Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/02/2012 passed by Addl. District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.62/2010.
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :-
Respondent No.1/org. complainant had purchased 5 kg. onion seeds from respondent No.2-Dealer manufactured by the appellant/org. opponent No.1 on 12/06/2009 by paying amount of `3,350/- and respondent No.2/org. opponent No.2 had issued a receipt No.26824. Respondent No.1/complainant had prepared the land for sowing and sown said seeds in his Survey No.723 admeasuring 20 R. He contended that he has used the required manure required for the onion plants. However, germination was only 10to20%. He has sent notice to appellant/org. opponent No.1 stating that there is only 10to20% germination of the seeds. However, there was no response from opponentNo.1/appellant. The complainant/respondent No.1 also filed a complaint to District Level Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee and said Committee visited the field of the complainant and gave report that germination of the seeds is 30 to 40% only. Thereafter, he filed a consumer complaint stating that there are defective seeds manufactured by opponent No.1 and supplied by opponent No.2 and prayed for directing the appellant to pay compensation of `4,15,000/-, `10,000/- for mental agony, `10,000/- for labour charges and `10,000/- for costs along with interest @12% p.a.
3. Appellant/opponent No.1 had admitted the fact that said seeds have been produced by them. They further contended that they are producing standard seeds and seeds are sold in the market after its examination in their laboratory. They contended that for 5 to 6 R they recommended 2.5 kg. seeds. As per their recommendation, 5 kg. seeds should have been sown in 10 to 12 R. However, complainant/respondent No.1 has sown the same seeds in 20 R and hence, there is less germination. Therefore, opponent No.1/appellant prayed that there is no defect in the seeds and complaint be dismissed. The original opponent No.2/respondent No.2 failed to file written version before the District Forum and he was proceeded ex-parte.
4. District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by opponent No.1/appellant, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavit and pleadings of their Advocates came to be conclusion that there is defective seeds sold by the appellant/opponent No.1 to the respondent No.1/complainant and directed appellant/opponent No.1 to pay `40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 26/09/2009, compensation of `10,000/- and cost of `3,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, org. opponent No.1/appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.D.S. Tipole, Advocate for the appellant. None present for the respondents.
6. Admittedly, org. complainant/respondent No.1 had purchased 5 kg. onion seeds on 12/06/2009 by paying `3,350/- and respondent/opponent No.2 had issued a receipt therefor. Admittedly, respondent No.1/complainant has sown said seeds in his land Survey No.723 admeasuring 20 R. As there was poor germination, he had applied to the District Level Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee and said Committee visited the field of the complainant on 30/07/2009 along with Professor, AgriculturalCollege, Pune-Member, Campaign Officer-Member Secretary of the Committee and Agriculture Development Officer-Chairman of the Committee. All the Members unanimously came to the conclusion that germination is only 30 to 40%. Appellant/opponent No.1 had only raised point that 2.5 kg. onion seeds is required to be sown in 5 to 6 R. Accordingly, 5 kg. seeds purchased by respondent No.1/complainant should have been sown in 10 to 12 R. However, 5 kg. seeds has been sown in more area i.e. 20 R and hence, there was less germination. Germination will not affect if the area is more. Whatever the seeds sown should have been germinated. While arriving at the conclusion, District Forum has rightly relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Mahico V/s. Alvalapati Chandra Reddy & Ors., III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC). District Forum had passed the order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find any reason to interfere in the said order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed. The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 24th June 2013.
