State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rohit Singh Thakur vs C.G.Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam ... on 21 April, 2014
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/13/58
Instituted on : 11.01.2013
Rohit Singh Thakur, Aged about 46 years,
S/o Gore Singh Thakur
R/o : Village : Kenwtara, P.H.No.12,
Revenue Inspector Division Saja,
Tehsil Saja,District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited,
Through : Prakriya Prabhari,
C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited,
Branch : Ruabandha (Durg), Bhilai,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.)
2. Sewa Sahakari Samiti,
Through : Samiti Prabandhak,
Sewa Sahakari Samiti Saja, Registration No.1246,
Teshil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.)
3. Deputy Director Agriculture,
Office - District Office Complex, Durg,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Siteshwar Nishad, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Gomasta, for respondent No.1
Shri Sudhir Tiwari, for respondent No.2.
None for respondent No.3.
ORDER
DATED : 21/04/2014 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.12.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth // 2 // "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.138/2012. By the impugned, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the appellant/complainant is owner of 2.241 hectare of land, near about 22.983 hectare land is recorded in the name of his father Gore Singh and near about 5.515 hectare of land is recorded in the name of his brother Venkat Singh and Lala Singh. All the land are situated at village Kenwtara, Patwari Halka No.12, Revenue Circle Saja, Tehsil and District Bemetara (C.G.). The respondent No.3/O.P.No.3 Deputy director Agriculture advised the appellant / complainant to cultivate soyabean crop instead of paddy crop. On being advised by the respondent No.3/O.P.No.3, the appellant/complainant purchased soyabean seeds JS-335 Lot No.OCT- 10-34-42-50-CII from the respondent No.2/O.P. No.2. The appellant/complainant purchased 75 bags of soyaben seeds. The each bag had contained 40 Kgs of soyabeen seeds. The soyabean seeds were purchased by the appellant/complainant from respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 @ Rs.2,300/- per qtl. and amount was paid to the respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 by the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant sown the above seeds in his field on 18.06.2011. After 10-12 days from cultivation of the soyabean seeds, when the appellant/complainant went to his field, then he found that // 3 // the seeds were not properly germinated and the percentage of germination of the seeds was very poor. On 01.07.2011, the appellant/complainant made complaint in writing before Process Incharge of branch Office of respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 situated at Ruabandha, and to respondent No.3/.O.P.No.3. Respondent No.3/O.P.No.3 sent the seeds for testing to C.G. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Raipur who tested the seed on 27.06.2011 and in the test of the seeds, the percentage of the germination was found 25% and it was found that the seeds sold by the O.P. No.2 is defective and due to defective seeds the appellant/complainant suffered loss of Rs.2,13,175/- and respondent No.1/ O.P.No.1 also committed deficiency in service. OPs did not pay compensation to the appellant/complainant, hence he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.2,13,175/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of litigation.
3. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) filed his written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made against him. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) pleaded that the appellant/complainant had not made any complaint within 7 days after sowing /cultivating the seeds. The appellant/complainant had also not made any complaint before the competent authority. The seeds were not defective and the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that the seeds were defective. The said lot no. OCT-10- // 4 // 34-42-50-CII which was mentioned by the appellant/complainant was sold to a different farmer namely Rishi Joshi, resident of Village Khamharia. Rishi Joshi purchased soyabean seeds and sown the same in his field and he obtained 54.50 qtls of soyabean. On 27.12.2010 the seeds were sent by testing to C.G. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Raipur and report annexure R-4 was received. In the report it is mentioned that percentage of germination of seeds was 71% and seeds were upto prescribed standard and the seeds were packed in prescribed manner and in the seed of Lot No.OCT-10-34-42-50-CII, the percentage of germination was 71%, therefore, the allegations made by the appellant/complainant is false and the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that the seeds supplied to him were defective, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 also filed his written statement and denied the allegations leveled by the appellant/complainant in the complaint.
5. The respondent No.3/O.P. also filed his written statement separately and denied the allegations leveled by the appellant/complainant in the complaint.
