State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd., vs Shri. Govinda Atmaram Patil on 21 July, 2010
1 F.A. No..: 436,363-06
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :21.02.2006
Date of Order:21.07.2010
(1)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 200 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGOAN.
Mahyco Seeds Limited
4th Floor, Resham Bhavan,
78 Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai-20. ... Appellant
//VERSUS//
1. Shri. Govinda Atmaram Patil
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Shri. Atmaram Jangalu Patil
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Shri. Jitendra Atmaram Patil
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Monsanto (I) Ltd.,
Ahura Centre, 5th Floor,
96, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andhre (East), Mumbai-400 093.
5. Samarth Krishi Kendra
Through Proprietor,
Mr.Shailesh Jayant Mahajan
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
Date of filing :13.02.2006
Date of Order:21.07.2010
(2)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2006
2 F.A. No..: 436,363-06
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 200 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGOAN.
Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd.,
221,224, Modas, 2nd Floor,
Sharda Plaza, M. Vasanaji Road,
J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East),
Mumbai-400 093. ... Appellant
//VERSUS//
1. Shri. Govinda Atmaram Patil
2. Shri. Atmaram Jangalu Patil
3. Shri. Jitendra Atmaram Patil
All R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Samarth Krishi Kendra
Through Proprietor,
Mr.Shailesh Jayant Mahajan
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. K.B. Kacchava, for Mahyco Seeds Ltd.
Adv. Shri. S. P. Chopda, for Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. Adv. S. P. Katneshwarkar, for respondent.
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. Appeal No. 436/06 is filed by Mahyco Seeds Limited, Mumbai and Appeal No. 363/2006 is filed by Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd., Mumbai.
Both these appeals challenge the order passed by District Forum, Jalgaon on 20.01.2006 in complaint case No. 200/2005.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-
3 F.A. No..: 436,363-06Complainants Govinda Atmaram Patil & Atmaram Jangalu Patil & Jitendra Atmaram Patil all are closed relatives and farmer's resident of Vikharan Dist. Jalgaon. All these farmers are members of Joint Hindu Family. They are owners of irrigated land. They purchased cotton seeds from opponents. Said seed is of B.T. cotton quality. Relying on the advertisement of the company complainants purchased B.T. cotton lot No. 503639, 10 Bags each of 450 gm for Rs. 16,000/- on 03.05.2004. All the complainants sowed the said seeds in their lands admeasuring 1 hector 20 R, 1 hector 23 R and 1 hector 69-R. The 7/12 extract of the respective lands were produced on record. After performing all the agricultural operations seeds were sown on 15.05.2004. Insecticides were also sprayed on the crop but it was found that leaves were falling down and there was no adequate quantity of boles on the plant. Therefore, complainant informed the said fact to the dealer of seeds and company of seeds. They did not pay any heed therefore they approached to quality control inspector, Panchayat Samiti, Erandol. In response to the complaint said officer inspected the field on 18.11.2004 conducted the panchanama and submitted the spot inspection report. According to said report there is no proper growth of the crop. Leaves were broken. Bolls were found busted and crop was affected by fungus. After getting the said report complainant approached to District Forum by demanding the compensation of Rs.4,07,400/-.
3. Appellants appeared before the Forum and denied the complaint. It is submitted by appellants that crop is not inspected by the proper authority or the committee as prescribed by Government Regulation. It is also submitted that no notice of said inspection was issued to the appellants therefore report of quality control inspector is not binding on them.
4. Committee did not follow the procedure prescribed u/s. 13 (1) (c) of C. P. Act. In the absence of Government Laboratory report it can not be 4 F.A. No..: 436,363-06 said that seeds are defective. It is further submitted that, the report of quality control officer mentions that there is effect of green thieve on the crop. It is contended that for the effect of disease, defectiveness of seeds is not responsible. Complainant received some yield and even then filed the complaint with ulterior motive to grab the money.
5. After hearing both the parties District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 90,000/- as a compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order both the opponents filed separate appeals. We heard both the appeals today. We decided to adjudicate both the appeals by common judgment.
7. Notices of final hearing of both the appeals were issued to the parties. Adv. Shri. K.B. Kacchava appeared for Mahyco Seeds Ltd, and Adv. Shri. S.P. Chopda, appeared for Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. Adv. S. P. Katneshwarkar, appeared for complainants. Adv. Kachhava submitted that, complainants purchased the seeds on 03.05.2004 and sowed the said on 15.05.2004. It is not known in what condition the seeds were kept. The dealer from whom the seeds were purchased is not authorized dealer of the appellant Company. The spot inspection notice was not given to the appellant therefore; report of quality control officer is not binding on them. Inspection was not conducted by the committee, which was prescribed by the Government Regulations; therefore, said report is not reliable. It is further submitted by Adv. Kachhava that District Forum failed to apply the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c ) of C. P. Act while deciding the complaint therefore, decision of District Forum is to be quashed and set aside. In support of his argument he relied on some citation:-
5 F.A. No..: 436,363-06i) I (2000) CPJ 439, Andhra Pradesh State Commission in Kesari Venkata Reddy vs. Anaparthy Venkata Chalapathi Rao & Anr.
ii) III (2006) CPJ 269, Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai, in KhamgaonTaluka Bagayatdar Shetkari & Fale (Fruits) Vikri Sah. Sanshta Khamgaon Vs. Babu Kutti Daniel.
iii) II (2009) CPJ 414, Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai, in Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Vs. Vilas Gangaram Gladioli Grawori Vs. Ram Babu.
iv) II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) in Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram.
v) II (2005) CPJ 47 (NC) in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.
Adv. Shri. S.P. Chopda, appeared for Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. He submitted that as per report of quality control officer the crop of cotton was affected by green thrips. It is also observed by the quality control officer that because of continuous rain in the area leaves were rotten. Therefore, in the circumstances that crop is affected by disease Seed Company can not be held liable. It can not be said that due to defectiveness of seeds crop was affected by disease. It is also submitted by Adv. Katneshwarkar that according to said report the complainant had sprayed the insecticides and pesticides on the crop therefore, it can not be said that due to disease complainant suffered loss and not because of defective seeds.
8. We heard counsels of all the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainants purchased the seeds of B.T. cotton. The crop was inspected by the quality control officer but report of said officer clearly mentioned those green thrips were found on the crop within 45 days from the sowing. For the loss of crop due to disease Seeds 6 F.A. No..: 436,363-06 Company can not be held liable because for the said loss defectiveness of seeds is not responsible. The report of quality control officer nowhere mentions that seeds are defective. Therefore in the absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds inference can not be drawn against the Seeds Company. There is no whisper in the report about the quality of seeds or defectiveness of seeds. Crop is also not inspected by the committee as prescribed by the government regulation. We are relying on the judgments relied by the appellant. District Forum did not consider the fact that crop was affected by disease and for the disease Seed Company can not be held liable. Hence, we are inclined to quash and set aside the judgment and order. We pass the following order.
O R D E R 1 Both Appeals No.436/06 & 363/06 are allowed. The judgment and order passed by Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
2 Complaint stands dismissed.
3 No order as to cost.
(Mrs.Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar