(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 03/07/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.10/2011 (Shri Balasaheb Vitthal Badade vs. 1.Manager, Krishidhan Vegitables Seeds (I) Pvt.Ltd. & ors.). passed by Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘District Forum’ in short). The District Forum while allowing consumer complaint filed by the present respondent/original complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent/complainant’) directed the original opponent nos.1 & 2 to pay the amount of `30,000/- towards the compensation and `5,000/- towards mental agony & costs of the litigation. All these amounts were directed to be paid within one month from the receipt of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appellant/original opponent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant/opponent no.1’) preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum did not consider the issues in right perspective which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The District Forum totally ignored laboratory analysis report of seeds supplied by the appellant, certificate of Standard company as averred in the appeal memo.
(2) Heard Mr.Kankurikar-advocate for the respondent no.1 since the appellant and the respondent no.2 preferred to remain absent, though sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant. Therefore, the matter was heard and reserved for order. Admittedly, the complainant purchased ‘Juliyana Cauliflower’ seeds manufactured by the appellant/opponent no.1 for sowing in his field of 20R. Though expected vegetative growth was ensured, there was no yield and whatsoever yield was visible, it was red coloured and finally the complainant could not get harvest of the cauliflower. Therefore, he reported his grievance to the appellant/opponent no.2 and requested to visit the field. However, for lack of positive response from the appellant/opponents, the complainant approached the Agriculture Department with request to visit the field for inspection. The committee constituted by Agriculture Department consisted of its Chairman along with members visited the field and arrived at conclusion that the seeds used for cultivation were defective as even after completion of period of 90 days from sowing the seeds, 90% plants did not bear promised yield. Since all the efforts of the complainant proved futile to get relief from the appellant/opponents, he approached the District Forum by filing consumer complaint.
(3) The stand taken by the appellant/opponent no.1 in the consumer complaint was that there is no complaint about germination and growth of the plants. However, it was averred that the required manure and insecticides were used by the complainant without any advice. Production of laboratory report of seeds as decided by this State Commission in Appeal No. A/06/945 (Nirmitee Biotech vs. R.N.Sankpal), was not considered. Yet the District Forum overlooked this issue and arrived at conclusion to allow the consumer complaint.
(4) The inspection report of the agriculture department committee is on record. There is no rebuttal from the appellant/opponent no.1 to disprove the finding of the agriculture expert committee. The laboratory report in respect of testing of ‘Juliyana Cauliflower’ seeds produced before the District Forum by the appellant/opponent no.1 is neither available in the appeal compilation nor any reference is made in the observation of the impugned order. The contentions of the appellant that the laboratory report to be produced by the complainant farmer in this case is not tenable in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of - (2012) II SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. V.M.Madhusudan Reddy – wherein the Hon. Apex Court held that the onus lies on the Seeds manufacturer to establish that the seeds supplied were free from defect and wherein the principle of ispa loquitter has been explained. Earlier view of the State Commission relied by the appellant is superseded by the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the present appeal and no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. I hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The appeal stands dismissed.
(2) Appellant to bear its own costs and shall pay costs of `5,000/- to the respondent/original complainant for protracting the matter depriving the complainant to get the awarded amount.
Pronounce don 25th July, 2013.
