Per Shri Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28.11.2003 in Consumer Complaint No.86/2001 (Shri Patil Sitaram Bagal V/s. Parekh Traders & Anr.) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara. The District Forum while holding deficiency in service against the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 allowed the consumer complaint filed by the Respondent/original Complainant and directed the Appellant to pay an amount of `56,000/- with interest @9% effective from 12.03.2001 till realization. Further District Forum awarded `4,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `1,500/- as cost of litigation. All these amounts were directed to be paid within 30 days. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Appellant/original Opponent No.2 preferred this appeal on the ground that the panchanama conducted on 06.02.2001 was not appreciated by the District Forum, the District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee visited the field very late, the seed purchased by the Complainant was required to be inspected by the seed inspector only. All these factors were not appreciated by the District Forum before passing the impugned order.
(2) Heard the Ld.Advocate of the parties present. District Forum exonerated Respondent No.2 i.e. Prakash Traders who were Opponent No.1 in the consumer complaint and dismissed the consumer complaint against him.
(3) Admittedly, the seed ‘peas bv’ variety was supplied by the Appellant through Respondent No.2, i.e. their authorized Agent. After germination it was found by the Complainant that plants were not bearing expected number of pods and whatever pods were there, they were smaller in size. The Complainant submitted the complaints to various concerned authorities and to the Appellant. The representative of the Appellant visited the field but did not draw out detailed panchanama of his visit nor there was any witness available at the time of his visit. Office bearers of the Seed Grievance Redressal Committee, a committee duly constituted by the Government of Maharashtra to look into the grievances of the farmers about the germination of the seeds, yield etc., visited the field of the Complainant and in their report concluded that there were hardly 4-5 number of pods to each plant and that too, the pods were very small in size. It was further observed by the Seed Grievance Redressal Committee that no harvest prior to their visit was noticed. The Committee unanimously found that expected yield was not possible and calculated the damage sustained by the Complainant (Respondent no.1) to the tune of `70,000/-.
(4) On perusal of the record, it is observed that though on receiving the complaint from the Complainant about non yielding of the required number of pods of peas to each plant the representative of the Appellant did visit the field but did not draw out detailed panchanama of his inspection and there were no witnesses whatsoever available at the time of said visit. The contention of the Appellant is that the seeds sold was duly certified as a variety called ‘peas bv’ through Seed Certification Agency by the Appellant. This report was not considered by the Ld.District Forum as argued by the Ld.Advocate of the Appellant. The Appellant averred that prior to visit of the District Seed Grievance Redressal Committee to the field, the Respondent/Complainant had plucked away the pods and sold in the market. However, there is no documentary evidence adduced by the Appellant in support of this contention to rebut findings of Seed Grievance Redressal Committee. It was the responsibility of the Seed Corporation to produce documentary evidence to establish that the seed was not defective. There is no such evidence on record adduced by the Appellant as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr., reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506. The District Forum has considered all the facts of the case and passed impugned order holding deficiency in service against the Appellant and allowed the consumer complaint on the terms narrated supra. Thus, we find the Appeal is devoid of merit. Therefore, impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with and we cannot take different view than what has already been taken by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 16th October, 2012.
