Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur dated 16/07/2010 in consumer complaint no.CC/09/217. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
Respondent/org.complainant had purchased groundnut seeds from Lot no.WRG-2008-235 of Western-20 variety weighing 20 kgs from respondent no.2/original opponent no.2. The original opponent no.2/respondent no.2 is a dealer and the appellant/original opponent no.1 is a manufacturer of the seeds. Respondent no.1/org.complainant paid `1475/- for the said seeds on 17/01/2009 and as per the instructions of the manufacturer, he has sown the seeds in his agricultural land bearing Gat no.327 admeasuring one acre. As the complainant/respondent no.1 noticed that there was no adequate germination of the seeds he had informed the opponent no.2/respondent no.2 and respondent no.2/opponent no.2 had informed him to irrigate the land properly. Even after irrigating the land, the germination was only 25% to 30% as against the guarantee given by the opponents of 70% germination. As there was no proper germination, the original complainant/respondent no.1 had applied to the District Agricultural Officer regarding the sub-standard seeds. The District level seeds committee under the District Agricultural Development Officer along with its members visited the field on 26/02/2009. The committee came to the conclusion that the seeds manufactured by the appellant/ opponent no.1 are of sub standard quality.
On the basis of the report of the Agriculture Development officer, respondent no.1/org.complainant had filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the forum after hearing both the parties directed opponent nos.1 & 2 i.e. present appellant and respondent no.2 to pay `22,400/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 as compensation for sub standard seeds, `5,000/- for mental agony and `500/- as cost vide order dated 16/7/2010. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.
On behalf of the appellant, Ld.counsel Mr.G.B.Bhalreao and on behalf of respondent Ld.counsel Mr.Ramesh Shinde-Advocate had argued the case. Admittedly, appellant is a manufacturer of the seeds and the original complainant/respondent no.1 had purchased the seeds from respondent no.2/org.opponent no.2 on 17/01/2009. Lot number of the seeds is WRG 2008/235 and the name of variety is Western 20. Respondent no.1 /org. complainant had sown the said seeds in his agricultural land. However, the seeds were not germinated as per the warranty given by the appellant. The germination was only 25% to 30%. Respondent no.1/org.complainant had complained to the District Seeds Verification Committee and District Seeds Verification Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the seeds manufactured by the appellant were sub standard and there was germination of only 30%. On the basis of the report of the Committee the complainant had filed the complaint claiming the compensation of `37,900/- along with interest.
Ld.counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the instructions given to respondent no.1 at the time of selling the seeds. As per the instructions, for one acre 50 kg. seeds are required As against this, complainant/respondent no.1 had purchased the seeds only 20 kg. and sown in one acre. This is against the guidelines given by the manufacturer. Similarly, the said Committee has not given any reasoning for inadequate germination of the seeds and came to the conclusion that as there is an inadequate germination the seeds are defective. When it is on record that for one acre the requirement of the seeds is 50 kgs. respondent no.1/ org.complainant has only purchased the 20 kg. seeds and hence the manufacturer cannot be blamed for the less germination. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had not taken into consideration these material facts and arrived at a conclusion which cannot be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the case. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had not given any justification for arriving at the conclusion and hence the order suffers with legal infirmity. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order is set aside.
Complaint stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 15th June, 2011.
