Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15/05/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.286/2008 (Ramesh Madhukar Nagane V/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. & Anr.) by District Forum, Solapur. It was a consumer complaint making complaint about defective seed of Brinjal MH-04 known ‘Mahiko’ manufactured by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’). It is the case of the complainant that he purchased said seed from M/s.Sanman Krishi Seva Kendra (hereinafter referred to as ‘Seva Kendra’) on 22/02/2008. He had prepared saplings and thereafter planted it in his field on 15/03/2008. He owned field of Gat No.72/02 which is having an area of 81R and on which vegetable crops are taken on Well irrigation. He complained that he got yield of Mahico Brinjal-04 seed only at the rate of 50% of the saplings and rest of 50% saplings though were Brinjal, they were of different variety which had no much value in the market or less value than the Brinjal Mahico-04 category. Therefore, he made a complaint to the Krishi Vikas Adhikari on 05/93/2008 who visited the site on the same day. Thereafter, this consumer complaint was filed on 23/09/2008.
2. The District Forum though did not record the finding of defective seed and also observed that no evidence is led to justify the compensation claimed, preferred to award a token compensation of `20,000/- and directed the opponent-Company and Seva Kendra/opponent to bear their liability jointly and severally and also awarded compensation of `1,000/- towards mental agony and `1,000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Company preferred this appeal.
3. We heard Mr.S.S. Tawarawala, Advocate for the appellant and respondent No.1-complainant in person. Respondent No.2-Seva Kendra preferred to remain absent though duly served.
4. In the instant case, it could be seen that Taluka Krishi Vikas Adhikari on the complaint was prompt to visit the site and record the fact that 50% saplings were of Brinjal MH-04 category but not of Mahiko. Admittedly, no notice of such inspection was given to the Company. He also does not mention about 50% Brinjal Crop which was other than Brinjal Mahiko MH-04 variety. There is no evidence to show that they are in fact of different variety of Brinjal. If it is a case of adulterated goods, no evidence is on record to establish the same. On the contrary, the Company categorically came up with the case and led evidence to show that Batch of Brinjal seed which was tested in the laboratory is of good quality and was not adulterated at all. It may be further noted that though Brinjal crop is of 130-150 days, admittedly, it was planted on 15/03/2008 and so called examination for inspection carried on 05/09/2008 i.e. much beyond said period and thus, it adversely affect the evidentiary value of that piece of evidence i.e. the Inspection Report of Krishi Vikas Adhikari. For all these reasons, we find that no deficiency in service on the part of Company is established in this case and just to award a token compensation of `20,000/- without finding any deficiency in service and `1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `1,000/- as costs is, per se, unjustifiable, nay, illegal. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15/05/2009 is set aside and in the result, consumer complaint No.286/2008 stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 22nd March 2013.
