Skip to content


Subrao Bhimrao Kolekar Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Through It's Manager and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 603 of 2009 In Complaint Case No. 15 of 2009
Judge
AppellantSubrao Bhimrao Kolekar
RespondentNational Seeds Corporation Ltd., Through It's Manager and Others
Excerpt:
.....also prepared false panchanama. moreover, it is submitted that after inspection of field by dist.seeds complaint redressal committee, dist. agriculture officer obtained sample from same lot which was maintained by opponent no.1 and sent the same sample to the laboratory and received the report from the quality control laboratory, secunderabad, in which percentage of germination is shown as 72%. however, complainant obtained false laboratory report by sending sample from his own seeds. they have denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint. 4. on hearing both sides and considering evidence on record district consumer forum held that complainant failed to prove that seeds were defective and therefore there was no deficiency in service on.....
Judgment:

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad dismissing consumer complaint No.15/09. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent)

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-

On 20.8.2008 complainant Shri.Subbarao Kolekar who is farmer had purchased sunflower seeds from opponent No.2 M/s Krushi Vastu Bhandar, Osmanabad. Same seeds were manufactured by opponent No.1 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. After purchasing sunflower seeds the complainant sown the seeds in his field by cultivating the field properly. However, according to complainant there was no proper germination. It is submitted that there was only 12% germination. Therefore he made complaint with Tahasildar, Osmanabad and also with the District Agriculture Officer. On receiving his complaint, the village Talathi as well as District Seeds Grievance Committee which is headed by District Agriculture Officer, Z.P. visited the field and prepared panchanama in presence of representative of opponent No.1 and 2 and reported that seeds were defective. It is submitted by complainant that due to defective seeds he sustained loss at Rs.1,25,000/- and opponent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Therefore by notice he claimed damages at Rs.1,25,000/- and compensation at Rs.15,000/- from opponent No.1 and 2 but they did not comply the notice. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1 and 2 he has filed consumer complaint claiming compensation at Rs.1,46,000/-.

3. Opponent by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-

They did not dispute that Talathi and District Agriculture Complaint Redressal Committee inspected the field. However, they have denied their reports. They have denied that seeds were defective. It is submitted that opponent No.1 is reputed seeds manufacturing company and it maintains its standard. It is submitted that seed produced by opponent No.1 are certified by competent authority under close supervision of expert in laboratory. It is submitted that sealed bags of the certified seeds with tag and lot number were sold to the complainant and other 12 farmers from the same village. But except the complainant there was no complaint of other farmers. It is further submitted that while preparing report at spot initially Committee had shown the percentage of germination as 77% but thereafter some corrections were made. Talathi also prepared false panchanama. Moreover, it is submitted that after inspection of field by Dist.Seeds Complaint Redressal Committee, Dist. Agriculture Officer obtained sample from same lot which was maintained by opponent No.1 and sent the same sample to the laboratory and received the report from the Quality Control Laboratory, Secunderabad, in which percentage of germination is shown as 72%. However, complainant obtained false laboratory report by sending sample from his own seeds. They have denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4. On hearing both sides and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that complainant failed to prove that seeds were defective and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponents. In keeping with this finding District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order complainant came to this Commission in appeal.

6. We perused the written notes of arguments submitted by complainant and opponent No.1. However, we have had no opportunity to hear learned counsel for the complainant and respondent No.1 as they remained absent at the time of final hearing. We have had no opportunity to hear opponent No.2 and 3 as they remained absent though they served with notice and hence appeal came to be proceeded exparte against them. Further we perused the copies of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, copies of report of District Seeds Grievance Committee, copies of evidence affidavits and seeds analysis reports.

7. The undisputed facts are that seeds in question were produced by opponent No.1 manufacturing company and six bags of seeds were purchased by complainant from opponent No.2. Complainant had sown those seeds in his field. However, there was only 12% germination. The crux in this matter is as to whether seeds were defective or not? By written notes of argument it is submitted by Shri.Kataria learned counsel for complainant that village Talathi as well as District Seeds Grievance Committee verified by visiting the complainant's field in presence of representative of opponents and came to the conclusion that there was 12% germination. But District Consumer Forum wrongly relied on seeds analysis report dated 29.9.2009 dismissed the complaint. It is submitted by Shri.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant that District Consumer Forum without considering the panchanama prepared by Dist.Seeds Grievance Committee and also report of laboratory which was obtained by complainant by sending the sample, wrongly negativated the contention of complainant that seeds were defective. But we find little force in the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant. Because though undisputedly by seeds analysis report dated 29.9.2008 it reveals that seeds were not defective, same report is not challenged by the complainant. However, he has relied on analysis report which was obtained by complainant sending the sample of seeds which was preserved by him. The record does not reflect that same sample was taken by District Seeds Grievance Committee in presence of representative of opponents.

8. District Consumer Forum has also rightly negativated panchanamas prepared by village Talathi as well as District Seeds Grievance Committee holding that percentage of germination of seeds may be due to different factors such as climate, fertility of soil and nature of cultivation etc. It is also supported by learned counsel appearing for the opponent by relying on the decision dated 26.4.2013 of this Commission bench at Aurangabad in case of M/s Ankur Seeds Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- Shri.Subhash Kadlag and decision dated 23.3.2012 of National Commission in case Mahyco Seeds Ltd. -Vs- Sharad Motirao Kankale and another.

9. In the present case though the complainant has averred in his complaint that he had cultivated his field properly and he had taken every care while sowing seeds in his field, no evidence to that effect is produced. He has also not adduced evidence showing fertility of his field, environmental condition and other factors required for proper germination of seeds. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that complainant has failed to prove that seeds were defective and opponents committed no deficiency in service.

10. Thus we have given our anxious thoughts to the written notes of arguments submitted by learned counsel for both sides and evidence on record and we find that District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.

11. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //