Skip to content


Arya Hybrid Seeds Ltd. Vs. Kishan Vishwanath Abadar and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 253 of 2009 In Complaint Case No. 333 of 2008
Judge
AppellantArya Hybrid Seeds Ltd.
RespondentKishan Vishwanath Abadar and Another
Excerpt:
.....rightly allowed the complaint. hence appeal be dismissed. 8. we heard both the parties and perused the record. it is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased soyabin seeds each bag of 25 kg. it is an admitted fact that complainant had sown soyabin seeds in his two plots. after revealing fact that there was no grain formation in the pod of soyabin complainant approached to quality control officer. said officer visited the field and came to the conclusion that due to defectiveness of seeds complainant suffered loss of 30%. appellant did not challenge said report after getting knowledge of said report. therefore said report remained unchallenged. it is not the case of appellant that they made application before the forum for getting seeds tested from government laboratory. in our.....
Judgment:

Uma S. Bora, Member:

1. Arya Hybrid Seeds Ltd., Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded on 16.3.2009 partly allowing consumer complaint No.333/2008.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Kishan S/o Vishwanath Abadar, resident of Sawargaon, Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded is an agriculturist. Complainant is owner of land gut No.37 and 42 admeasuring 1 hector 78R and 77R. Complainant had purchased three bags of Soyabin seeds of Arya 33 variety each of 25 Kg. Said seeds were sown in his respective fields on 15.6.2008. It is revealed by complainant that there was bearing of pods but it was found that there is no grain in the said pods and pods dried suddenly. Therefore complainant approached to seed company but they did not respond. Therefore he made application to Taluka Krishi Adhikari. Accordingly, on 19.9.2008 Quality Control Inspector, Panchayat Samiti, Ardhapur visited the field and conducted the panchanama. As per said panchanama complainant suffered loss of 30%. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for cost of complaint .

3. Opponent No.1 Arya Hybrid Seeds and Opponent No.2 M/s Mukkawar Krishi Seva Kendra appeared before the Forum. Both the opponents submitted their written versions stereo typed. As per their contentions, complainant purchased three bags of Soyabin but infact he sown only two bags. One bag was sold by complainant. Therefore he is not consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted by appellant that panchanama was not conducted as per Government Resolution. All the formalities were not completed while conducting panchanama. No notice of panchanama issued to them. Therefore said panchanama was not binding on them. In fact in the year 2007-08 there was natural calamity due to which Soyabin crop had suffered damages for which appellant cannot be held liable. As seed product came in the market after getting certificate from State Seeds Certification Agency. Hence it cannot be said that seeds of defective quality.

4. After hearing both parties District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.12,000/- within a month. It is also directed appellant to pay Rs.2000/- toward mental agony and Rs.1000/- for cost.

5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponent No.1 came in appeal.

6. Adv.Shri.R.V.Patil appeared for appellant, respondent No.1 appeared in person. It is submitted by Adv.Patil that seeds manufactured by appellant were of best quality, because Seeds Certification Agency of Govt.of Maharashtra had issued certificate about quality of seeds. Therefore it cannot be said seeds were of defective nature. It is submitted by Shri.R.V.Patil that panchanama was not conducted by authorised committee as per Government Resolution. Only Quality Control Officer inspected the field. No notice of said panchanama was issued to the appellant. Therefore report of committee is not binding on them. It is submitted by Adv.Patil that District Consumer Forum while allowing complaint ignored the said fact. Therefore said order be quashed by allowing appeal. In support of his contention he relied on "Somnath Kashinath Ghodse -Vs- Vilas Gangaram Jagtap and Anr." reported in II(2009) CPJ 414. He also relied on Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- Shivaji Anaji Ghole, reported in III(2003) CPJ 628.

7. Adv.Shaikh Iqbal for respondentNo.1/org.complainant also submitted written notes of argument. It is submitted by Adv.Shaikh that after revealing fact that Soyabin plants bearing pods but there was no formation of grains in the said pods. Therefore complainant approached to Quality Control Officer. Said officer inspected the field and came to the conclusion that due to said defect complainant would suffer loss of 30% of the yield. Therefore complainant approached to Forum and Forum after considering facts and evidence in proper perspective rightly allowed the complaint. Hence appeal be dismissed.

8. We heard both the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased Soyabin seeds each bag of 25 Kg. It is an admitted fact that complainant had sown soyabin seeds in his two plots. After revealing fact that there was no grain formation in the pod of soyabin complainant approached to Quality Control Officer. Said officer visited the field and came to the conclusion that due to defectiveness of seeds complainant suffered loss of 30%. Appellant did not challenge said report after getting knowledge of said report. Therefore said report remained unchallenged. It is not the case of appellant that they made application before the Forum for getting seeds tested from Government Laboratory. In our view there is no evidence brought before the Forum by appellant to prove that seeds supplied were not of defective quality. District Consumer Forum rightly appreciated the fact and evidence while allowing complaint. We do not want to disturb reasoning recorded by Forum. Hence,

 

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 //