State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahyco Seeds Limited, vs Shri Yashwant Mahadev Basate, on 30 August, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBLE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Appeal
No.1587/2007 Date of filing:
15/12/2007
In Complaint No.377/2004
Date of order: 30/08/2010
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Solapur
Mahyco Seeds Limited,
Resham Bhavan, 4th
Floor
78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai.
..Appellant/
(Org. Opp.Party No.2)
V/s.
1.
2.
3.
Shri Yashwant Mahadev
Basate,
R/o At Post Warkue,
Tq. Mohol,
District Solapur.
Shri Dhanaji Yashwant
Basate,
R/o.At Post
Bhandakawthe,
Tq.South Solapur,
District Solapur.
M/s.Siddharth Seeds &
Agro Engineers,
93, M.G. Road, Budhwar
Peth,
District Solapur.
..Respondents/
(Org.Complainants)
Respondent/
(Org.Opp.Party No.1)
Quorum:
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member.
Present:
Mr.S.S. Tawarawala, Advocate for the Appellant Mr.Prasad Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
None for the Respondent No.3.
-:
ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18.10.2007 passed in consumer Complaint No.377/2004, Shri Yashwant Mahadev Basate & Anr. V/s M/s.Siddharth Seeds & Agro Engineers & Anr., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (Forum below in short).(2)
This consumer complaint pertains to defective crop of cotton after sowing seed manufactured by Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited and purchased from Respondent No.1 Siddharth Seeds & Agro Engineers. It is the case of the Respondents/Org.Complainants that they had suffered loss due to defective seeds supplied and, therefore, consumer complaint was filed after getting the report of the Jillha Biyane Takrar Nivaran Samiti. The Forum below upholding the contention of the Complainant directed both Opposite Parties to pay compensation of `30,000/- towards loss of crop, `3,000/-
as compensation for the mental torture and `1,000/-
as cost. Feeling aggrieved thereby original Opposite Party No.2 Mahyco Seeds Limited has preferred this appeal.
(3)Opposite Party No.2 M/s.Siddharth Seeds & Agro Engineers has not preferred any appeal.
(4)Heard Mr.S.S. Tawarawala, Advocate for the Appellant, Mr.Prasad Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appeared for Respondent No.3. Perused record.
(5)In the instant case, Complainant solely relied upon the report of Jillha Biyane Takrar Nivaran Samiti, Solapur based upon its visit to the site on 04.10.2004. They recorded facts after seeing the crop and certifying that the loss was due to defective seeds. It appears that notice dated 04.10.2004 was given for the said inspection. It was addressed to the members of the said Committee including manufacturer/Appellant.
(6)Referring to the Government Circular giving guidelines to the Jillha Biyane Takrar Nivaran Samiti, in the absence of any mention about visit to the adjoining plot where the similar cotton crop was taken and in the absence of any action to collect the sample of the seed, it cannot be said that the directions and guidelines issued as per the circular were followed in this case. This diminishes the evidenciary value of said report. Except the report there is nothing on record to show that seed in question was defective. Even if the seed is good, due to defective or improper cultivation and/or not observing many other niceties of the cultivation, the yield of the crop gets affected. In the absence of any evidence to eliminate those other probabilities, it cannot be said that the condition of the crop noticed by the committee was solely correlates to the alleged defect in the seeds. It is for the Complainant to establish his case that the damage was due to defective seed only. From the evidence and material placed on record it cannot be said that the Complainant discharged the burden to that effect. In the circumstances, we cannot support the finding as against the Appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 18/10/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.377/2004 is set aside (as against the appellant) and the complaint stands dismissed as against the appellant/org.
Opposite Party No.2 only.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(Dhanraj Khamatkar) ( S.R. Khanzode ) Member Presiding Judicial Member ep