1.      All these six appeals are preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 against the common order dated 30/12/2010 passed in three consumer complaints bearing CC Nos.132/2010, 133/2010. 134/2010, and also against the identical common order passed in other three consumer complaints bearing CC Nos.174/2010, 203/2010 and 204/2010, by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by which all the six complaints have been partly allowed.

2.      The common case of the complainants, as set out in all the complaints, in brief is that they had purchased Sunflower seed manufactured by OP No.1 /appellant herein from the respective OP No.2/respondent No.2 herein. They had sown the said seeds in their respective agriculture lands. They had done proper cultivation of the same. However, the seeds were grown uneven and the flowers were also very less. Moreover, 25 to 30% of the plants bore more than one flower. The complainants, therefore, found that the seeds were defective and hence they made complaint to the Development Officer of Zilla Parishad Akola on 25/6/2009. The Committee of District Level appointed by the Government paid visit to the agriculture lands of the complainants and they submitted an enquiry report. They found that the complaints made by the complainants are correct and came to the conclusion that the seeds are defective. The complainants could not get proper yield from the said sunflower crop. Therefore, they claimed compensation from the OP Nos.1 & 2 as specified in the respective complaint.

3.      The OP Nos.1 & 2 filed their written version separately and resisted all the complaints. The OP No.1/appellant denied the allegations and submitted that the dealers sold bogus seeds to the agriculturists under its (OP No.1) name and that the said seeds did not belong to it (OP No.1). Therefore, it lodged a report with the Police and, therefore, police registered offences U/s 420, 427 and 487 of IPC on 15/12/2009. It further submitted that the District Seeds Committee did not inspect the lands and the seeds were not tested in the laboratory. It also submitted that the germination and growth of the seeds and yield of the crops depend on various agro-ecological factors and, therefore, it submitted that all these complaints may be dismissed.

4.      The respective OP No.2 dealers submitted that they sold the sealed packets of the seeds manufactured by OP No.1 and, therefore, when the seeds were defective as per the report dated 30/11/2009 of Agriculture Officer, it can not be held liable to pay compensation.

5.      The District Forum below, then allowed both the parties to adduce evidence. The Forum, then heard advocates of both the parties and on considering evidence brought on record, came to the identical conclusion in all the complaints that the seeds purchased by the original complainants from  the respondent No.2/original OP No.2 as manufactured by appellant/original OP No.1 were defective and hence the Forum directed the OP Nos.1 & 2 under the impugned orders to pay to each of the complainant compensation and the cost as follows..

Complaint No.     Compensation           compensation towards       costs.

                             towards loss              mental harassment.     

CC No.132/2010   Rs.4700/-                       Rs.3000/-               Rs.1000/-

CC No.133/2010   Rs.6800/-                       Rs.3000/-               Rs.1000/-CC No.134/2010            Rs.11750/-                     Rs.3000/-               Rs.1000/-CC No.174/2010          Rs.14100/-                       Rs.3000/-              Rs.1000/-

CC No.203/2010         Rs.14100/-                       Rs.3000/-              Rs.1000/-

CC No.204/2010         Rs.11750/-                       Rs.3000/-              Rs.1000/-    

The Forum also directed that the said amounts be paid on or before 15/2/2011 and in case of default, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a.

6.      Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the original OP No.1 has preferred these six appeals, and, therefore, OP No.1 is hereinafter is referred to as appellant and the original complainant is referred to as the respective respondent No.1 and the original OP No.2 is referred to as respective respondent No.2.

7.      We have heard the learned advocvate of appellant in all appeals. We also heard advocate of respondent No.1 in three appeals and in and representative of respondent No.1in remaining three appeals. The respondent No.3 in all six appeals, remained absent though served with notice, therefore, all appeals are heard exparte against respondent No.3. We have also perused written notes of arguments and the documents filed by the contesting parties.

8.      The learned advocate of the appellant argued on the lines of the plea raised by the original OP No.1/appellant in the respective written version filed before the Forum and submitted that the evidence brought on record proves that the District Seeds Committee did not inspect the agriculture lands of the respective respondent No.1 in all appeals and the report is submitted without actually inspecting the crop, and, therefore, the said report is of no value. He further submitted that there is no document to prove that the seeds purchased by the respective respondent No.1 were manufactured by the appellant and hence the appellant can not be held liable. He relied upon the observations made in the following cases.

