ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
Appellant/original Opponent No.1 questions an order dated 16/04/2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.190 of 2012 and directing the Appellant to pay to the Respondent No.1/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., with effect from 10/08/2012 besides an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of damages and costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-.
[2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:-
Complainant had purchased cauliflower seeds from the Appellant’s dealer viz. Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2. These seeds were sown by the Complainant in 50 Ares area in his field at Gat No.239. Complainant spent about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- for cultivation. However, the yield was defective. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Taluka Complaint Redressal Committee. Members of the said Committee inspected the field on 23/02/2012 and 06/03/2012 and concluded that there was loss to the tune of 90% to 95%. The Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- towards loss of yield, besides an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards reimbursement of expenses incurred, an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
[3] Appellant contested the complaint before the District Forum by filing its written version inter-alia contending that the seeds were not defective and that the yield dropped because of failure on the part of the Complainant to give proper dose of fertilizer. It was also contended that the Complainant had inflated the price at which cauliflower was sold in the market.
[4] After considering rival contentions, the District Forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant is before us.
[5] We have heard Adv. Smt. Bindu Jain on behalf of the Appellant and Adv. Keshav Shelke on behalf of the Respondent. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have also gone through the material placed on record.
[6] Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Forum was not justified in relying on report of Taluka Committee alone and that the Complainant should have been asked to get the report of an expert. We do not find any substance in this contention since the Committee comprised of Agriculture Officer, as also, representative of the Appellant’s dealer. In any case, we find that the District Forum had rightly relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy ~ (2012)-2-SCC-506 and held that it was necessary for the Appellant, as the manufacturer of the seeds, to retain sample of seeds and to get it properly examined after a complaint was received. This was not done by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant must blame itself for not tendering before the Forum any material to show that the seeds were not defective.
[7] As far as compensation calculated, the District Forum relied on the report from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee and, therefore, we find that there is no error in calculation of compensation.
We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is not admitted and stands dismissed in limine.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 11th November, 2014