// 5 //
6. After due appreciation of the documents filed by the parties and the material available on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. Hence this appeal.
7. In the instant case the appellant / complainant has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with an affidavit dated 23.04.2013 of Kumeshwar Yadav and counter copy of the credit cheque book and prayed for taking the same on record as additional evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and have perused the affidavit and document sought to be filed by the appellant/complainant at the appellate stage as evidence.
9. So far as counter copy of the credit cheque book is concerned, the said document was already in possession of the appellant/complainant and the appellant/complainant has ample opportunity to file this document before the District Forum. The appellant / complainant could not file the above document before the District Forum inspite of the fact that the document was in his possession. The appellant/complainant has also an ample opportunity to file affidavit of Kumeshwar Yadav before the District Forum, but he could not file both the documents before the District Forum and the appellant/complainant has not properly and sufficiently explained // 6 // that in which circumstances he could not file the above documents before the District Forum, therefore, the appellant/complainant cannot be permitted to file the above documents as additional evidence at the appellate stage for fulfilling lacuna of his case.
10. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant/complainant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is hereby dismissed.
11. Shri Siteshwar Nishad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant argued the learned District Forum committed an error of law and jurisdiction. He further argued that the seeds sold by the respondent No.2/O.P. No.2 are defective and the appellant/complainant cultivated the land according to the instructions/guidelines given by the respondents/OPs and he followed the instructions/guidelines given by the respondents/OPs. He further argued that the appellant/complainant sown soyabean seeds on 18.06.2011 and after 10-12 days from cultivation of the soyabean seeds, when the appellant/complainant went to his field, then he found that the seeds were not properly germinated and the percentage of germination of the seeds was very poor. The appellant/complainant made complaint before the competent authority. Seeds were sent for test to C.G. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Raipur, from where it was found that germination of the soyabean seeds was very poor and therefore, the // 7 // appellant/complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony as mentioned in the complainant. The appellant/complainant is entitled for the relief sought by him, which is mentioned in the complaint. He placed reliance on C.G. Rajya Beej Vikas Nigam vs. Smt. Shanti Bai & Others, 2014 (1) C.G.L.J. 15 (CCC) decided by this Commission on 07.12.2013 and M. Madhusudan Reddy and one another, 2012 (2) S.C.C. D. 947 (S.C.).
12. Shri R.K. Gomasta and Shri Sudhir Tiwari, learned counsels appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 have supported the impugned order. Shri R.K. Gomasta, placed reliance on Chhattisgarh State Seed and Agriculture Development Corporation Limited. Vs. Dular Singh Sinha (Appeal No.779/2011) decided by this Commission on 18.06.2012; Chhattisgarh State Seed & Agriculture Development Corporation Limited vs. Shubhra Agrawal (Appeal No.766/2011) decided by this Commission on 27.07.2012.
13. None appeared for the respondent No.3 before us on 22.03.2014 when the case is fixed for final arguments.
14. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
15. The appellant/complainant filed documents. Document P-1 is counter foil of credit cheque book, document P-2 is tag of purchased // 8 // soyabean, document P-3 is letter dated 27.06.2011 sent by the appellant/complainant to Manager, C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam, document P-4 is letter dated 27.06.2011 sent by the appellant/complainant to the Deputy Director Agriculture, Durg, document P-5 is letter dated 27.06.2011 sent by the appellant/complainant to Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Block Saja, District Durg (C.G.), document P-5 is letter dated 02.07.2011 sent by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, District Durg to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bemetara, District Durg & two others, document P-7 is Inspection Report dated 92.08.2011, document P-8 and P-9 are Kistabandi Khatauni (Asamiwar), document P-10 to P-11 are B(1) Kistabandi Khatauni (Asamiwar), document P-12 and P-13 is registered notice dated 11.11.2011 sent by Siteshwar Nishad, Advocate to Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saja, document P-14 is registered notice dated 09.12.2011 sent by Purshottam Choubey, Advocate to Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Samiti, Saja, District Durg, document P-15 is letter dated 03.02.2012 sent by Deputy Director Agriculture, District Durg to Shri Siteshwar Nishad, document P-16 is letter dated 02.07.2011 sent by Beej Parikshan Adhikari, Raipur to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Durg (C.G.), document P-17 is Seed Testing Laboratory - Result Seed, document P-18 is registered notice dated 16.02.2012 sent by Shri Siteshwar Nishad, Advocate to C.G. Rajya Beej Avam Krishi // 9 // Vikas Nigam Ltd, Sewa Sahakari Samiti and Deputy Director Agriculture, Durg.
