(Passed on 25.09.2013)

Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member

          This is an appeal filed by the original opposite party (for short “the O.P.”) against the order of Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur directing the O.p. Nos. 1 & 2  to return the cost of the seed Rs.27,270/-, of Rs.65,000/- for towards cost of cultivation, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

The facts of the case in brief are as under:-

1.      The original complainant has taken agriculture land on lease from Shri Keshavrao Swami Devasthan Parshivani and sown seeds of Binny Bt Cotton purchased from O.P.No.2 and manufactured by o.p.No.1.  After sowing of seeds the complainant found that there was not enough germination of  seeds sown by him in the field, hence, he made complaint to the O.P.No.2 since no response received from him he contacted the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Parshivani for inspection of his filed.  The said officer visited the complainant’s field on 17.07.2005 and made Panchanama.  In the said Panchanama it was stated only 30% of the plant survived in the field.  The Taluka Agriculture Officer also forwarded the same Panchanama / report to the Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad Nagpur who is the Chairman of the District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee. This Committee observed  that 62% of the seeds sown was germinated and also observed that the seed was not defective. Since the complainant did not receive any response from the O.Ps. he filed consumer complaint before the Addl. District Consumer forum, Nagpur and also handed over the sample of above said seeds for testing. The Forum below sent the same to the Central Cotton Research Instt., Nagpur for testing.

2.      The O.p. resisted the complaint by filing Written Versions and other affidavit stating that the seed was not defective and District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee gave its opinion that the seed was not defective.  The O.P. also stated that the Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur also gave its report stating that the seeds were of 91.67% positive for the presence of Cry I A c. Hence, the seeds were not defective and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the sides and on perusing the papers on record the Forum allowed the complaint partly as mentioned above, holding the seeds were defective.

4.      Being dissatisfied with this order O.P. – Seed Co. has preferred this appeal. 

5.      Adv. Mr Narendra Dhoot appeared for the appellant and argued that the seed in question was sent to the laboratory for testing and the its report also states that the seed is of positive for the presence of Cry I A c. He further argued that the District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee also gave its opinion that the seed was not defective.  However, the Forum below without appreciating all these aspects allowed the complaint partly which is not as per the facts of the case.  Hence, he prayed that the order by the Forum needs to be set aside.

6.      Adv. Mr D Bhedre appeared for the respondent and argued that the

seed manufactured by the O.P.No.1 was defective.  Hence, the germination of the seed was very poor.  The same was reflected in the Panchanama prepared by the Taluka Agriculture Officer and also in the report of the District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee.  However, the Committee gave its opinion that the seeds were not defective. As per the advertisement given in the newspaper the disputed seed is having germination of minimum of 75%.  However, both above reports state that germination of the disputed seed was not as per the specification as claimed by the seed manufacturing Company.  He further argued that the Central Cotton Research Institute Mentions in its report about the Bt characteristics but not about the germination. Since the said Institute in its report, remained silent about germination, the O.P. – seed Company cannot not take shelter of the same report.  He finally argued the Forum below appreciating all these facts rightly allowed the complaint partly, which needs no interference.

7.      After hearing both the parties and perusal of the case papers we observe that the complainant purchased the Binny Bt Cotton Seeds manufactured by the appellant company sold by its dealer.  As per the Panchanama of Taluka Agriuculture Officer (which was prepared after visiting the complainant’s field) states only 30% plants were available on the date of inspection. The Panchanama also signed by the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Mandal Agriculture Officer, the complainant and other two witnesses from the Village. The Panchanama also states for counting the plant they selected the plot measuring 20 meter x 10 meter of the complainant’s field and as per the agricultural department’s norms there should be of 242 plants (in the gap of 3ft x3 ft.) but in the complainant’s field there were only 73 plants were found.  This Panchanama was prepared on 17.08.2005. The same report was forwarded to the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee for taking necessary action.  The District Level committee also prepared its report and states that there were 62% of the seeds were germinated and further it states there is no defect in the seeds.  There is no reference of aforesaid Panchanama in that report. The credential of the report is doubtful because it contains signature of Campaign Officer of Agriculture Department of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur only. No other members signed the report.  Further it is also doubtful about the committee’s visit to the field of the complainant.  Further the report without giving any reasons the Committee opined the seed was not defective. We are of the strong opinion that the report prepared by the District Committee is manipulated one.  Hence, we are not accepting the same. We also gone through the report submitted by the Central Cotton Research Institute, which gave its opinion with regard to Bt Cotton characteristics but it is not relating to non-germination of seeds. Hence, in the absence any opinion regarding germination factor of seeds, we cannot come to the concrete conclusion that the seeds were of the good quality. We find that Panchanama dated 17.08.2005 referred to above is reliable, which proves that the seeds were defective. The Forum below has rightly appreciated all these facts and allowed the complaint partly, which needs no interference.

We therefore pass the following order:-

ORDER

i.                    The appeal is dismissed.

ii.                  No order as to cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties