State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Santosh Gulabrao Jadhav, vs Seminis Vegetable Seeds (I) Ltd., on 7 October, 2013
1 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/2007
Date of filing :21.09.2007
Date of order :07.10.2013
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1347 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 155 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Santosh Gulabrao Jadhav,
R/o Bahirgaon, Tq.Kannad,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Seminis Vegetable Seeds (I) Ltd.,
Shyam Shakuntal Heights,
161/A,3-A Modi Bagh, Ganesh Khind
Road, Shivajinagar,
Pune - 16.
2. Mahavir Beej Bhandar,
Through it's Proprietor,
Nawabpura, Juna Mondha,
Aurangabad.
3. The Agriculture Development
Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1348 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 99 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Popatrao Baburao Dapke,
R/o Bahirgaon, Tq.Kannad,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
2 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/2007
VERSUS
1. Seminis Vegetable Seeds (I) Ltd.,
Shyam Shakuntal Heights,
161/A,3-A Modi Bagh, Ganesh Khind
Road, Shivajinagar,
Pune - 16.
2. Mahavir Beej Bhandar,
Through it's Proprietor,
Nawabpura, Juna Mondha,
Aurangabad.
3. The Agriculture Development
Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.K.Shirse for appellants, Adv.Shri.Jayant Chitnis for respondent No.1.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 07th October 2013) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Challenge in these both appeals are the judgments dated 30.4.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad partly allowing the consumer complaint Nos.155/06 & 99/06 directing respondent No.1/opponent to pay to the complainants compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2000/- more towards the cost of proceedings in each complaint.
(For the sake of brevity appellants are herein after referred as 'the complainants' and respondents as 'opponents').
3 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/20072. As opponents are common and points involved in both these matters are common we have decided to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:
Complainants are agriculturists having agriculture fields at village Bahirgaon, Tq.Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad. Opponent No.1 Seminis Vegetable Seeds India Ltd. is the vegetable seeds manufacturer. Opponent No.2 Mahavir Beej Bhandar is a dealer of opponent No.1 & opponent No.3 is District Agriculture Development Officer, Z.P., Aurangabad. Complainants have purchased onion seeds in the month of October-2004 from opponent No.2 through a shop Vishal Krishi Seva Kendra, Bahirgaon, Tq.Kannad which is run by a son of complainant Popatrao. Complainant Santosh purchased 5 Kg. seeds and complainant Popatrao purchased 21 Kg seeds. They were told by representative of opponent No.1 & 2 that the average yield of the onion seeds product would be of 350 quintals per acre. According to the complainants as per instructions and guidance of the representative of opponent Nos.1 & 2 they have prepared their lands and sown seeds. They also maintained onion crop as per instruction of representative of opponents. But in the month of May-2005 when they started harvesting onion crop they found quality of onion was not proper. Therefore they made complaint to opponent No.3 and requested to make necessary investigation. Accordingly, opponent No.3 made investigation and found that seeds provided by opponent No.1 & 2 were defective. When the onions were stored, they started perishing and therefore complainant could not store the onion and thereby sustained loss. Therefore complainants have made separate complaint. Complainant Santosh by his complaint claimed damages at Rs.2,50,000/- and compensation at Rs.50,000/- whereas complainant Popatrao has claimed damages at Rs.5,25,000/- and compensation at Rs.1 lakh.4 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/2007
4. Opponent No.1 & 2 resisted the complaint by their written version. They did not dispute that complainants purchased onion seeds. According to them as onion seeds were purchased by complainant from Vishal Krishi Seva Kendra, Bahirgaon who had purchased the same seeds from opponent No.2, Vishal Krishi Seva Kendra is necessary party and as it is not made party, the complaints are not maintainable. They did not dispute that onion seeds purchased and manufactured by opponent No.1 but they have denied that they were defective. They have also denied that complainants were informed by their representative that average yield of onion seeds would be 350 quintals per acre etc. They have also denied that complainants had sown the seeds as per instructions and guidance of their representative. They have denied that complainants have sustained loss as alleged. On all these grounds they have submitted to dismiss the complaints.
5. Considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides District Consumer Forum held that onion seeds were defective and therefore it's product was not of good quality. Onions were being perished when stored and therefore complainant sustained loss. However, District Consumer Forum held that except mere averments of the complainants there is no evidence to show the acreage or area of onion seeds grown by complainants. It is also observed that there is no evidence as to what was the yield or quantity got by these complainants so as to assess the loss. Therefore District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaints and awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2000/- more towards the cost of each proceedings.
6. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgments and orders complainants have filed these appeals.
5 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/20077. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.1/opponent No.1, perused their written notes of arguments, copies of impugned judgment and order and copies of complaints, written version and copies of report of Agriculture Officer etc. However, we have had no opportunity to hear respondentNo.2 &3/opponent No.2 and 3 as they remained absent and the appeals are proceeded exparte against them.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though the appellants/complainants have specifically pleaded that complainant Santosh purchased 5 Kg onion seeds and complainant Popatrao purchased 21 Kg. of seeds and sown the same in their respective fields and further the Agriculture Officer in his report specifically mentioned that onion seeds were sown by complainant Popatrao in his field admeasuring 2 Hector 80R and complainant Santosh in his field 1 hector 60R, District Consumer Forum without considering these facts wrongly observed that there is no evidence about acreage of field in which complainants had grown onion crop etc. According to him District Consumer Forum has also not considered the average yield of the onion and also assurance given by opponent Nos. 1 & 2 and without considering all these facts though it is proved and held that the seeds were defective and opponent No.1 & 2 committed deficiency in service , District Consumer Forum Aurangabad awarded compensation at Rs.25,000/- only which is too meagre. It is submitted to award damages as well as compensation as claimed by complainants.
9. As against the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainants, Shri.Jayant Chitnis learned counsel appearing for opponent No.1 submitted that complaints in the absence of necessary party Vishal Krishi Seva Kendra are not maintainable. But District Consumer Forum has without considering all these facts wrongly partly allowed the complaints. He has also submitted that there is no 6 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/2007 evidence on record except price list of onion seeds published by A.P.M.C. but District Consumer Forum granted lump-sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each complainants. According to him impugned orders are not just and legal and same should be set aside. However, he has fairly conceded that no cross appeal or counter appeals are filed by opponent No.1 & 2. Therefore the submission of Shri.Chitnis learned counsel for opponent No.1 that impugned orders are liable to set aside by taking suo-motu action, cannot be sustained. The only point which arises for consideration in these appeals is that whether there is evidence to show that complainants sustained loss as claimed and whether compensation awarded by District Consumer Forum is adequate.
10. Although it is submitted by Shri.Shirse learned counsel for the complainant that complainants have specifically pleaded about acreage of field in which onion crop was grown and further District Agriculture Officer also specifically mentioned in his report etc. District Consumer Forum has not considered this fact. But perusal of copies of complaints and also report of Agriculture Officer we find District Consumer Forum has rightly observed that there is no evidence about acreage of yield in which onion crop was grown by the complainants and also there is no evidence about quantity or yield got to the complainants and also evidence about average yield etc. On perusal of copies of complaints it manifests that complainants have not disclosed area of field in which they had grown onion crop. Not only this but they have also not specifically stated in their complaints that entire onion seeds which they had purchased from opponent No.2 through Vishal Beej Bhandar was sown in their respective fields. However, on perusal of report of Agriculture Officer it reflects that he has shown acreage of land in which complainants had grown onion crops. But it further reflects that he has mentioned the same in his report on the basis of information given by the complainants only. It does not reflect that he has verified the same fact by visiting the fields 7 F.A.No.: 1347 & 1348/2007 and by making enquiry with the persons specifically adjoining land owners. Therefore the same report showing acreage of fields cannot be considered and accordingly District Consumer Forum has not considered. In view of all these facts though the District Consumer Forum held that onion seeds were defective and there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1 & 2, there was no alternative with the District Consumer Forum except to grant lump-sum compensation without making any assessment.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we find that District Consumer Forum has rightly granted lump-sum compensation to both the complainants. Therefore we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
12. In the result, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Both the appeals are dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali, Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane