State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sheti Beej Bhandar & Anr. vs Mahadeo Ganpati Bachate on 12 October, 2012
A-673-2011
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/673
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 09/03/2011 in Case No. 776/2009 of District Kolhapur)
1. SHETI BEEJ BHANDAR
LALCHAND COMPLEX VYAPARI PETH SHAHUPURI KOLHAPUR 416001
MAHARASHTRA
2. WARDHA SEEDS CO
NEAR HAVERI BUS STAND HAVERI TAL HAVERI
HAVERI
KARNATAKA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MAHADEO GANPATI BACHATE
R/O BHAIRESHWAR TAL KARVEER
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Chetan Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Dutta Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Kawde Honble Member:(1)
This is an appeal filed by the Appellants Sheti Beej Bhandar and Wardha Seeds Company, challenging the order dated 9th March, 2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.776/2009, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. The District Forum while allowing the consumer complaint preferred by the present Respondent/original Complainant, directed the Appellants/original Opponents to pay amount of `30,000/- together with `5,000/- as compensation and `1,000/- as cost of litigation, holding deficiency in service against the Appellants for supplying adulterated seeds of Paddy R-1 (F/S) of Rice.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied the Appellants/original Opponents have filed this appeal on the ground that District Forum did not appreciate the fact that for an optimum yield of paddy in 40R area if 40 kgs. of seeds are utilized then 18 quintal yield is expected and therefore, the contention of the Complainant that a yield of 60 quintals can be taken in the area of 40 R is absolutely untrue and incorrect. Against the 22 kgs of paddy seeds purchased by the Respondent/Complainant the maximum expected yield is 10 quintal and not 60 quintal as alleged by the Respondent/Complainant.(2)
Heard Advocate for the Appellants and the Respondent.
We have perused the record placed before us.(3)
Admitted facts on record are that Paddy seeds of Paddy R -1 was manufactured by the Appellant No.2/original Opponent No.2 which was supplied through Appellant No.1/original Opponent No.1. The paddy seeds purchased by the Respondent/Complainant was sown in the area of 40R. After about two and quarter month it was noticed that there was no adequate growth of the plants and promised by the present Appellants and therefore Respondent/original Complainant personally called on the Appellant No.1 to make the grievance about the growth of the Paddy plants. However, all his efforts were proved futile as his complaint was not attended by the Appellant No.1/Original Opponent No.1. The Complainant suspected adulteration in the seeds as there was no adequate and promised growth and did not find harvest as promised in each plant.
He made grievance but it went unheard.
Therefore, he was compelled to take up the matter with Agricultural Department of Zilla Parishad, i.e. District Level Grievances Redressal Committee, the Committee duly constituted by the Government. The Committee consisting of its Chairman i.e. Agricultural Development Officer and other six members, together with the Complainant farmer, visited the field and carried detail inspection and the committee unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was adulteration to the extent of 51% in the seeds used.(4)
Opportunity for the Appellants to produce documentary evidence to disprove the adulteration as alleged has not been availed of. Appellants have failed to adduce such evidence or the certification of the seeds from the competent authority, certifying about the purity of Paddy seeds.
The submission of Ld.Advocate for the Appellants that only 22 kgs. of paddy seeds were purchased by the Respondent/Complainant from the appellant No.1, the authorized dealer of Appellant No.2 (the manufacturer) every 40 kgs. of paddy seeds is required for the area of 40R and Respondent/Complainant has not made any statement about the source of procurement of balance 18 kgs. of seeds. It is difficult to believe this contention as this issue was never cropped up as can be seen from the report of the District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee nor any material is placed on record about the requirement of quantity of total paddy seeds for the area of 40R. Appellants have not made any submission about preserving of sample for seeds supplied for three years and the report about purity from the authorized laboratory or from the certifying officers of the concerned Government Department. The number of citations on which the District Forum has relied and taking into consideration those judgements passed by this State Commission, Honble National Commission have been taken into consideration. The sum and substance of all these judgements cited in the impugned order speaks about deficiency in service rendered by the manufacturer of seeds and/or authorized supplier thereof in supplying defective seeds to the farmers. Moreover, the Appellants have failed to prove that duty casts on them of preserving the sample of seeds sold and its report about purity of the seeds sold was discharged as held by the Honble Supreme Court in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. V/s. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. Onus to disprove the adulteration or impurity in the seeds supplied has not been duly discharged by the Appellants as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgement cited supra. The appeal is devoid of merit. Impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with and we cannot take different view, in view of the aforesaid discussion. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 12th October, 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep