Judgment:
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member:
1. This appeal is preferred by opposite party (for short O.P.) No.2 against the order dated 10/01/2002 passed in consumer complaint No. 544/1999 by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal by which complaint has been partly allowed.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief is that he had purchased Soyabin Seeds from the O.P. No.1 on 22/06/1999 and he had sown the same in his agricultural land and he did proper cultivation of the same. Only 5 to 10 percent of seeds were germinated, though there was proper cultivation and supply of sufficient water and fertilizer to the said seeds. Therefore, the complainant made complaint to O.P. No.2 and claimed compensation. The O.P. did not pay visit to his land. Therefore complainant made complaint to Consumer Panchyat of Arni (Consumer Society). The said society made complaint to O.P. No. 3 Shri R. P. Rathod, the Extension Officer of Panchyant Samitee, Arni. The O.P. No.3 paid visit to the land of complainant on 06/10/1999 and inspected the said land. However he did not supply the copy of panchanama and his statement to him though demanded. The complainant sustained loss due to non germination of seeds as above. He therefore, claimed compensation and cost as specified in the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.2, who is appellant herein and producer of seeds resisted that complaint by filing written version. It is denied that there was germination of 5 to 10 percent of seeds only. It is submitted by O.P. No.2 that non germination can be due to various factors specified in the written version. It has come with a case that the seeds purchased by the complainant were of best quality and the District Seeds Certification Committee also submitted a report that the seeds were of good quality. The O.P. No.3 also inspected the land of the complainant and submitted a report that the seeds of soyabin of lot No. 999 were having no defect. It is therefore submitted by the O.P. No.2 that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The O.P. No.1-Dealer and O.P. No.3- Extension Officer and O.P. No.4- another dealer of the seeds also resisted the complaint by filing their respective written version.
5. The Forum below after hearing both parties came to the conclusion that the report of the O.P. No.3 does not show that he did not pay visit to the agricultural land of the complainant and that therefore from his report no conclusion can be drawn. The Forum also observed in the impugned order that the opposite parties have not proved the there was no proper germination because of any of the factors namely proper raining, no moisture in the land, lack of fertilizers and improper mode of cultivation. Therefore, the Forum below held that there is substance in the complaint made by the complainant. The Forum assessed loss sustained by the complainant at Rs.8950/- and directed the O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.8000/- to the complainant and it also directed the O.P. Nos.1and4 to pay remaining amount of Rs.950/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order and in case of default the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. . The Forum dismissed the complaint as against the O.P. No.3.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the original O.P. No.2 has preferred this appeal, which is herein after referred as to appellant and original complainant and O.P.Nos.1,and4 are herein after referred to as respondent No.1,2 and 3 respectively. We have heard learned Advocates of the appellant and respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 proceede exparte. We have also perused the written notes of argument filed by appellant and respondent No.1 and papers filed by the appellant.
7. The learned Advocate of the appellant submitted that the report of original O.P. No.3 shows that he had inspected the agricultural land of the respondent No.1 herein and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 agriculturist did not make complaint within 15 days, but he made belated complaint after 2 months and 24 days after sowing of the seeds, that the germination of seeds was 40 to 45 percent and the germination was adversely affected due to using fertilizer at the time of sowing and that there was no proper cultivation of the land and that it cannot be said that there was defect in the seeds. Thus he argued that the said report was not properly considered by the Forum below, which resulted in to erroneous order. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that there was any defect in the soyabin seeds and that hence the impugned order is illegal and it may be set aside. He relied upon observations made in the case of Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reedy and others, reported in III (2011)CPJ 1999 (NC). It is observed in that case onus lies on complainant to prove that seeds are defective and as he failed to prove the same, the order of the Forum granting the complaint was set aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned Advocate of the respondent No.1 herein supported the impugned order and submitted that appeal may be dismissed.
9. The perusal of the report of the original O.P. No.2 shows that he had duly inspected the agricultural land of the complainant and submitted a report on 06/10/1999. The said report is very specific. It is to the effect that the respondent No.1 agriculturist did not make complaint within 15 days, but he made belated complaint after 2 months and 24 days after sowing of the seeds, that the germination of seeds is 40 to 45 percent and the germination was adversely affected due to using fertilizer at the time of sowing and that there was no proper cultivation of the land and that it cannot be said that there was defect in the seeds. Thus the said report proves that the seeds purchased by the respondent herein were not of sub standard or poor quality. The less percentage of germination therefore can be said due to several factors namely no proper raining, no moisture in the land, lack of fertilizers and improper mode of cultivation. There is infact no evidence to show that the soyabin seeds were having less power of germination.
10. Thus the District Forum below erred in partly allowing the complaint and giving direction of the O.P. No.2/appellant herein to pay to the complainant/respondent No.1 Rs.8000/- with interest as above and hence, the impugned order to that extent needs to be set aside.
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order to the extent of giving direction to the original O.P. No.2/ appellant herein to pay Rs.8000/- to the original complainant /respondent No.1 herein is set aside. The complaint as against the original O.P. No.2/appellant is dismissed.
iii. No order as to cost in appeal.
iv. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.