Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Manikrao Ramrao ... vs Pankaj Seeds And Fertilizer ... on 1 July, 2010

                                1                      F.A.No.:68 to 78/08




                                Date of filing :21.01.2008
                                Date of order :01.07.2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


APPEAL NOS. :68 TO 78 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NOS.: 37 TO 47 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : HINGOLI.


1.

F.A.No. : 68/08 IN C.C.No. 37/07. Keshavrao Dharrao Patange, R/o Kondhur,Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

2. F.A.No. : 69/08 IN C.C.No. 38/07.

Vitthalrao Shivram Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Jinturkar Krushi Seva Kendra, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents) 2 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08

3. F.A.No. : 70/08 IN C.C.No. 39/07.

Bajirao Bhagwanrao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Jinturkar Krushi Seva Kendra, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

4. F.A.No. : 71/08 IN C.C.No. 40/07.

Bharat Sahebrao Magar, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

5. F.A.No. : 72/08 IN C.C.No. 41/07.

Manikrao Ramrao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents) 3 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08

6. F.A.No. : 73/08 IN C.C.No. 42/07.

Gulabrao Rangrao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Jinturkar Krushi Seva Kendra, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

7. F.A.No. : 74/08 IN C.C.No. 43/07.

Gajanan Sambharao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

8. F.A.No. : 75/08 IN C.C.No. 44/07.

Ranjanabai Sureshrao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, 4 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08 Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

9. F.A.No. : 76/08 IN C.C.No. 45/07.

Taterao Sambharao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

10. F.A.No. : 77/08 IN C.C.No. 46/07.

Vasantrao Sambharao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents)

11. F.A.No. : 78/08 IN C.C.No. 47/07.

Aban Dattarao Patange, R/o Kondhur, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli. ...APPELLANT (Org.Complainant) Versus.

1. Pankaj Seeds and Fertilizer Pesticide Police Station, Kalamnuri, Tq.Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli.

5 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08

2. Nath Seeds Ltd., Bath House Nath Road, Post Box No.318, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Org.Opponents) CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.B.S.Shinde for appellants, Adv.Smt.Gopalkar for respondent No.1, Adv.Shri.S.S.Tawarawala for respondent No.2.

O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. F.A.No. 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78 of 2008 & 70, 71, 74 of 2008 these appeals have been filed by original complainants against the common judgment and order dated 30.10.2007 in complaint case No. 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 of 2007 & 39, 40, 41 of 2007 respectively passed by District Consumer Forum, Hingoli.

2. Appellants/org.complainants cases before the Forum are that, each of the appellant purchased seeds bag of Varun-444 BT(UPL) from respondent NO.1 produced by respondent No.2 on respective dates mentioned in the complaint. It is contended that each appellant sowed the seeds in question in their respective land. There was germination of seeds. After 8 to 10 days plants were dried and thus appellants approached the Block Development Officer. It is contended that Seeds Grievance Committee visited the field and drew the panchanama. As per report of Agriculture Officer, Z.P.Hingoli, appellant approached the Forum.

3. Both the respondents appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that complainants are not consumers as defined under Consumer Protection Act. It is also contended that 6 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08 seeds purchased by complainants were not defective and there is no evidence regarding the same.

4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaints by common judgment and order.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Hingoli, original complainants came in appeal.

6. Notices were issued to the respondents. Learned counsel Smt.Gopalkar appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, learned counsel Shri.S.S.Tawarawala appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. We heard learned counsel Shri.B.S.Shinde for appellants and learned counsel Smt.Gopalkar for respondent No.1, learned counsel Shri.Tawarawala for respondent No.2. Appellants also filed applications for condonation of delay. Delay has been properly explained by appellants. Delay is condoned.

7. We perused the papers. On perusal of papers, it reveals that complainant in appeal No.77/08(in C.C.No.46/07) and in appeal No.78/08( in C.C.No.47/07) appellants did not file purchase receipt of the seed in question. So there is absolutely nothing to show that complainants had purchased the seeds from respondent No.1 produced by respondent No.2.

8. In appeal No.68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76 of 2008 receipts of purchase of seeds are brought on record. Those are not in the name of complainants who approached before the Forum. Nothing is disclosed in the complaints about relationship of persons who purchased the seeds. Forum has rightly observed that the complainants in the absence of any proof or pleading can not be said to be consumers.

7 F.A.No.:68 to 78/08

9. In appeal No.70, 71 & 74, complaints have been dismissed by the Dist.Forum on the ground that there is no evidence to show that seeds in question were defective due to which complainants suffered the loss. On perusal of papers, it reveals that copies of panchanamas drawn by Dist.Seeds Committee are brought on record. It is nowhere mentioned that plants were dried due to defect in the seeds. Even so called report brought on record also nowhere whisper about defectiveness of seeds. Forum has rightly considered all these aspects. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to admit the appeals. We pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. All the appeals are dismissed summarily.

2. No order as to cost.

3. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh Member Presiding Judicial Member.

Mane