Consumer complaint cannot be maintained against person or firm of whom complainant is not a consumer.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

S.M.Shembole, Presiding Member—These appeals are directed against the separate judgments and orders dated 31.10.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Latur Partly allowing consumer complaint Nos.147/08 & 146/08 directing appellant original opponent No.2 to pay to complainant’s compensation of Rs.11,120/- in complainant case No.147/2008 and Rs.10,000/- in complaint case No.146/2008 with interest @ 9% p.a. Further appellant/opponent No.2 directed to pay to the complainants compensation of Rs.2000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- each more towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent seed manufacturing company and respondent No.1 as complainants whereas respondent No.2 the dealer)

2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-

Complainants are the farmers having agriculture fields at village Talegaon, Dist.Latur and village Madani, Dist.Osmanabad respectively. Opponent/appellant is a seed manufacturing company and opponent No.2 is a distributor/dealer. On 4.1.2008 complainant Madhav in C.C.No.147/08 purchased two bags of sunflower seeds (SH-177) from opponent No.2, whereas on 27.12.2007 complainant Dnyanoba in complaint case No.146/08 purchased one bag of same variety of sunflower seeds from opponent No.2. According to complainants they sown the sunflower seed in their respective fields by cultivating the fields properly investing huge amount. It is submitted by them that they have sown sunflower in their field as per instruction given by opponent No.2 dealer. But there was no proper germination. It is alleged that due to defective seeds there was only 16% germination. Therefore they made complaint with Dist.Agriculture Officer, and on receiving complaints, Dist. Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee visited their fields and on inspection of the fields submitted report to the effect that due to defective seeds there was no proper germination etc. It is submitted that due to defective seeds, they sustained loss. Therefore by notice they demanded compensation from opponents. But opponents did not comply their notice. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents, complainants filed complaints. Complainant in complaint No.147/08 claimed compensation of Rs.72,960/- towards loss and compensation Rs.10,000/- more towards deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.5000/- more towards cost of the proceeding. Whereas complainant Shri.Dnyanoba in complaint No.146/2008 claimed total compensation of Rs.62,590/- towards loss.

3. Opponent No.1 by its separate written version resisted the complaints on the following among other grounds:-

It did not dispute that complainants purchased sunflower seed from its shop but it is denied that he is dealer of appellant opponent No.2. It is submitted that he had purchased 40 bags of sunflower SH- 177 seed from one Sham Beej Bhandar, Nanded and sold the same to various farmers including both the complainants. It is not disputed that those seeds were manufactured by appellant/opponent No.2 Monsanto. However, it is denied that those seeds were defective and there was no proper germination. According to it except complaint of complainants there was no complaint from other consumers. Further it is denied that complainants had sown sunflower seeds as per its instruction etc. It is submitted that no instructions were given by it to the complainants. It has also denied the report of Dist.Seeds Grievance Committee and submitted that no inspection was made by said committee in presence of his any representative. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4. Appellant/opponent No.2 by its separate written version also resisted the complaints on the following among other grounds:- It did not dispute that it is a seed manufacturing company