Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. Appellant M/s.National Seeds Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25/11/2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim, in consumer complaint No.44/2013, whereby the Consumer complaint filed by the present appellant/complainant Vinod Ghuge came to be allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.40,610/- alongwith interest and also compensation of Rs.91,950/-. (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2. Short facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under. :-
3. Complainant Vinod Ghuge claims to be resident of Village- Eranda, Taluka- Malegaon, District Washim. Complainant has claimed that he was living in a joint family alongwith his father and cousins and was jointly cultivating agricultural field situated at Mouza-Eren, Taluka-Malegaon. Complainant was also taking the crop of soyabean in his field and for this purpose use to purchase the seeds from the O.P. Complainant has alleged that the O.P. namely National Seeds Corporation Ltd. was dealing in the preparation of Soyabean seeds and is also having its Regional Office at Akola.
4. In the year 2013 complainant wanted to grow Soyabean Crops and so on 04/06/2013 complainant had purchased 20 bags of Soyabean seeds, each having weight of 30 k.g. On the same date complainant had also paid an advance of Rs.4,000/- to the O.P. and on 11/06/2013 the complainant received delivery of 20 bags of Soyabean seeds. Complainant thereafter had sown the Soyabean seeds in his agriculture field bearing Gat No.62,18,58, 53, 145 and 155 on 12/06/2013. On 18/06/2013 the complainant had also paid the balance amount of Rs.36,200/- to the O.P. Complainant has further alleged that although on 12/06/2013 he had sown the Soyabean seeds in all his field, he did not notice any growth till 18/06/2013 and so complainant Vinod Ghuge brought this fact to the knowledge of the O.P. Complainant has further alleged that he also lodged the complaint in writing regarding this fact with the Agricultural officer, Malegaon on 20/06/2013. Agricultural officer Malegaon then visited the field of complainant and after inspection also gave a report on 25/06/2013 that the seeds which were supplied to the complainant by the O.P. were defective seeds and therefore there was no growth. Complainant has taken the plea that the O.P. had supplied the seeds which were duly certified. Complainant has further contended that there were no adverse conditions prevailing to hamper the growth of Soyabean seeds and so there was a deficiency in service in supplying the Soyabean seeds by the O.P./National Seeds Corporation Ltd. as the seeds were defective in value. Complainant has alleged that he had invested sum of Rs.40,610/- in purchasing the Soybean seeds and thereafter also spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- in fertilizers and so complainant had sustained monetary loss of Rs.75,610/-. Complainant has contended that he has further sustained monetary loss of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income from the crops. Complainant has therefore filed the Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P./M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., and so the present complaint.
5. O.P has resisted the complaint by filing written statement on record. At the out set it is denied that the complainant was an agriculturist or had sown Soyabean seeds. It is also denied that the complainant had purchased Soyabean from the O.P. and had sown the same in summer operations or that there was no germination of Soyabean seeds. O.P. has denied that it was any way liable for any monetary loss sustained by the complainant. On the contrary O.P. has contended that National Seeds Corporation Ltd. is an under taking of Central Government and the production of seeds is under the direct control of officers and the seeds do not come in the market unless they are certified by the Seeds Certification Agency of the Government. Seeds purchased by the complainant do not bear any batch number and lot number and no sample is provided by the complainant for testing the seeds to show that the seeds were having low germination. O.P. has also taken a plea that for germination of seeds, several factors have effect over the germination like how deep the seed was sown, quality of operation, rains after sowing and others. On the other hand, the Soyabean seeds are sold after they are tested and passed by the certifying agency. Further O.P. has contended that the complainant had also not supplied the necessary documents like bill, cash memo to show that the complainant had purchased 7 bags of seeds of low germination quality. O.P. has contended that it was not at all responsible for the monetary loss sustained by the complainant and so the consumer compliant was not tenable in law and the same is malafide and mischievous for which compensatory cost may be awarded to the O.P.
6. The learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur thereafter went through the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant and that of opposite party. The District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also went through the written notes of argument filed by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur allowed the complaint.
7. We have heard Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant and advocate Ms.Priyanka Mahurkar for respondent. Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Washim is not at all sustainable in law in view of several findings which were erroneous in nature. Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum on several counts and we will deal with them one by one.
