Judgment:
Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This is an appeal filed by the Org. complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the Forum below by its judgment dated 9/4/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.327/2006.
2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under.
3) The complainant had filed consumer complaint against O.P.No.1 owner of Sheti Udyog Bhandar, Saswad, Taluka-Purandar, District-Pune (Dealer) and Sardar Seeds Company/ O.P.No.2 alleging deficiency in service and for the defective seeds supplied by them.
4) The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased seeds Pumpkin from O.P.No.1 on 8/5/2006 which was produced by Sardar Seeds Company/O.P.No.2. After purchase of seed, he had sowed the seed in Gut No.56 and Gut No.45. He had used requisite fertilizers as required. He had also sprayed insecticides too. When the fruits came, he found that some pumpkins were small in size and some were larger in size and fruits were to the extent of 30% to 40% but germination was 100%. The growth of Pumpkin was sub standard. Hence, he made complaint to Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Saswad and also to the Zilla Parishad, Pune. The Agricultural Officers and other committee members of District Seed Grievances Committee came to his field and gave report after due inspection that seeds were adulterated one. Hence, he filed consumer complaint and claimed compensation of Rs.1,09,000/- from both the O.P.s.
5) O.P.No.1 filed written statement and admitted that complainant had purchased Pumpkin seeds on 8/5/2006 from his shop. He pleaded that in the notice sent by the complainant he had clearly admitted that there was 100% germination and therefore O.P.No.1 pleaded that the seed were of standard quality. He further pleaded that the complainant had not disclosed on which day he had sowed the seed in his field. O.P.No.1 further pleaded that when there was 100% germination the complaint should be filed simply saying that the complainant did not get expected yield or some Pumpkins were smaller in size. According to the O.P.No.1 the complainant should have got examined the earth from his field from approved laboratory before cultivating the same for the crop of Pumpkin. According to the O.P.No.1 in that year there were heavy rains and because of rains the Pumpkin could not grow properly and resultantly the complainant could not get expected yield. He had also not disclosed what were the fruits he reaped, at what price he had sold them in the market and what was the market rate of sale of those Pumpkins. In the absence of any such proof he pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
6) The O.P.No.2 also filed written statement and pleaded that the complainant had purchased seed from lot no.03/1113G/BB310. But the seed of this lot was not supplied by O.P.No.2 to O.P.No.1. What was supplied to O.P.No.1 was Pumpkin Samrat 2 having lot no.03/33/3T. So, the complainant had sown seed of Pumpkin which was not supplied by O.P.No.1 and 2 to him. So, simply because he has produced on record one empty bag of Pumpkin seed packet that does not mean that he had purchased it from O.P.No.1 because batch number was not tallying. The O.P.No.2 therefore pleaded that it was not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the aforesaid reason. Moreover, the complainant produced on record the report of Agricultural Officers. It is clearly mentioned in that report that there was 100% germination but the fruits were of different colour and sizes and therefore on that basis the Committee held that the seed supplied was adulterated one. The O.P.No.2 therefore pleaded that the finding of District Committee was improper, unjust particularly when the District Committee noted that there was 100% germination. According to the O.P.No.2 it had not produced or manufactured lot no.03/1113G/BB310. It also pleaded that for getting size and colour various circumstances are responsible like climatic changes, spraying of insecticides etc. Therefore, simply because the complainant could not expected yield that doesnt mean that he can file consumer complaint only on that count. The O.P.No.2 therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
7) On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby the complainant filed this appeal.
8) We heard submissions of Mr.U.B.Wavikar, Adv. for the appellant Mr.T.F.Pawar, Adv. for Respondent No.1 and Mr.V.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for Respondent No.2. We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper. The Forum below rightly considered all the aspects of the matter in proper perspective and was pleased to dismiss the complaint. The respondents have also brought to our notice that fact that while making inspection at the field in question as per governments resolution dated 1/7/1998, the following officers are required to be included in the Committee visiting the field to make enquiry into the complaint lodged by the farmers in respect of germination of the seeds or in respect of seeds being defective or adulterated. The Committee is required to be having members like A.D.O. Z.P., Taluka Agriculture Officer, representative of Mahabeej, representative of District Seed Certification Officer, representative of Agriculture University, Z.P. Member, Mohim Adhikari and the representative of seed manufacturing company and representative of the dealer. The Committee who inspected the field of the complainant simply included four officers namely Agriculture Officer, Mohim Officer, Prof.Rasal, Associate Professor Krishi Mahavidyalaya Pune, and Shri Adsul, Quality Control Inspector, Panchayat Samiti, Purandar, and farmer himself. There was no representative of seed producing company and representative of dealer. So, the inspection carried out on the field of the complainant was defective one. As per government resolution all committee members were not available and manufacturing company and dealer were not representing. Moreover, the committee also mentioned that there was 100% germination. If seeds would have been defective germination would not have been 100%. Since germination was 100% the seeds must be held to be of good and proper quality but there was no proper growth of fruits that was the major complaint of the complainant. Growth of fruits or any crop depends upon variety of reasons water quality used for irrigations, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition. The climatic variation is also a factor which can affect the growth of fruits. So, growth of fruits was not attributable to the quality of seeds but to other factors and when this is so the manufacturing company or dealer is not responsible for poor growth of fruits. This was in nutshell laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation âVersus- Sadhu and another reported in II (2005) CPJ 13.
9) In the light of Honble Supreme Court ruling mentioned supra, we are of the view that the Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint since there was no substance in the complaint. The report of Committee could not being acted upon for the simple reason that on the Committee the experts were not associated as required by government resolution. Secondly, Committee also noted that there was an 100% germination of the seeds sown by the complainant. Growth of the fruits of Pumpkin depends upon various factors such as climatic variation, taking due and proper care of Pumpkins, long dry spell or excessive rains etc. So, simply because the complainant got lesser yield that is no ground to hold that the seed supplied by O.P.No.1 and 2 were defective or adulterated one. Hence, the order passed by the Forum below to our mind is appearing to be just and proper and there appears to be no merit in the complaint and appeal filed by the complainant. Same is therefore liable to be rejected at the stage of admission itself. As such, we pass following order.
Order:
1) Appeal stands summarily rejected confirming the order passed by the Forum below.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.