IMPORTANT POINT
Crop miserably failed because of defective wet material provided by the Opposite Party and no timely proper instructions.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2005, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short “the State Commission”), the Complainants preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part with the following directions:

“(a) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) towards loss relating to single fingers/ damaged fingers of planting material.

(b) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00/- (Rs. Two Lacs only), towards compensation for loss suffered in relation to remaining planting material.

(c) The aforesaid amount shall be payable with interest @ (% p.a. from the date of complaint till final payment.

(d) The amount as aforesaid shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, otherwise interest @ 12% p.a. shall be payable from the date of default.”

2. It is relevant to mention that the First Appeal No. 336 of 2010 preferred by the Opposite Party has been dismissed for default and non prosecution vide order dated 09.08.2016 and that this order has not been challenged and therefore the question of deficiency of service against the Opposite Party has attained finality. Hence the brief question that needs to be adjudicated in this Appeal is whether the Complainant is entitled for the enhanced compensation prayed for.

3. The facts in brief are that the Complainants have entered into an MOU with the Opposite Party to raise and develop Safed Musli as per the guidelines given by the Opposite Party. It was agreed to source the wet material/ sapling of seeds of Safed Musli and as per the terms of the Agreement, the Complainant was to abide by the guidelines and specifications issued from time to time. After getting a loan of Rs.29,75,000/- from Central Bank of India on 08.04.2003, the Complainants purchased the wet material for cultivation of Safed Musli and made a payment of Rs.20,00,000/- between 24.02.2003 to 06.05.2003. 850 kgs of planting wet material out of 4,000 kgs supplied by the Opposite Party, were in broken condition and the germination in these broken fingers was nil.

4. It is the Complainants’ case that all instructions were followed but there was no germination of the said fingers in special nursery and hence the said seeds could not be sown and that the remaining wet material supplied was also of substandard quality with dark brown spots indicating fungal infection. It was averred that the Complainants were new to the field and it was the Opposite Party who had assured about the quality at the time of supply. The Complainants purchased 4000 kgs of sowing material expecting a yield of 16,000 kgs. as per the brochure, but only 1650 kgs i.e. 10% of the sowing material and thereby causing net loss of 14350 kgs. amounting to Rs.71,75,000.

5. It is the case of the Opposite Party that soil required for Safed Musli is sandy loam but the soil of the Complainants field is clayey in texture; that the crop was drenched in water for 16 hours with humidity of 100% thereby causing the damage; the wet material supplied to the Complainants was obtained from other farmers, who cultivate Safed Musli and was not produced by the Opposite Party; fingers of the wet material could have been damaged due to mishandling during transport; in the MOU there is a specific clause of arbitration; that the Complainants purchased the crop for commercial purpose and that the State Commission while allowing the Complaint to the extent indicated above and relied on the investigation report of Shri S. M. Khatele, who had subsequently filed his Affidavit. The State Commission observed as follows:

“32. The complainant has placed on record Investigation Report of Shr S.N. Khatele,