S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2008 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar partly allowing consumer complaint No.311/2008 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.4500/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 18.7.2008 and further compensation of Rs.1000/- for mental agony and cost of proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellants are herein after referred as opponents and respondent as complainant)
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Opponent Nimbkar Seeds Pvt.Ltd. is seed manufacturing company and opponent No.2 Aditya Sales Corporation is a dealer of opponent No.1. Complainant Shri.Bhausaheb Palve is an agriculturist. On 12.11.2007 complainant purchased a bag of sunflower seeds for Rs.600/- and sown those seeds in his field. However, there as no proper germination of the seeds. Therefore he made complaint with opponent No.2, but opponent No.2 avoided to receive his complaint and take necessary action. Therefore he made complaint with District Seeds Grievance Committee. On 12.1.2008 Shri.Nehe representative of opponent No.2 visited the field of complainant and verified the fact. Thereafter on 25.1.2008 the District Seeds Grievance Committee in presence of Shri.Nehe, representative of opponent No.2 inspected the field of complainant and submitted report to the effect that opponents illegally sold the sunflower seeds of Kharip season for Rabbi season etc. Therefore there was no proper germination of the seeds. Therefore by notice dated 29.2.2008 complainant claimed compensation of Rs.41,740/- from opponents and also notice charges of Rs.1000/- but opponents did not respond. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.41,740/- with interest at Rs.18% p.a.
3. Opponents by their written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. They have denied that sunflower seeds which were sold to the complainant were for Kharip season and not for Rabbi season. They have also denied the report of District Seeds Grievance Committee. They have also denied that there was no proper germination as alleged by the complainant. They have submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both sides and considering evidence on record Dist.Consumer Forum held that opponents have committed deficiency in service selling defective seeds to the complainant and therefore opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant compensation etc. In keeping with this finding Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint as noted above.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponents came in appeal.
6. We heard Shri.D.S.Tipole learned counsel appearing for appellants and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him. We also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, report of District Seeds Grievance Committee and other documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear complainant as he remained absent despite service of notice. Therefore appeal came to be proceeded exparte.
7. It is submitted by Shri.Tipole learned counsel for the appellants that except the bare contention of complainant that seeds were defective there is no evidence to fortify his contention. He has also denied copy of District Seeds Grievance Committee report and submitted that no such panchanama was prepared by Committee in presence of any representative of opponents. It is submitted that its representative has not signed the panchanama alleged to have been prepared by said Committee. Further, he has submitted that no representative of opponents visited and inspected the field of complainant as averred by complainant in his complaint. But Dist.Consumer Forum without considering opponents' specific averment made in the written version jumped to the wrong conclusion that opponents committed deficiency in service by selling defective seeds to the complainant. But we find no force in the submission of Mr.Tipole learned counsel for the opponents. Because a bare glance at the copy of report of District Seeds Grievance Committee, it manifests that in presence of Shri.Nehe who is representative of opponent No.2 the Committee has inspected the field of complainant and submitted report to the effect that opponents sold defective seeds to the complainant. According to Committee report of seeds which were sold by opponents to complainant were for Kharip season but it was illegally sold for Rabbi season. Copy of report also reflects that the same was signed by Shri.Nehe, representative of opponent No.2 and also all the members of Committee and farmers Shri.Sahabrao Palve and Mitthu Palve.
8. However, Mr.Tipole learned counsel for the opponents has denied this copy of report of Committee but he has fairly admitted that Shri.Nehe is representative of opponent No.2. But it is submitted that said Shri.Nehe has not signed the report of Committee. But we find no merit in the submission of Mr.Tipole because undisputedly opponents have not verified this fact by obtaining the copy of original report of the Committee. Even no explanation is given by opponents as to why they have not made any efforts to obtain copy of report of Committee. Even no affidavit of said Shri.Nehe is produced on record denying the report. Therefore on any count the bare contention of opponents denying the report of Committee cannot be sustained. Hence the Dist.Consumer Forum has rightly held that opponents have committed deficiency in service by selling defective seeds to the complainant. Dist.Consumer Forum has also rightly assessed the compensation as awarded. We find no glaring error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
9. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.