agricultural office and the Grahak Panchayat.      The loss is of 30-40 thousand rupees.                                                                                                                                                  The Ops did not file any evidence to show that the complainant did not properly sow seeds of one season in the another season.
13. Thus, coming to the conclusion that complainant suffered loss; the Forum passed the order as above.
14. Aggrieved against the order the OP No. 1 filed appeal before us and hence is being referred as appellant hereinafter. The complainants are referred as respondent No. 1, 2 and the original OP No. 2 as respondent No. 3 for brevity.
15. Heard both the advocates, perused the material placed before us. The issue is that it is the contention of the respondent that the appellant should have printed the required time duration for sowing on the packet of the seeds. By not printing the sowing period and printing the validity of seeds, the appellant committed deficiency in service which is unfair trade practice which caused him a loss which needs to be compensated by the appellant.
16. The advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellants bring the seeds in the market which are manufactured under expert supervision. They market with the packet printed with the required regulations and directions as per section 8 of the seed rule 1968. There is nothing in the rule which directs that the sowing period be shown on the packet.
17. The advocate further submitted that the respondents have claimed to be experienced farmers with excellent land and therefore they knew about the sowing period of the seeds they purchased. It is incumbent upon the respondent to prove that the sowing period needs to be printed on the packet and has to adduce evidence for that which the respondent has not done.
18. The advocate further clarified that they have published information brochures and the agricultural university have also published Sanvadini specifying the sowing period for various strains of Cauliflower. The enquiry officer of the agricultural enquiry committee has written that the crop did not flourish as the cauliflower was planted in the month of December when the atmosphere is cold and cloudy.
19. The advocate further submitted that they have sold the seeds to many other farmers submitting their statements who sown the seeds on proper time and ripped proper crop. No complaints of  their are on record. Thus, the advocate justified the packing and sale of the seeds. Thereby, submitting that the Forum failed to appreciate the contentions and passed un considered order which deserves setting aside.
20. We considered the contentions of both the parties and it comes clearly to the notice that the respondent very well knew about what they were purchasing and the requirements of their sowing. Now the contentions of the respondent that they committed the mistake of sowing and suffered loss because of non printing of the sowing duration cannot be accepted. At the same time the respondent could not prove that there is a requirement by law to print such information on the packet. In the absence of cogent evidence, a make believe allegation does not stand acceptance.  Thus, based on such allegations we hold that the order of the Forum also stands unreasonable and unconsidered. Thus, the order of Forum deserves setting aside.
21. In the light of the above consideration and the background of the case no cost needs to be given to anyone. Thus, we pass the order as below.

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned order of the Forum is set aside. Thus, the complaint stands dismissed.
3. Parties to bear their own cost and collect copies of the order.
4. Member copies be returned to the appellant.