16. The respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 also filed documents. Document R-1 is copy of packing register of soyabean seed dated 15.02.2011, document R-2 is Seed Testing Laboratory, Raipur Result Sheet, documentR-3 is Challan for articles supplied issued by C.G. Rajya Been Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., document R-4 is lettr dated 27.12.2010 sent by Sahayak Beej Pramanikaran Adhikari, Durg to Prabandh Sanchalak, C.G. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Raipur (C.G.), document - 5 is "Soyabean Krishi Karyamala"
17. Document P-6 is letter dated 02.07.2011 sent by the Deputy Director Agriculture, District Durg to Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Bemetara, District Durg, Incharge Officer, Ruabandha, District Durg (C.G.) and Seed Inspector, Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha, Ruabandha, Durg (C.G.. In the said letter it is mentioned that the farmer Shri Gore Singh, S/o Shri Chirop Singh purchased Soyabean J.S.335 Lot No.Oct.-10-42-50C-2 77 bags from Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Saja and complaint was received that the 71 bags soyabean seed was sown by the farmer in the field but seeds were not germinated properly and he received complaint from the farmer.
18. Document P-7 is Inspection Report dated 02.08.2014. The inspection was conducted by the Process Incharge, Beej Nigam, // 10 // Ruabandha, District Durg (C.G.). In document P-7 it is mentioned that "d``"kd Jh xksjsflag firk fNjksi flag jft xzke dsorjk dk vkt fnukad 02-08-2011 dks lks;kchu dk fujh{k.k voyksdu [ksr dk fd;k x;kA d``"kd }kjk fnukad 28-04-2011 dks lsok lgdkjh lfefr lktk ls JS 335 lks;kchu ykV dzekad OCT-10-34-42-50-CII dh 75 cksjh¼30 fDo0½ ftlesa ls d``"kd us 2-40 fDo0 6 cksjh lks;kchu ugh cks;kA ckdh lks;kchu 27-60 fDo0 dh cksuh dj lks;kchu [ksr esa mi;ksx dj fy;k x;kA 18-06-2011A izFke cksuh fd;kA vadqj.k lks;kchu dk uk vkus ij d``"kd us cht fuxe] milapkyd d``f"k nqxZ dks fnukad 01-07-2011 dks tkap gsrq lwfpr fd;k rFkk 01-07-2011 dks iqu% lks;kchu cht JS335- oct-10-12-51-159303-CII lfefr lktk ls [kjhndj 55 cksjh ¼55x30½ 16-50 fDo0 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSA cksuh 05-07-2011 dks cks;k x;kA Qly fLFkfr orZeku esa blh cht dh vPNh gSA "
19. Document P-3 is letter dated 27.06.2011 sent by the appellant/complainant to Manager, C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Ruabandha, Durg (C.G.). Document P-15 is letter dated 03.02.2012 sent by the Deputy Director Agriculture, District Durg to Shri Siteshwar Nishad, Advocate enclosing the result of test of Soyabean J.S.335 Oct-10-34-42-50-C-2, which was sought // 11 // under Right to Information Act, 2005. According to document P-16 the result of test was 42%. In the said document it is mentioned thus :-
layXu%&cht ijh{k.k ifj.kke izfrosnu izfrosnu dzekad la[;k June.77 = 10 June.78 = 10 June.79 = 10 June.80 = 10 June.81 = 02 dqy 42] ifj.kke
20. The respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 filed document R-2, R-3 and R-
4. Looking to document R-5 it appears that Lot No. OCT-10-34-42-50- C-II was sent for testing to C.G. Rajya Beej Pramanikaran Sanstha,. Document R-2 is Result Sheet and document R-3 Challan For Articles Supplied issued by C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. According to document R-2 the percentage of germination of seeds was 71%. Document R-5 is Soyabean Krishi Karyamala. In this document, in note no.2 a direction is given that if seed of soyabean is not properly germinated, then concerned farmer can make complaint before the Block Office or Process Centre within 7 days. But in the instant case, the appellant/complainant sown the soyabean seeds in his field on 18.06.2011 and he made complaint on 01.07.2011 i.e. after 12-13 days, whereas it is obligatory for him to inform the concerned office or process centre within 7 days from the sowing seeds in the field, but in the instant case, the appellant/complainant could not // 12 // intimate the concerned office or process centre within the prescribed period.
