Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member and S.P. Lale, Member
SOMNATH KASHINATH GHODSE - Appellant
Versus
VILAS GANGARAM JAGTAP AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 744 of 2008
Decided on : 05-05-2009
Mr. U.B. Wavikar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. T.F. Pawar, Advocate, Mr. V.G. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Respondent
The quality of seeds cannot be solely blamed for poor crop growth, as various factors such as climatic variation and care of crops also play a significant role.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Defective Seeds - Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., (2005) 2 CPJ 13 (SC)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased pumpkin seeds from the dealer and alleged deficiency in service and defective seeds. The complaint was dismissed by the Forum below, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seeds' germination was 100%, and the poor growth of fruits was attributed to various factors such as climatic variation and care of pumpkins, not the quality of the seeds. The court also noted that the inspection committee did not include all required members as per government resolution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the seeds supplied by the defendants were defective or adulterated, leading to the poor growth of fruits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the ruling in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., (2005) 2 CPJ 13 (SC) to conclude that the poor growth of fruits was not attributable to the quality of seeds but to other factors.
Final Decision: The appeal was summarily rejected, confirming the order passed by the Forum below, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
ORDER
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member - This is an appeal filed by the Org. complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the Forum below by its judgment dated 9.4.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 327/2006.
2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under.
3. The complainant had filed consumer complaint against O.P. No. 1 owner of Sheti Udyog Bhandar, Saswad, Taluka-Purandar, District-Pune (Dealer) and Sardar Seeds Company/O.P. No. 2 alleging deficiency in service and for the defective seeds supplied by them.
4. The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased seeds Pumpkin from O.P. No. 1 on 8.5.2006 which was produced by Sardar Seeds Company/O.P. No. 2. After purchase of seed, he had sowed the seed in Gut No. 56 and Gut No. 45. He had used requisite fertilizers as required. He had also sprayed insecticides too. When the fruits came, he found that some pumpkins were small in size and some were larger in size and fruits were to the extent of 30% to 40% but germination was 100%. The growth of Pumpkin was sub-standard. Hence, he made complaint to Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Saswad and also to the Zilla Parishad, Pune. The Agricultural Officers and other committee members of District Seed Grievances Committee came to his field and gave report after due inspection that seeds were adulterated one. Hence, he filed consumer complaint and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,09,000 from both the O.Ps.
5. O.P.No.1 filed written statement and admitted that complainant had purchased Pumpkin seeds on 8.5.2006 from his shop. He pleaded that in the notice sent by the complainant he had clearly admitted that there was 100% germination and therefore O.P. No. 1 pleaded that the seeds were of standard quality. He further pleaded that the complainant had not disclosed on which day he had sowed the seed in his field. O.P. No. 1 further pleaded that when there was 100% germination the complaint should be filed simply saying that the complainant did not get expected yield or some Pumpkins were smaller in size. According to the O.P. No. 1 the complainant should have got examined the earth from his field from approved laboratory before cultivating the same for the crop of Pumpkin. According to the O.P. No. 1 in that year there were heavy rains and because of rains the Pumpkin could not grow properly and resultantly the complainant could not get expected yield. He had also not disclosed what were the fruits he reaped, at what price he had sold them in the market and what was the market rate of sale of those Pumpkins. In the absence of any such proof he pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
6. The O.P. No. 2 also filed written statement and pleaded that the complainant had purchased seed from lot No. 03/1113G/BB310. But the seed of this lot was not supplied by O.P. No. 2 to O.P. No. 1. What was supplied to O.P. No. 1 was Pumpkin Samrat 2 having lot No. 03/33/3T. So, the complainant had sown seed of Pumpkin which was not supplied by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to him. So, simply because he has produced on record one empty bag of Pumpkin seed packet that does not mean that he had purchased it from O.P. No. 1 because batch number was not tallying. The O.P. No. 2 therefore pleaded that it was not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the aforesaid reason. Moreover, the complainant produced on record the report of Agricultural Officers. It is clearly mentioned in that report that there was 100% germination but the fruits were of different colour and sizes and therefore on that basis the Committee held that the seed supplied was adulterated one. The O.P. No. 2 therefore pleaded that the finding of District Committee was improper, unjust particularly when the District Committee noted that there was 100% germination. According to the O.P. No. 2 it had not produced or manufactured lot No. 03/1113G/BB310. It also pleaded that for getting size and colour various circumstances are responsible like climatic cha
