(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/01/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.03/2011, (Shri Subhash Sudam Jadhav vs. 1. Manager, Panchganga Seeds Pvt.Ltd.) passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘District Forum’ in short). While partly allowing the consumer complaint filed by the present respondent/complainant, the District Forum directed the appellant/opponent no.1 and respondent/opponent no.2 to pay an amount of `50,000/- along with an interest @9% p.a. from 27/09/2010 and additionally amounts of `10,000/- & `3,000/- were directed to be paid for mental harassment and costs of litigation. Appellant/opponent no.1 aggrieved by the impugned order preferred this appeal on the ground that District Forum over-looked mandatory requirement of law and came to the wrong conclusion. Onion seeds purchased by the respondent/complainant were purchased on 26/06/2009 i.e. in Kharip Season. However, sowing was carried out in the month of October, 2009 at the time of Rangada season i.e. in the wrong season. The seeds sold by the appellant/opponent no.1 through the respondent/original opponent no.2 were with validity period according to Seeds Act and the validity period expired after 9 months from the date of the test.
(2) Heard both the parties. Perused the record placed before us. Undisputed facts are that :
The onion seeds were purchased & supplied by the appellant/opponent no.1 as a manufacturer sold through the opponent no.2. Since as promised, the desired yield of the onion could not be harvested, respondent/complainant filed complaint with the appellant/opponent no.2. However, no response was coming forward and therefore the complainant approached the District Agriculture Committee constituted by the Government with request to carry out inspection. In response to the request of the complainant, the committee carried out the inspection and observed that the onion seeds namely, ‘Phule-Samarth’ manufactured by the appellant/opponent was fit for cultivation during Kharip season. The validity period mentioned on the sale packet was wrong as 07/02/2010 which was misleading. The complainant following the directions on the packets of the onion seeds sowed the onion seeds in the wrong season and therefore bolting to onion was developed. This committee also further observed that the manufacturing seeds company i.e. appellant company committed mistake in printing the instructions on sealed packet.
(3) During the course of arguments, the learned advocate of the appellant relied on the orders/judgments passed by this State Commission – First Appeal No. 2643/2006, 1179/2005 & 1449/06 whereby the Commission had allowed all the appeals preferred by the seeds manufacturers holding thereby no deficiency on the part of the manufacturer/supplier of the seeds. Moreover, our attention was also drawn to the published material about harvest of onion by Dr.K.A.Lawande. The earlier view taken by the State Commission was prior to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of – (2012) II SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. V.M.Madhusudan Reddy -in which the Hon. Apex Court held that the onus lies on the Seeds manufacturer to establish that the seed supplied was free from defect wherein the principle of ispa loquitter has been explained.
(4) The published material placed before us in defence of the appellant/opponent is of no help as Agriculture Committee constituted by the Govt. has concluded that misleading information about the sowing of Phule-Samarth onion seeds was printed and supplied to the farmers. Thereby putting the farmers to utter confusion in wrong season these seeds be sowed.
(5) We do not find any merit in the appeal and the arguments put forth by the learned advocate of the appellant as no conclusive evidence is led on record to disprove the defect in seeds manufactured and supplied as held in - (2012) II SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. V.M.Madhusudan Reddy – The order impugned invites no interference. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal stands dismissed.
2. The appellant to bear their own costs and shall pay costs of `10,000/- to the respondent no.1/original complainant.
3. This amount shall be paid within the period of 60 days from the date of this order failing which the amount will carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of this order till the realization of the amount.
Pronounced on 8th July, 2013.
