Per Shri Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member:
(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/02/2003 in Consumer Complaint no.49/2002, (Shri Vasant Krishnaji Sugvekar V/s. Indo-American Hybrid Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ in short), thereby allowing the complaint of the Respondent (original Complainant) and directed the Appellant to pay compensation of `80,000/- and `3,000/- for mental agony, `1,000/- as costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of the order. In the complaint the Appellant Company was Opponent no.1 and M/s.Parekh Traders from whose shop the watermelon seed was purchased by the respondent/original Complainant was made a party to the complaint as Opponent No.2. However, impugned order is directed only against the Opponent No.1 and therefore, this appeal has been preferred by the present Appellant Co. Since the Appellant Company’s contention is that the watermelon seed supplied was not defective and germination reports as per laboratory finding are upto mark and further averred that Respondent/Complainant failed to monitor the crop after sowing at each stage properly.
(2) The case in brief is that the Respondent/original Complainant purchased ‘Patanegra’ watermelon seed from the authorized trader (i.e. Opponent No.2) of the Appellant for cultivation in two acres of land. Respondent/Complainant claims to be progressive farmer well versed with harvesting of watermelon in past. Harvesting of watermelon in dispute was under the expert supervision of retired senior officer from agricultural department of Government. There was no dispute regarding germination, growth, flowering and upto the fruit stage. However, the watermelon fruits were small, of uneven size and used to get detached from the creepers and burst before they were finally harvested. Therefore, the Appellant Company was informed about the state of watermelon fruits. Accordingly their responsible officer visited the field and concluded that there was no complaint about germination, growth of the creepers, flowering stage but the problem prevailed only in respect of fruits on the creepers but failed to suggest any solution to the problem faced by Respondent/Complainant. The Respondent/original Complainant sent the sample for analysis at Regional Agriculture Research Station, Karjat and also Plant Pathology Section Agricultural Department, Pune and obtained the reports from both these laboratories. The report of Karjan Institute reads as under:
“The watermelon samples received from you were observed under the microscope by our Pathologist. Microscopic examination revealed no association of any pathogen. The cause of the disease may be inanimate.”
And the report from Pathology Section of Agricultural Department, Pune reads as under:
“The sample received along with your letter has been examined on the laboratory and it is observed that the sample was not infected by any kind of pathogen. It was found free from the disease.”
(3) On the basis of these reports and the affidavit filed by one Shri Vinayak Balwant Pimpalkhare, the retired Officer from the Agricultural /Department under whose supervision the crop was harvested. Watering, spraying of insecticides, applying of manure was properly and methodically carried out at each stage as required and as per the guidelines given by the Appellant Company. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the Respondent. Appellant aggrieved with the said impugned order preferred this appeal stating that it is not the case of non-germination, non-flowering or any disease on the plants made out by the Respondent/original Complainant. Only specific grievance of the Respondent/Complainant was about the size and uneven (no round shape) of fruits, cracks developed to the fruits on creepers, reduction of fruit in size from 2 inches to 6 inches. As a result, Respondent/Complainant could not earn income as desired.
(4) This is an old matter placed on board for hearing and disposal. Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the record placed before us. Ld.Advocate of Appellant Company submitted that Respondent’s/original Complainant’s complaint is not about the germination, growth, flowering of the plant and even bearing fruits of watermelon. The complaint is limited to uneven and/or size of the watermelon fruits which used to get burst on the creeper itself before finally harvested. Report of germination of seed is upto the mark and not disputed. Ld.Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the Appellant’s for using seed of patanegra watermelon, quality fruit bearing of round and black colour with sweetness and 5 to 7 kg. weight of the fruit was promised. However, to the contrary the Respondent/Complainant did not get the desired yield and therefore, he was put to loss even though due care of cultivation was adhered to, particularly in respect of watering, manuring, spraying of insecticides under expert supervision. As the Appellant though admitted this stage, did not provide solution or taken any steps to compensate the loss sustained and therefore consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum which was decided in favour of the Respondent/Complainant.
(5) The District Forum relied on the affidavit of one Shri Vinayak Pimparkhare, supporting the contention of the Respondent/Complainant as expert evidence for the problem prevailed in the field. Reports from Government Agriculture Deparetment laboratories in respect of watermelon fruit analysis obtained by the Respondent/Complainant shows that there was no pathogenic infection or the disease certified was inanimate. Though the concerned Officer of the Appellant visited the field, analyzed the situation and admitted that the problem persists as narrated in the complaint but failed to suggest remedial steps. There is no rebuttal documentary evidence placed by the Appellant Company challenging the expert evidence about the field situation. The District Forum rightly appreciated this piece of evidence on record and arrived to the conclusion and passed the impugned order allowing the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant. Field visit depicting the situation of crop yield is the conclusive proof as recently observed by the Hon’ble Apex in Civil Appeal No.7543/2004 (in the matter of M/s.National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and another). In the instant case entire operation/maintenance was carried out under the expert supervision and this fact supported by affidavit. Appellant Company admitted this scenario after visiting the field.
(6) No effective solution to prevent the loss was suggested by the Appellant Company after field visit, therefore, the submission of the Ld.Advocate of the Appellant Company that the Respondent/Complainant did not adhere to the procedure at each stage of harvesting the watermelon does not hold good especially when the entire operations right from sowing to fruit bearing stage were carried out under the expert supervision by the Respondent/Complainant. Appellant Company failed to suggest remedial steps to arrest this situation damaging to fruit condition and thus rendered deficiency in service. Appeal is devoid of merit and impugned order therefore cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstance, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 24th February, 2012.
