ORDER

(Passed On 26/06/2015)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 31/7/2009, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, partly allowing the Consumer complaint bearing No. 212 of 2008, thereby directing the Ops/appellants herein to pay compensation of Rs. 49,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- to complainant No. 1/ respondent No. 1 herein and Rs. 27,250/- and 5,000/- to complainant No. 2/respondent No. 2 herein. The Ops to pay Rs. 2,000/- more towards cost of proceeding.
2. Respondent No. 1, Sarjerao Anandrao Deshmukh, respondent No. 2, Baburao Purushottamrao Deshmukh and respondent No. 3,  Shyam Parasram Samudre to be referred as complainants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.4, M.P. State Seeds Certification Agency be referred as OP No. 5.
3. Appellant No. 1, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. through its deputy manager to be referred as OP Nos. 4 and appellant No. 2, Saroday Bandhu Krushi Seva Kendra be referred as OP No. 1 and appellant No. 3, Kisan Krushi Kendra be referred as OP No. 2 for the sake of convenience.
4. Complainants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 named above have filed the Consumer complaint on the facts as laid down below.

All the three complainants are agriculturists and Ops Nos. 1 and 2 are the dealers who sell the seeds required for agricultural purposes and Ops Nos. 3 and 4 are the Manufactures of said seeds. The complainants had purchased 22 bags of soyabeen seeds of JS-335 variety from OP No. 1 on 6/7/2006. The OP No. 1 had issued receipt to that effect endorsing the detail in respect of the variety and lot number. It is the contention of the complainant that the seeds purchased on 6/7/2006 were sown by the complainants in their respective fields that is complainant No. 1 sowed 17 bags of soyabeen seeds over 17 acres of agricultural field situated on survey No. 491,483 and 484, similarly complainant No. 2 sowed 4 bags of soyabeen seeds over 4 acres of his agricultural land situated on survey No. 834 and complainant No. 3 sowed one bag of the said soyabeen seeds on 1 acre of his agricultural field situated on survey No. 850. As the yield and the growth was not up to standard even after a lapse of 113 dayswhen the total growth of soyabeen is of 90 days. The complainants lodged a complaint before the District Agricultural Officer, Amravati on 30/10/2006. The copy of the said complaint was also forwarded to the OP No. 4, the manufacturer of the seeds. The complainants also lodged their complaint with Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 31/10/2006, alleging, defective seeds. In pursuance to the above mentions complaint, the Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli submitted its report to the Agricultural Development Officer on 2/11/2006, mentioning therein that the seed pods were not fully growned and they were still green in colour and the said pods were flat in shape. The District Grivance Committee comprising of five members on3/11/2006 visited the Agricultural fields of the complainants and inspected the growth of the plants and submitted its report on 16/12/2006. The said report mentions that the growth was up to 70 to 85 percentage and about 14 to 15 percent of plants were of different and adulterated quality and the shape of the leaves of the said plants was also not of JS-335 variety. As the complainants incurred monitory loss in crop due to the seeds sown by the complainant were defective seeds sold by OP Nos. 1 and 2 and the said seeds manufactured by the OP No. 4 wereof substandard grade. Therefore the complainants filed a Consumer complaint claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per acre for 22 acres that equals to 2,42,000/- plus Rs. 11,333/- towards refund of the cost of seedsand Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment (at the rate of 25,000 per complainant.) and Rs. 10,000/- more towards cost of proceedings.

5. The Ops Nos. 3 and 4, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.  resisted the complaint by filing their written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainants. The OP Nos. 3 and 4 by three applications submitted for

1. Addition of M.P. State Seeds Certification Agency  as necessary party.
2. Seeking directions to the complainant to file the empty bags and tagged of soyabeen seeds of JS-335 variety allegedly sown by the complainants.
3. To call for evidence of Agricultural Development Officer by way of answers to the questionnaire.