21. We have perused the document P-7, which has been filed by the appellant/complainant himself. In the said document, it is specifically mentioned that "d``"kd Jh xksjsflag firk fNjksi flag jft xzke dsorjk dk vkt fnukad 02-08-2011 dks lks;kchu dk fujh{k.k voyksdu [ksr dk fd;k x;kA d``"kd }kjk fnukad 28-04-2011 dks lsok lgdkjh lfefr lktk ls JS 335 lks;kchu ykV dzekad OCT-10-34-42-50-CII dh 75 cksjh¼30 fDo0½ ftlesa ls d``"kd us 2-40 fDo0 6 cksjh lks;kchu ugh cks;kA ckdh lks;kchu 27-60 fDo0 dh cksuh dj lks;kchu [ksr esa mi;ksx dj fy;k x;kA 18-06-2011A izFke cksuh fd;kA vadqj.k lks;kchu dk uk vkus ij d``"kd us cht fuxe] milapkyd d``f"k nqxZ dks fnukad 01-07- 2011 dks tkap gsrq lwfpr fd;k rFkk 01-07-2011 dks iqu% lks;kchu cht JS335-oct-10-12-51-159303-CII lfefr lktk ls [kjhndj 55 cksjh ¼55x30½ 16-50 fDo0 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gSA cksuh 05-07-2011 dks cks;k x;kA Qly fLFkfr orZeku esa blh cht dh vPNh gSA "
22. In the case of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Another., 2013 (3) CPR 345 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed in paragraph No.38 thus :-
// 13 // "38. Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gaurishankar and India Seed House v.
Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed :-
"There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case ? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Act. By the time, complaint could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Body' as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13(c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement."
// 14 //
23. In the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd v Sadhu and another, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 198; Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph Nos.12 & 13 thus :-
"12. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum, confirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission deserve to be set aside. From the record it is abundantly clear that the appellant had constituted an Expert Committee. The said Committee had undertaken the exercise of inspection of seeds sold to farmers. It conducted field inspection and detailed report had been prepared. The Committee observed that crop condition varied from "satisfactory to excellent". It further observed that the reason for variation was other than the quality of seeds. The Committee stated :
Hence the variation in the condition of crop in the same lot of seed at different fields may not be attributed to quality of seed but the other factors including high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the sowing time, sowing method and soil physical conditions, which also play a major role in germination of seed and crop stand."
13. In the operative part, the Committee concluded :-
"It may be concluded that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition."
24. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed in paragraph no.9 thus :-
"9. The Report of the Agricultural Officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous. As already pointed out by Counsel for Petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the // 15 // Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible. The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so-called failure of the crops. In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds. Respondent's action in not informing the Petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect. On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory. Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the Petitioner but on the Respondent. This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. v. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569."
