Back
2008(3) CPR 280
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.G. Deshmukh, Presiding Judicial Member and Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Member
Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Sudamsing Dagesing Girase
& Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 1439 of 2001
Decided on 16.1.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Shri Afzal Hussain, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 to 4:Miss. Swapna Bahalkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 5: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency is required to be proved. Inference of deficiency can not be drawn on the basis of report which is completely silent on the quality of seeds.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Deficiency in service—Sale of defective cotton seeds—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal—No whisper about quality of seeds either in report or panchanama—In view of absence of any clear finding in report of seed committee about defectiveness of seeds finding of District Forum about quality of seeds in question being defective held unsustainable—Deficiency is required to be proved, inference of deficiency can not be drawn on the basis of report which is completely silent on the quality of seeds—Failure on part of complainant to prove deficiency in service given by appellant—Report placed on record not at all sufficient to establish inferior quality of seeds—Nothing in report to show that seeds purchased by complainant were defective—No expert report on record supporting claim on sterile quality of seeds—Impugned judgment passed by District Forum being unsustainable quashed and set aside—Appeal allowed. (Para 9)
Result: Appeal allowed.
S.G. Deshmukh, Presiding Judicial Member—The present appeal is filed by Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2001 in complaint case No. 89/99 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dhule.
2. Respondents No.1 to 4/Complainant’s case before the Forum is that, they are the owners and possessors of Gut No. 536 admeasuring 15 acres of village Kodade, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule. It is contended that, respondent No.1 had purchased 25 bags each of 450 gm. of RCH2 of cotton seed for Rs. 7000/- on 16.6.1998 from respondent No. 5 who is the agent of appellant No. 2 who is the dealer of appellant No. 1 producer of the seeds. It is contended that, respondent No.1 prepared the land and sowed the seeds in between 18.6.1998 to 20.6.1998 as per instructions given by respondent No. 5. It is contended that, he took all the precautions for cultivating the crops. The germination was good but growth of the crop was not uniform. It is contended that, respondent No. 1 had informed this fact to respondent No. 5. It is contended that, flowering and formation of bolls were less. It is contended that, the bolls were in crumpled condition. Bolls were falling down. It is contended that, respondent No.1 had intimated this fact to respondent No. 5 as well as appellant No. 2. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 had watered the crop in time. As there was no proper formation of bolls, Respondent No.1 approached Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shindkheda on 3.3.1999. He visited the land and inspected the crop and submitted the report to Group Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti. The report was sent to Dist. Agricultura1 Officer, Z.P., Dhule. It is contended that Dist. Grievance Committee visited the complainant’s land on 19.3.1999 and inspected the crop and accordingly drew the panchanama. As per panchanama the formation of bolls was less and bolls were crumpled and were small in size. Those were falling down. It is contended that, bolls were falling without ripening and thus respondent No. 1 could not get the yield. Accordingly, Committee gave the report on 3.5.1999. Thus, respondent No. 1 approached the Forum for compensation of Rs. 4,55,700/-. During the pendency of complaint respondent No. 2 to 4 were added as complainants.
3. Present appellants appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that, appellants did not receive any other complaint from other customers. They also denied that complainants had sown their seeds in their land. It is contended that, Seed Committee had not given any notice to them about inspection. The inspection was carried behind their back. It is contended that complainant did not get tested the seeds from laboratory. There is nothing to show that, the seed solds were defective.
4. Respondent No. 5 also appeared before the Forum. He is not at dispute that, respondent has purchased 25 bags each of 450 gm. for Rs.7000/- from him on 16.6.1998. It is contended that, he is the agent of appellant No. 2 who is the dealer of appellant No. 1. The seeds were sold in sealed condition. He had not tampered the bag and thus he is not liable for any compensation for defects in the seeds.
5. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties directed the present appellant to pay Rs. 2,17,000/- towards compensation. The Forum also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant for preparation of land, fertilizers and purchase of seeds. The Forum also directed that, appellants are to pay interest on the amount @18% p.a. from 1.4.1999. The Forum also directed appellants to pay the cost of
Rs. 500/-.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by District Forum, Rasi Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd. came in appeal.
7. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents. Learned counsel Shri. Afzal Hussain appeared on behalf of appellants. Advocate Swapna Bahalkar appeared