          The Ops had specifically disputed the supply of the lot mentioned by the complainant to the Ops Nos. 1 and 2. The Ops have specifically submitted that the seeds produced by them are specifically certified by an expert agency  and as the seeds produced by them were duly certified, they denied production of defective seeds. They have further submitted that the certified seeds are retained by the Government Authority and the period of such retention is nine months and the said certified seeds are further stored for nine months. Therefore in case of any defect in seed to be ascertained the said seeds are made available for test by the appropriate laboratory.  As the complainants failed in their duty to spray sufficient pesticide and insecticide, the soyabeen plants were infected by disease. The complainants to avoid laboratory test of the seeds intentionally filed the Consumer complaint after lapse of the period storage of the certified seeds.

     Therefore the Ops denied have adopted unfair trade practice and supplied defective seeds and sought for dismissal of complaint being frivolous.

     OP Nos. 1 and 2 by pursis had adopted the written version filed by the Ops No. 3 and 4.

6. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that as the written version filed by the  Ops is not  supported by any affidavit. The written version of the Ops cannot be accepted.
7. The Forum has held that it is accepted that the complainant has sown soyabeen seeds of JS-335 variety and that he has not got proper yield as is mentioned in the report of the District Redressal Committee even if the Committee may not be constituted as required by provision of law but since it mentions about the actual status of the crop, the said report deserves to be accepted. The Forum has further held that though the evidence filed on record by the complainant by way of 7/12 extract is in respect of 14 acres of land while the complaint mentions 17 acres of land, the loss incurred by the complainant due to defective seeds is accepted on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Grivance Committee and that the complainant had sown the seeds of JS-335 variety as is reflected in the receipt filed by the complainants. Holding accordingly the Forum has allowed the complaint as already mentioned.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Ops Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal.
9. We heard counsel for the appellant, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is proceeded exparte and perused the written notes of arguments, filed by the appellant and respondent No. 4, copy of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties. The receipt dated 6/7/2006 filed by the complainant showing purchase of  22 bags of soyabeen of JS-335 variety of lot number 175-34710 for total cost of Rs. 11,330/- We also perused the compliance report dated 4/12/2008 filed by the complainant giving the details in respect of the empty bags and the lot number. The said report mentions  19 bags and the lot numbers endorse therein do not tally with the lot number mentioned on the receipt. On the other hand the ‘Release Order and Supply in Maharashtra’ dated 28/02/2007 filed by the OP Nos. 3 and 4 showing the lot wise dispatches in Maharashtra reflects that lot number 175-A-34710 was supplied to i) Mundada Brothers, Dhamangaon, ii) Shriniwas Agro, Nanded and iii) Ganesh K. V.K., Parbhani. Therefore the contention of the Ops that the said lot was not supplied to the Ops Nos. 1 and 2 and it was released to other dealers is supported by the above mentioned documents. Therefore it cannot be inferred that the complainant had proved that it had sown the JS-335 variety of soyabeen produced by the Ops. This material fact is not proved by cogent evidence that the soyabeen seeds purchased and sown by the complainant were produced and supplied by the Ops(appellants).  The Forum while allowing the complaint has also ignored material contradictions and omission in respect of number of bags of soyabeen seeds sown. The complaint mentions purchase of 22 bags and the document filed on record in respect of the said bags is of 19 bags. Similarly the complaint mentions the sowing of seeds on 17 acres of land while the document filed in support  is in respect of 14 acres of land. The Forum accepted the report of a Committee, which is not constituted according to statutory requirement. The said report cannot carry any weight. Forum has erred in accepting the same. Holding producer and manufacturer of seeds responsible for deficit yield in spite of so many omission and contradictions cannot sustain in law.  For the foregoing reason, we are of the reasoned opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order to be quashed and set aside being illegal and unsustainable in law. In the result we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned order  dated 31/07/2009 in Consumer complaint No. 212 of 2008, passed by the District Forum, Amravati is quashed and set aside.
3. The Consumer complaint bearing No. 212 of 2008 is dismissed.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.