8. The foremost contention of Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant is that the respondent/complainant has not at all placed on record any documents like 7/12 extract which could go to show that the complainant Vinod Ghuge had sown the Soyabean seeds in his agricultural field which were owned by the complainant. We have also gone through the record and we find that the complainant has not placed on record any documents to show that he was owner of the said agricultural field situated at village Yeranda, Taluka- Malegaon.
9. Secondly it is submitted by Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Forum has relied upon and given undue weight to one report given by Taluka Agricultural Officer to show that Soyabean seeds provided to the complainant were defective in nature. In this regard he has drawn our attention to the copy of the report of Taluka Agriculture Officer which is placed on record and is dt. 25/06/2013. We have gone through the contents of the said report given by Taluka Agricultural Officer, Malegaon where in the Taluka Agricultural Officer has given report that the growth of the plants was restricted due to defective Soyabean seeds. Taluka Agricultural Officer has also stated in the report that after the sowing operation one committee had also inspected the crops, but the report of the said committee has not been placed on record by the complainant. Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted before us that the reliance placed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim, on this report of Taluka Agricultural Officer was completely misplaced since Taluka Agricultural Officer had not issued any notice to the authorities namely Seeds Certifying Agencies, authorized under the Seeds Act. It is also submitted by him that Taluka Agricultural Officer was not authorized to issue any report regarding quality of seeds and the same was also in violation of the provisions of the Seeds Act. Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention specifically to Section 9 of the Seeds Act which deals with certification of seeds by the Certification Agency. On the basis of these provisions laid down under the Seeds Act, it is submitted that Soybean seeds are Foundation Seeds and can not be floated or made available in the market for sale unless they are certified to have prescribed standard of purity and germination. Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to the fact that the sample of the seeds of the complainant was also sent to the laboratory on 04/07/2013 and after testing the sample of seeds, the report was also given by the Quality Control Laboratory of appellant that the seeds were not defective and were having percentage of germination was 71% and purity 100%. We have gone through the judgment delivered by the learned District Consumer Forum and the learned District Consumer Forum has not taken in to consideration the said report on the sole ground that the testing of the Soyabean seeds had taken place on 04/07/2013 after the sowing operations by the complainant. But in our view, such an inference can not be drawn as admittedly the sample supplied had come to be sent to the laboratory. It is also clear that the learned District Consumer Forum has also not taken into consideration the provisions of Seeds Act regarding testing of sample and also that the seeds come in to market and are sold only after they are duly certified. Secondly, we are of the view that the low germination or inadequate germination of Soyabean seeds can not be attributed solely to defects in the seeds as there can be several factors affecting the germination and growth of the seeds namely adequacy of rain, quality of soil and other factors. As such the defects in the seeds can not be taken to be sole ground for non germination or inadequate germination of the seeds at the time of sowing operation.
10. On the contrary, Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Soyabean seeds which can be supplied to the complainant being seed JS-335 were foundation seeds supplied after proper certification. Even otherwise we find that except relying upon the report of Taluka Agricultural Officer, Malegaon, the complainant has not placed on record any documents or material which could point out either that the seeds were defective or that he suffered monetary loss due to improper germination only because of defective seeds.
11. Complainant has also not placed on record other document/material which could go to show that he was also required to spend sum of Rs.75,600/- for purchasing the seeds again for sowing operation. In the same way, complainant has also not place on record any documents to show that he had taken Soyabean crops in 6 Acres 30 Gunthrs of land. We therefore find considerable force in this contention of Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim has erroneously placed reliance upon the report of Taluka Agriculture Officer, Malegaon. The learned District Consumer Forum, Washim has also committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.91,950/- by way of compensation towards of loss of crops, since no evidence is adduced is on record on this aspect. We therefore feel that the findings given by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 can not be sustained in law and so the order dated 25/11/2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim will have to be set aside. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
- Appeal is hereby allowed.
- Order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim in complaint No. 44/2013, dt.25/11/2014 is hereby set aside.
- Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant stand dismissed.
- Cost shall be bear by respondent.
- The copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
