Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12.03.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.248/2007.
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:
The Complainant had purchased 1800 Akshay Tissue Cultured Banana Plants on 22.11.2006 from Opponent No.3 by paying an amount of `21,150/-. The Opponent No.3 issued him an Invoice No.5029502626. The Complainant planted the tissue culture plants after preparing the field between 22.11.2006 to 23.11.2006 as per the instructions given by the Opponent No.3. The Complainant had taken all care of the plantation by using the manures and pesticides. He used the drip irrigation system for giving the water to the plants. Though the Complainant had taken all this care for the plants he had not received the crop. Nearly 90% of the plants died and he could not get yield from remaining 10% as per standard. The Opponent has claimed that the every plant would produce the bananas of 20 to 40 kgs. weight. Hence, on 14.06.2007 Complainant had issued legal notice to the Opponents. After issuing the notice, the Opponents have not given any reply and hence, he filed a consumer complaint alleging that the plants supplied by the Opponents were of substandard quality and therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. The Complainant therefore prayed that the Opponents be directed to pay him an amount of `21,150/- being cost of the banana tissue plants, `28,850/- being the expenditure of wages and cultivation, `48,000/- being expenditure for the drip irrigation and `4,50,000/- being the loss for the loss of crop. Thus, the total amount of `14,48,000/- and compensation of `50,000/- for mental torture and cost of the litigation.
(3) The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 had denied the complaint by filing written version. The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 claimed that their headquarter is at Mumbai and hence, the Solapur District Forum had no power to try the complaint. They further contended that the Complainant has to prove that his land was good for cultivation for the banana tissue cultured plantation. They had further contended that their tissue cultured Akshay Banana Plants were of excellent quality and it was an established fact. They further contended that they were not responsible for the expected return of the crop as stated in their advertisement. They further contended that they had supplied the plants to the Complainants of a good quality. They further stated that initially the plants were grown in a green house land for 45 days and after 45 days the plants were kept in the shed house. They further stated that they had visited the field of the Complainant and during their visit they found that the land of the Complainant was not of the quality which required for the plantation of the tissue cultured banana plants. The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the land wherein the Complainant planted the banana plants was having a water holding capacity and salinity of soil was too high as well as water stagnation in his land during rainy season was very high and due to this reason plants were unable to respire and also the uptake of nutrients were totally stopped resulting in mortality of the plants. .
(4) The Opponent No.3 denied the complaint by filing written version. The Opponent No.3 had stated that the plants were produced by the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 and he as a sales representative of Opponent Nos.1 and 2 sold the plants to the Complainant. Whatever the amount he had received from the Complainant he had sent that amount by deducting his commission to the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 and hence, he contended that he was not responsible for the deficient service and hence, prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed against him.
(5) The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent Nos.1 & 2 and 3 and the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the report of the District Level Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee, observed that the seeds supplied by the Opponent No.3 were of defective quality and held the Opponents were responsible for deficiency in service and directed the Opponents to pay `5,40,000/- jointly and severally, to pay `50,000/- for manures, wages and cultivation costs along with interest @9% per annum from 10.09.2007 and to pay `21,150/- being the cost of seeds and `5,000/- as costs of litigation. The District Forum further ordered that the order should be complied with within a period of 30 days, failing which all the amounts shall carry interest @9% per annum. If the amount of `50,000/- is not paid within 30 days, it will carry a penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Being aggrieved by this order, the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal.
(6) Initially the Opponent No.3 was shown as the Respondent No.2. however, the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants had filed an application for the amendment in the cause and title of the appeal memo. The amendment was allowed and the Appellants were allowed to add Respondent No.2 as Appellant No.3 and accordingly the amendment was carried out.
(7) We heard Advocate Mr.U.B. Wavikar, for the Appellants/original Opponents and Mr.S.J. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Respondent/original Complainant.
