Per Hon’ble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Member:
1. These appeals take an exception to an order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint no.249/2009.
2. Facts leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:
The Complainant Mahadev Ganpat Mane had purchased onion seeds from M/s.Shah Agro Co. (original Opponent No.1) produced by M/s.Vijay Seeds (original Opponent No.2), a seeds producing Company, for his land Gut No.209 admeasuring 2 hectors and 4R at Village Kouthali, District Solapur. The name of the seed was ‘Onion Light Red’ and Lot Number was 508. The seeds were purchased on 20.06.2008 by paying an amount of `1,200/- and the Opponent No.1 had issued receipt no.3830 for the said seeds. The original Complainant had sown the seeds in his land. However, it had not resulted into crops as expected. The expected production was 20 ton per acre, however, he had got production of 30 ton and it was not as per the expected standard. Hence, Complainant had filed a complaint with the Agriculture Development Officer of the Zilla Parishad on 26.12.2008 and District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee had visited his agricultural land on 16.03.2009 and inspected the crop. In their report they had observed that only 6% production of the onion was standard and remaining production was 94%. The Complainant contended that it was because of inferior quality of the seeds produced by the Opponent No.2. The Complainant further contended that if the seeds would have been of good quality he would have got a crop amounting to `3,90,000/-. Alleging supplying the sub-standard seeds amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents he had filed a consumer complaint praying that the Opponent be declared as deficient in service and they be directed to pay an amount of `3,90,000/- for a loss of the production, `50,000/- for mental agony and `25,000/- as costs.
3. The Opponent No.1 had filed the written version contending therein that the allegations of the Complainant in the complaint are baseless. The Opponent No.1 contended that the production is not dependent on the seeds only but it depends on various factors i.e. weather, the quality of the land, the proper cultivation of the land, the irrigation facilities, the use of the manure and pesticides. He further contended that in one hector of land the quantity of seed is required 8 to 10 kg. However, the Complainant had purchased only 3 Kg. seeds and used it in 0.60 hectors. In fact for 0.60 hectors land at least 6 kgs. seeds are required. The quality of production depends upon the use of the water to the land. If the crop is matured and water is given to the land it affects the quality of the production. Similarly, if the seed is not used taking into consideration the size of the land it also affects the crop. He also contended that as per the standard practice, the production of 250 to 300 quintal per hector and crop becomes ready within a period of 120 days. However, when the Committee visited the land and did the inspection the life of the crop was 154 days and when it is sent to market it was 178 days and because of this the crop was even affected. Scientifically, before harvesting the crop nearly three weeks before the water is not to be used for the crop. However, the Complainant had not followed these instructions. It is also contended that the seeds were not sent for the laboratory testing therefore, the Opponent No.1 has stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint may please be dismissed against them.
4. Opponent No.2 had not filed their written version even though they had been given reasonable opportunity and hence, the Opponent No.2 was proceeded without written version.
The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent No.1, the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of their Advocates came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent as the seeds sold to the Complainants were defective and partly allowed the complaint directing the Opponent No.2 to pay `2,10,000/- for the loss of the crop, `5,000/- for mental agony and `5,000/- as costs within 30 days from the date of passing of the order, failing which the Opponent No.2 will have to pay interest @9% per annum till realisation of the amount.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant has filed Appeal No.A/13/89 for enhancement of the award and the Opponent No.2 – M/s. Vijay Seeds has filed Appeal No.A/13/120 for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.
6. Since both the appeals are challenging the same order and involves the common question of law and facts both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
7. We heard Ld.Advocate Mr.Panke for the Appellant/original Complainant in Appeal No.A/13/89 and Ld. Advocate Mr.Digambar Thakare, for the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 in Appeal No.A/13/120.
8. Admittedly, the original Complainant i.e. Appellant in appeal No.A/13/89 had purchased the seeds of ‘Onion Light Red’ of Lot Number 508 on 20.06.2008 by paying the amount of `1,200/- to the Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.A/13/120, who had issued a receipt for the same. Admittedly, the Appellant/original Complainant had sown the seeds in his land. The original Complainant had filed a complaint to the District Level Seed Grievances Redressal Committee. The Committee had visited the agricultural land on 19.01.2008 and did site inspection. In their report they had observed that only 6% of the crop was as per standard and the remaining 94% crop was not a standard crop and it is because of the defective seeds supplied by the Respondent No.2 in Appeal No.A/13/120 which is manufactured by the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/120. The Committee was represented by the representative of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth and the representative of Mahabeej, Solapur. The Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/120 had tried to argue that the production of onion depends upon the various factors i.e. quality of the land, weather, erection facilities, use of the manures, use of pesticides. He further argued that the original Complainant only tried to impress that the production affected because of seeds only which were not tested in laboratory.
9. The Apex Court in judgement reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1160 has observed that “If the Opponents have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied before the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the Opponents have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the Complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.” In the present case, the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/89 had complained about the seeds to the District Level Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee. The Committee had visited the site, inspected the crop and came to the conclusion that the seeds were defective.
10. Here the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/120 should have sent seeds of the same lot sold to the original Complainant for testing to the appropriate laboratory, however, they have not discharged their responsibility. On the contrary, the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/120 failed to contest the complaint before the District Forum by filing their written version and the evidence. As the members of the District Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee had unanimously came to the conclusion that the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/89 could not get expected crops because of the defective seeds and they being expert we have to rely on the report of the expert.
11. The Appellant in appeal No.A/13/89 has filed appeal for enhancement of the award, however, for enhancement of award he has not adduced any more evidence to support his prayer for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/89 had argued that the District Forum had not awarded the interest from the date of filing of the complaint. We see that the District Forum should have awarded the interest from the date of filing the complaint. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the original Opponent No.2 – Shah Seeds, the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/120.
12. As regards the appeal filed by the Appellant in Appeal No.A/13/89 there is substance in the prayer of the Appellant regarding awarding the interest from the date of filing of the complaint. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
O R D E R
(i) Appeal No.A/13/89 filed by the Complainant is partly allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the District Forum directing the original Opponent No.2 to pay an amount of `2,10,000/- as compensation being loss of the onion crop, `5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `5,000/- as costs is hereby maintained. Said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from 14.05.2009 i.e. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
(iii) The Appeal filed by M/s.Vijay Seeds being Appeal No.A/13/120 is hereby dismissed.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 28th October, 2013.
