(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellants / opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.84/2006 dt.26.06.2008.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:)
A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member
1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants.
2. The respondents/complainant purchased 89Kgms seeds of ground nuts from the 3rd opposite party on 22.12.2005 on the assurance of 1 and 2 opposite parties regarding the yield to the extent of 80% and sowed the seed by engaging labours and making other expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and as assured by the opposite parties, the seeds have not come up within 7 days and yield was also not to the extent of 80% inspite of spending around Rs.22,659/- and thereby claiming for the same with the compensation and the cost, the complaint filed consumer complaint.
3. The opposite parties denied the allegations before the District Forum and on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing to refund the price of seeds for Rs.2,759/- and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and 1,000/- as cost.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties contented in this appeal, by stating that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of the contentions of the opposite parties, the complainant is not a consumer. since, the opposite parties have not rendered any service except to supply of ground nut seeds for growth and the yield will depending upon various conditions like earth, fertilizers, water, quality of seeds, method of cultivation and in this case the complainant has not followed the procedure when the seeds issued from the 2nd opposite party to the extent of 500 Kg to the Coimbatore District out of which, the complainant had purchased 89 Kg and from no other purchaser such complaints were received and thereby the complaint has to dismissed.
5. When the appeal is taken up for hearing the respondent did not come forward to argue the matter and hence after hearing the appellants side arguments on the basis of materials and records placed before us the order being passed on merits.
6. We have heard the arguments of appellants perused the materials it is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased from the 2nd opposite party 89 Kg highbreed ground nut seeds and it is assured that the yield would be more than 75% and since the complainant alleged no such yield was given inspite of spending of Rs.22,659/- including for various expenses like labour, water, arrangements etc., the appellants have contented the success of a crop depends upon the quality of soil, moisture sowing season, storage and preservation of seeds, initial preparation of soil to receive the seed and condition of soil for seed sprouting, treatment of seed before sowing, use of fertilizers and chemicals, quantity of manure and fertilizer, watering of field, weather condition, and bird scaring and the complainant has not proved whether these conditions are maintained in his case. Further, the seeds are supplied only after certification to the norms by the department and they are not rendering service in this regard except the supply of respective seeds and advice for how to cultivate the growth. Hence, the appellants also relied upon the documents under Ex.B1, Ex.B2, Ex.B7, Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 on perusal of the same under Ex.B8 the seeds were supplied to the complainant and others from lot No.9 including the complainant and others under Ex.B9 the percentage of yield in various districts by using the same seeds are furnished in which out of the seeds supplied from lot no.9 in all places it is reported more than 70%. Even though, they have not reflected the growth percentage in Coimbatore District and perusal of the documents under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 regarding the breeder seed it is stated as follows:- œBreeder seed is a seed directly controlled by the Breeder. Breeder seed should be genetically so pure as guarantee that in the subsequent generation. However, Breeder seed could not come under the purview of seed certification as it is not meant for public sale. Breeder seed should be packed and supplied with Breeders golden yellow stag as per the guideline given in Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards. It is also the fact no standard for breeder seed have been prescribed.?
and further under Ex.B2 Seeds Act 1966 regarding the same also mentioned with the same details and further it is stated under the caption general œNo suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government of any officer who get protection under Section 22 of the Act for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.? In this case the opposite parties being the part of government agencies they have supplied only certified seeds for the cultivation of crop and on the basis of earlier experimental reports regarding the percentage of the expected yield and since the yield is depending upon various factors like soil, moisture, usage of fertilizers, water condition, quality of seeds etc., and it is stated that the complainant has not followed the procedure and might have used excess manure and when the complainant not proved what kind of procedure followed in cultivating the crop, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for any deficiency of service and when the protection is given under the Act, unless they have not acted in good faith or intended to do so, in these circumstances, simply because the complainant alleged the purchase of seeds from the 2nd opposite party through the opposite parties 1 to 3 the expected yield was not given the District Forum without taking into consideration of other factors and details of the opposite parties in this regard simply allowed the complaint on the basis of the purchase bill Ex.A1 even in which we find that for the entire value of 89 Kg of ground nut seeds for the price of Rs.4005/- a sum of Rs.1,246/- was given as grant (moniam) and thereby with reduced rate supply was made against which the complainant claimed that he had purchased the value for the goods in entirety and also alleged deficiency in service. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint which is liable set aside in view of the forgoing discussions and reasons stated and thereby the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum passed in C.C.84/2006 dt.26.06.2008. No order as to costs.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Forum passed in C.C.84/2006 dt.26.06.2008. No order as to costs.
The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit with accrued interest duly discharged in favour of the appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3.