(8) Admittedly, the Respondent had purchased the tissue culture banana plants produced by the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 for `21,150/- from the Appellant No.3 and it is an admitted fact. The Respondent has planted the plants in his agricultural land. It is the contention of the Respondent that he had planted the plants in his agricultural land and he had taken all the precaution as per the advertisement given by the Appellants. He had given water to the plants through drip irrigation. He had given manures and used pesticides as per the advertisement. However, there was no proper growth of the plants and 90% of the plants had died. Hence, he applied to the District Agricultural Officer, District Solapur. The committee consisting of District Agricultural Development Officer, Campaign Officer, Zilla Parishad, Districtr Solapur and representatives of Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Mahabeej, had visited Agricultural Land of the Complainant. They had taken the information from the Complainant regarding the Agricultural operations, manures used, the efforts taken by the Complainant for preparing the land and pesticides used, the information regarding irrigation facilities available etc. and the Committee came to the conclusion that the Opponents had not provided hardened tissue plants, hence, 90% of the plants had died and 10% living plants were not found as per the tissue cultured standard plants.
(9) Ld.Counsel for the Appellants has challenged the order on the ground that the Respondent had not produced any proof or evidence to show that plants supplied by them were defective or adulterated. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellants contended that the output of the plants is depending on various environmental conditions i.e. soil, water, air temperature, sunlight, organic fertilizers, bio-fertilizers, water management, humidity, diseases, pest, use of pesticides and its proper timing, weeds etc. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellants tried to point out that the District Forum had relied on the report of the District Level Committee who had only adopted the Complainant’s version without going into the above conditions i.e. soil, temperature, water stagnation etc. and also argued that the Complainant did not follow the proper methods and instructions given by the Appellants which are main causes for the mortality of the plants and not getting proper yield from the remaining plants. Again the Counsel for the Appellants tried to argue that the land was having water holding capacity and the salinity of soil was too high as well as water stagnation during rainy season was also high. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellants had also contended that the Respondent has not produced any proof or evidence to show that the plants supplied by them were defective and adulterated.
(10) On the record there is copy of salient features of the Akshay Bananas variety, wherein the Appellant had claimed that highest quality standards achieved by modern and advanced technology and claimed that the variety is lab produced and hence, not depending on suckers, also claimed that disease and pathogen free, high quality planting material that requires less pesticides. Quarantine friendly in case of viral or disease out break, also given a guarantee of uniform flowering and fruiting and assured periodic visit by experienced staff and advice on technical know-how. It is stated that the Respondent had called Appellant’s representative for field visit and during field visit the representative of the Appellant found the land had a water holding capacity and salinity of soil too high. However, the appellants had not produced that report on record. As against this, the Representatives of the District level Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee constituted by Government, visited the field along with the Agricultural experts and they had inspected the agricultural land and gave their report. In the report they noted that some portion of the field was water holding. It reflects that the report given by the Committee is based on their findings. The report is in detailed. It explains the area of the land for the cultivation of the Banana Tissue, manures given by the Respondent along with the irrigation facility and recorded their findings that the plants were not properly hardened. The Ld.counsel for the Appellants had questioned the validity of the report as the Committee had not filed any affidavit regarding the report. When the report is prepared during the course of their official duty and it is the opinion of the experts, we do not find any fault with the report of the Committee. The Appellants had questioned that in the land there is high salinity level. The Respondent has produced the report of the soil testing submitted by the Soil Conservation Officer. Hence, the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants that the land was having highest salinity is ruled out.
(11) The Ld.Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in South Eastern Seeds Corporation V/s. R. Shekhar @ Sridhar in Revision Petition No.3482/2007 reported in I(2008) CPJ 158 (NC) and in the matter of India Seed House V/s. Ranji Lal Sharma and Anr., in Revision Petition No.2013/2008 reported in 2008 CTJ 696 (CP) (NCDRC). However, the authorities quoted by the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants have been dealt in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Application No.7543/2004, M/s.National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had dealt in detail on the points of seed and observed that “the reports of agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the District Forum felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the Complainants were not called upon to provide the samples of the seeds for getting the same analysed/tested in an appropriate laboratory”. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hon’ble Apex Court, further observed that, “the issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other legislation”. In view of the observations of the Apex Court, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the Ld.Counsel for the Appellants. The District Forum, taking into consideration the facts of the case and the report of the District Level Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee had passed the order and we do not find any merit or substance in the appeal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Both parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 5th September, 2012.