25. In the case of MAHYCO Seeds Ltd. Vs. Subhash Shrihari Devkore & Ors., III (2013) CPJ 150 (Mah. State Commission), Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, has observed in paragraph nos. 17 & 18 thus :-
"17. These Panchanamas also does not reflect any specific opinion of officers about the purity of Jawar seeds. Both Panchnamas appear that it were prepared as per say of the complainants. Moreover these Panchanamas reflect that as per the say of the complainants the Jawar crops were affected by disease and therefore there was no expected growth. Panchanama dated 31.03.3007 reflects that when the complainants had contacted the representative of opponent company they were asked to spray Biozyme and D.A.P. pesticides. Further Panchanama dated 12.4.2007 prepared by Revenue Circle Inspector, Petwadaj clearly reflects that Jawar crops were affected by a disease and accordingly he has mentioned that crops are affected by disease. Thus, on any // 16 // count both the Panchanamas are not at all useful for the complainants. On the contrary, both these Panchanamas falsify the contention of complainants that seeds were defective and opponent company has committed deficiency in service, etc. But it appears from the impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without appreciating all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that Jawar seed which were supplied by opponent company to the complainants were defective and further opponent company committed deficiency in service. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
18. Lastly, orally as well as by submitting additional written notes of arguments, Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants alternatively submitted to remand the matters back to the District Consumer Forum directing to decide afresh by obtaining expert evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. According to him as per the Government Circular the seed committee though required to inspect the field in presence of the representative of opponent company, the Guidelines given in the circular are not mandatory and therefore on such technical ground complainants should not suffer. But for the forgoing reasons that Panchanamas prepared by Agriculture Development Officer and Seeds Quality Control Inspector as well as Revenue Circle Inspector are not legal, submission of Mr. Lavekar that complainant's claim cannot be dismissed on technical ground, cannot be sustained. As far as his request for remanding of matter is concerned, he has also tried to support his submission by relying on decision of National Commission in the case of J.K. Agri-Genetics & Ors. V. Siddula Ramesh, etc., 2008 (1) CPR 42 (NC) and decision dated 23.2.2011 of this Commission in M/s Nirmitee Biotech v. Shri Anandrao Namdev Patil. But with due respect both these citations of National Commission as well as these State Commission cannot be applicable to the present cases as the facts are quite different. In the present cases, as sample of disputed Jawar seeds is not preserved, now it is not possible to obtain any expert report. Considering the facts of the present cases in our view it will be futile to remand back the matters to District Consumer Forum. Therefore, submission of Mr. Lavekar, learned Counsel for the complainants to remand the matters cannot be considered."
26. In the instant case, in document - P-7 it is mentioned that the appellant/complainant again sown soyabean seeds in his field and // 17 // their germination of the seeds was upto standard. According to document P-7, the appellant/complainant sown the soyabean seeds for the second time in his field but the appellant/complainant had not filed any documents, which shows that he again purchased soyabean seeds from the concerned dealer. On the basis of document P-7, it cannot said that the soyabean seeds purchased by the appellant/complainant from the respondent No.O.P. No.2/ were of sub-standard quality and their germination was not proper. The appellant/complainant could not file any documents regarding poor germination of the soyabean seeds. Even the appellant/complainant could not file affidavits of those farmers, whose fields were adjacent to the field of the appellant/complainant. Even the appellant/complainant did not file Certificate of Sarpanch or Panchayat regarding the poor germination of the seeds. On the contrary from perusal of document R-2 (Result Sheet), dated 12.01.2011, it appears that soybean seeds which were sold to the appellant/complainant were upto standard and the percentage of germination of the seeds was 71%.
27. We have perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum. We find that the learned District Forum has rightly reached to the conclusion that appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that the respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 had sold him defective seeds and due to use of defective seeds, the appellant/complainant suffered // 18 // financial loss and mental agony. On the contrary, from the documents filed by the respondent No.1/O.P. No.1 it appears that percentage of germination of Soyabean Seed was 71% i.e. above than the prescribed standard, therefore, it cannot be held that the seeds purchased by the appellant/complainant from the respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 was defective or were of substandard quality.
28. Therefore, the learned District Forum, has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant and the impugned order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
29. In view of above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S.Sharma) (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/04/2014 /04/2014