1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party No.1, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31/07/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum of Wardha in Consumer Complaint No.11/2005, by which the complaint has been partly allowed. The original complainant who filed the complaint is referred to as respondent No.1 and the original O.P.No.1 is referred as appellant who filed the appeal and original O.P.No.2 is referred as respondent No.2 for the sake of convenience in appeal.
2. The facts which are not disputed in brief are as under.
The respondent No.2 is the authorized dealer of the appellant. The respondent No.1 is an agriculturist and he wanted to develop the seed plot in his agricultural land. The appellant is the producer of male and female seeds of cotton, described in the complaint. The respondent No.2 is the dealer of the said seeds. The respondent No.1 had sown the male and female seeds obtained from respondent No.2 and produced by respondent No.1. However after sowing of those seeds, he found that the female seeds were not sterile of male characteristics as represented by respondent No.2 and therefore there could not be pollination of the pollen grains of flowers of male variety with the stigma of the flowers of female variety. He therefore made complaint about the same with the respondent No.2 and also to the agricultural officer and the District Seeds Grievance Committee. The Agricultural Officer and also the Members of the Seeds Committee paid visit to the agricultural land of the respondent No.1 and prepared separate reports and supplied their copies to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 then issued notice to the appellant and respondent No.1 on 27/09/2004. But he got no positive response from them. He therefore filed consumer complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from them and further claiming litigation cost of Rs.5000/- from them.
3. The disputed facts of the case in brief is as under.
It is alleged by that respondent No.1 that actually he had purchased those male and female seeds from the respondent No.2 as produced by the appellant by paying total cost of Rs.800/- and that the respondent No.2 had assured that after due pollination, the respondent No.1 would get the cotton seeds which could be purchased by respondent No.2 @ Rs.100 per k.g. and that the respondent No.1 would get total 500 k.g. seeds from his two acres of land. However as the said seeds were found defective, the respondent No.1 could not get the cotton seeds as expected and therefore he is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellant and the respondent No.2.
4. The appellant denied said allegations by filing reply before the District Forum that the female seeds were not sterile and that female seeds after germination and growing of the plants, bore the pollen grains and hence the pollination could not be done. It also denied that it had sold those seeds for Rs.800/-. According to its case, the said seeds were given free of cost to the respondent No.2 as per the scheme and hence respondent No.1 is not a consumer and it is not a service provider. It also denied that it had represented the respondent No.1 that in the seeds of female variety, the male characteristics were already sterile and there would be no pollen grain on the flowers of female variety. It is also denied that the respondent No.1 suffered loss as claimed by the complainant, due to any such defectives seeds. A clear idea was given to all cultivators that processing of the seeds depend upon the genitival purity minimum 98% and its germination is minimum 65% subject to its passing by Government Seeds Testing Laboratory. The cultivators are the sub-growers of the appellant. The respondent No.1 did not follow the instructions and advice given to him by the appellant. All those details are given in the reply of the complaint. The respondent No.1 was also given clear understanding that male and female variety are of unsterile nature and that there would be pollen grains on the flower of male and female variety and after pollination the respondent No.1 had to do the necessary process on the male and female variety in the prescribed time by taking proper care. He did not take the said proper care and therefore the appeallant is not responsible. Hence it was prayed by the appellant that complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The respondent No.2 also had resisted the complaint by filing reply before the District Forum and denied the entire case of respondent No.1.
6. The District Forum below after hearing of both parties and considering evidence brought on record came to the conclusion in impugned order in brief that the respondent No.1 has actually purchased those seeds for Rs.800/-, from the appellant as produced by respondent No.2 and that the appellant did not give proper advice to the respondent No.1 for artificial pollination and thereby the appellant rendered deficient service. Moreover the District Forum also concluded in the impugned order that the inspection report of agriculture officer filed on record shows that the respondent No.1 left the process of processing of the seeds and therefore he is not entitle to compensation on account of the loss suffered by him (respondent No.1) due to defective seeds. However the District Forum found that the respondent No.1 is entitled to Rs.4000/- as compensation towards expenses incurred by him for preparation of land and he is also entitled to refund of Rs.800/- towards the price paid by him to the appellant. Therefore the District Forum directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.4000/- and to refund Rs.800/- to the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 29/01/2005 till its realization of same by him and also to pay him litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.
7. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as against the original O.P. No.2/respondent No.2 herein.
8. As observed above, this appeal is filed by original O.P.No.1. The learned advocate of the appellant already filed written notes of arguments which we have perused. We have also perused the entire record and proceedings of the appeal. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned advocate of the appellant as per his written notes of arguments is that the appellant had already visited the land of the respondent No.1 and pointed out the lacuna in the sowing of the male and female seeds and in the cultivation of the same and processing of the same. But the District Forum below has not considered the said aspect of the case. Moreover the respondent No.1 failed to grow the plot in his land due to his sheer negligence and only he is responsible for not processing of the seeds. Thus he reiterated the case of the appellant as set out in reply filed before the District Forum and submitted that respondent No.1 is sub-grower and he can not be a consumer of the appellant. He therefore requested that the appeal may be allowed and impugned order may be set aside.
9. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 were duly served with the notice of this appeal. But they failed to appear and therefore the appeal is proceeded ex-parte against them.
10. We find that the seeds of male and female varieties were actually purchased by the respondent No1 from the appellant by paying their cost of Rs.800/- as seen from invoice dated 12/06/2004 produced on record as issued by the appellant. Therefore the District Forum has rightly held that the seeds were not given to the respondent No.1 free of cost. Moreover we find that the relationship of consumer and service provider/seller of seeds exist in between the respondent No.1 and appellant and therefore the complaint filed before the District Forum is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
11. We also find from the report of agriculture officer and District Seeds Redressal Grievance Committee that the female variety of plants were having flowers with pollen grains and therefore respondent No.1 could not do the artificial pollination with female flowers. There is no evidence in support of the case of the appellant that clear understanding was given by them to the respondent No.1 that the seeds of male and female verities were unsterile and that there would be pollen grains on the flower of male and female variety and that after pollination the respondent No.1 and 2 had to do necessary process on the male and female variety in the precribed manner and by taking proper care. Thus we find that the District Forum has come to proper conclusion that the appellant rendered deficient service to the respondent No.1 by not properly guiding him about processing of the seeds for plantation and pollination. We therefore find that the District Forum below rightly saddled compensation of Rs.4000/- on the appellant and rightly directed the appellant to refund Rs.800/- as cost of the seeds, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint. We also find that the District Forum below has rightly saddled the litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- on the appellant. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- Appeal is dismissed.
II. No order as to cost in the appeal.
III. Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of
cost.