1. Hariana Seeds Development Corpn.Ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr.,AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2023. It is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said that when in the report of expert Committee it is stated that poor germination of seeds may not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors, the claim for compensation on the ground that seeds were substandard is not tenable.
2. MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G.Venkatasubba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC). It is observed by Hon’ble National Commission in the said case that where there was heavy growth of plants and no buds and flowers were found and when the investigation was done after harvesting of crop which is not possible, the defect can not be detected through visual inspection and need to be tested in laboratory and the complainant did not inform OP about the failure and the onus to prove the defect in seeds is on the complainant which he failed. Therefore, the order of the Forum has been set aside by which compensation was granted to the respondent.
3. Agsun Seeds (I) Ltd. Vs. N.Nagendra Reddy & Ors. IV (2004) CPJ 63 (NC). In that case, complaint was allowed by lower forums and hence revision petition was filed. There was no letter of authorization produced on record and hence complainants were not privy to purchase seeds and hence they are held to be not consumers. The order of lower Forums was, therefore, set aside in revision.

9.     Thus, relying on the said authorities, the learned advocate of the appellant submitted that both the common impugned orders may be set aside.

10.   On the other hand, the representative of respective respondent No.1/complainants the three appeals and the learned advocate for remaining respondent No.1 in remaining three appeals supported the impugned orders and relied on the following decisions.

1. National Forum for Consumer Education & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Krishi Seva Kendra & Ors., I (1999) CPJ 451 Mah.SCDRC Mumbai. In that case, majority plants were found sterile and the evidence of defective seeds was supported by grievance committee constituted under rules. There was also extensive inspection of various fields carried out and sterility  percentage was recorded as 65 to70%. It is observed that the Committee has no reason to tender false report detrimental to producers interests and that the committee’s report has a higher evidentiary pedestal. It is also observed that the defective seeds were sold without legal warranty and hence the dealer and producers are equally liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
2. Dannu Hybrid Cotton Seed Vs.Rayarakula Chandramouli & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 409 APSCDRC, Hyderabad. In that case, allo seeds were sown by the farmers and hence it is held that provisions of Sec.13 (1) (c)  of CP Act becomes unimplementable and that alternative method like report of expert committee is to be resorted and that loss of yield due to defective and inferior quality of seeds is proved by report of expert committee and hence order of the Forum by which complaints were allowed, was upheld in the said appeal.

Thus, it is submitted on behalf of respective respondents No.1 that all the appeals may be dismissed.

11.         It is, thus, not disputed that the respective respondent No.1 in all these appeals had purchased seeds of sunflower from the respective dealer who was made party to each of the  complaint as OP N.2 and the said dealers are also joined in these appeals as respondent No.2. It is the simple case of said respondent No.2 that they had purchased those seeds from the appellants in sealed condition and sold the same to respective respondent No.1 in sealed condition. The appellant simply contended that those seeds were not manufactured/produced by it.  We find that the said plea raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. It is also worthy to note that vide order dated 2/12/2009, passed by the Agriculture Officer ZP Akola and vide order dated 30/6/2010 passed by the Commissioner, Agriculture Commissionerate, Maharashtra State, Pune, the sale of the seeds manufactured produced by the appellant is banned. This shows that almost all the seeds manufactured by the appellant are found defective. The Forum also observed that the seeds which are sold to the respective complainants/respondent No.1 herein are also banned as per order dated 30/6/2010, which is not disputed. Thus, the said orders are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same seeds manufactured by the appellant were sold through the respondent No.2 herein to the respective respondent No.1 and, therefore, there was no proper germination and yield from the said seeds.

12.         It is also pertinent to note that the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee after due inspection of the agricultural lands of the respective respondent No.1, submitted a report in which final conclusion is drawn that the seeds were defective. We find no good ground to disbelieve the said inspection report. In our view, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by Resp.No.1 are applicable to the present case and the decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the present case since the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from those of said cases.

13.         We, thus hold that the Forum below has rightly assessed the compensation to be granted to the respective respondent No.1. There is no merits in all these appeals and hence they deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

1. The six Appeals bearing Nos.A/11/60, A/11/61, A/11/62, A/11/63, A/11/64 & A/11/64A are hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs in all these appeals.
3. Copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of costs.