State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pro Agro/Bayer Crop Science Company, vs Gokulabai Pandharinath Patil, on 20 December, 2012
1 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010
Date of filing:14.06.2010
Date of order:20.12.2012
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
F.A. NO.: 372 TO 381 OF 2010.
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. :54, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 50, 51, 53 & 90 OF
2009.
DISTRICT FORUM : NANDURBAR.
Pro Agro/Bayer Crop Science Company,
Gulmohar Archige 37/49,
Kahani Sajan Park,
Dulha Nagar, Kondhwa, Dist.Pune,
Through its Officer. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. F.A. NO.: 372/2010 IN C.C.NO.54/2009
i) Punju Narayan Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
ii) Dipak Narayan Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
2. F.A. NO.: 373/2010 IN C.C.NO.31/2009
Bhimrao Bandu Patil,
R/o Tembhe, Tq.Shahada,
Dist.Nandurbar.
3. F.A. NO.: 374/2010 IN C.C.NO.33/2009
Sow.Kalpana Sahebrao Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
4. F.A. NO.: 375/2010 IN C.C.NO.36/2009
Kishor Abaji Patil,
2 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
5. F.A. NO.: 376/2010 IN C.C.NO.39/2009
Popat Ragho Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
6. F.A. NO.: 377/2010 IN C.C.NO.40/2009
Shana Ragho Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
7. F.A. NO.: 378/2010 IN C.C.NO.50/2009
Kashinath Jayram Patil,
R/o Sindhgavhan, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
8. F.A. NO.: 379/2010 IN C.C.NO.51/2009
i) Gokulabai Pandharinath Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
ii) Dipak Pandharinath Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
9. F.A. NO.: 380/2010 IN C.C.NO.53/2009
i) Madhavrao Krushna Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
ii) Vijay Krushna Patil,
R/o Nimbhel, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar.
10. F.A. NO.: 381/2010 IN C.C.NO.90/2009
i) Dashrath Jhulal Patil,
R/o Shindgavan, Tq.& Dist.Nandurbar.
ii) Jijabai W/o Dashrath Patil,
R/o as above. ...RESPONDENTS.
Coram : Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
3 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010
Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.G.P.Shinde for appellant, Adv.Shri.M.G.Kochar for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. All these ten appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order as the common question of law and facts is involved in them. All these appeals are preferred by seeds manufacturer company who is shown either opponent No.2 or opponent No.3 as case may be in the original ten complaints filed by respondent No.1 herein against the said seeds manufacturer company and original opponent No.1 dealer from whom the seeds were purchased by the said complainants.
2. The common allegations made in each of the said ten complaints in brief are that respective complainants purchased Bajara seeds of variety bearing No.9332 of Lot No.204263 from the dealer who is shown opponent No.1 in each of the said complaints. The said seeds were sown by the complainants in their respective fields. There was germination of seeds and crop had grown and it came to the final stage of grain feeling. Though crops were grown properly, there was no proper grain feeling. It was confirmed that the Bajara seeds purchased by complainants from original opponent No.1 are having defects and therefore complainants sustained loss of the income. Said seeds were manufactured by the present appellant namely M/s Proagro/Bayer No.1 & 7. Therefore complaints were made to District Agriculture Officer. Accordingly, District Seeds Committee inspected the field of each of the complainant and prepared report stating that grain had no original characteristic and that percentage of defective grains in ear corn was 4 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 88.26% and grains were also small in size and immature. Thus Committee gave finding that seeds were defective and there was 88.26% loss in the yield. Therefore each of complainants filed separate complaint before the District Forum, Nandurbar claiming compensation with cost, from both original opponents who are dealer and manufacturer of the said Bajara seeds.
3. Original opponents appeared before the Forum and filed their written version. Opponent No.1 who is dealer, submitted that it is the authorized distributor appointed by manufacturer and it had purchased seeds in sealed packets and said sealed packets were sold to the respective complainants and therefore it is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.
4. Manufacturer of Bajara seeds in it`s written version submitted that complainants have cultivated crop on the basis of rain water and that in the year 2008 there was insufficient raining in Nandurbar and Dhule districts and it was necessary for the complainants to get tested the seeds in the laboratory and as such there is no report of laboratory obtained by the complainants. The manufacturer further submitted that yield depends on different climatic conditions i.e. weather, quality of soil, water supply, fertilizers, pesticides etc. and therefore it cannot be said that due to defective seeds complainants could not get sufficient yield. The manufacturer also submitted that other cultivators have not made such complaint against the said seeds. The manufacturer therefore submitted that all the complaints may be dismissed.
5. District Forum below after perusing papers , considering arguments and their respective defence came to the conclusion that each of the complainants are the consumers of opponent and that there is 5 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 deficiency in service provided by manufacturer to each of the complainants and therefore all the said complainants are entitled for compensation from the opponent manufacturer only. District Forum below placed reliance on District Seeds Grievance Committee`s report produced by complainants in support of their claim. District Forum below also observed that from affidavit of other agriculturist filed by manufacturer that they got yield of 8 to 10 quintals from each packet of seeds sown in their respective fields. Therefore District Forum below accepted the yield of 10 quintals per acre from the field of each of complainant. It also deducted actual income received by complainant from the crop of Bajara to the extent of 2.5 quintals per acre. District Forum also did not grant the expenses incurred by complainants for cultivation on the ground that expenses are included in the loss of income assessed by it. District Forum accordingly granted compensation assessed by it on ground of loss of yield. Moreover, Dist.Forum below granted compensation of Rs.3000/- towards mental harassment and cost of Rs.2000/-. It directed manufacturer to pay compensation described in the operative order and cost to each of the complainants within 30 days. It also directed that in case of default in making payment within a period of one month, said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.
6. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order passed in the aforesaid complaint, manufacturer of seeds i.e. M/s Pro Agro/Bayer Crop Science Company filed present 10 appeals which are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. It is also seen that delay of 23 days has been occurred in preferring these 10 appeals.
7. Adv.Shri.G.P.Shinde appeared for appellant in each of the appeals. Adv.Shri.M.G.Kochhar appeared for original complainants in each of appeals. Advocate of appellant moved an application to delete 6 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 the dealer from the array of the respondents as it is nominal party. After hearing, the said application is granted and accordingly name of dealer is deleted from all these ten appeals.
8. We have heard initially advocate of appellant and original complainants on delay condonation application. It is seen that there is delay of 23 days in filing all these ten appeals. Advocate of appellant made common submission in all these appeals that certified copy of impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2010 was received by appellant on 22.4.2010 and appellant sent the said copy of judgment to Head Office at Hyderabad for seeking approval for filing appeal and appellant made arrangement for fund on 21.5.2010 for filing appeal and appellant got official sanction from the office of Hyderabad on 25.5.2010 and all the papers and file were received from dealing advocate and there upon another advocate was engaged on 28.5.2010 for filing these appeals and thereafter all these appeals were filed on 14.6.2010. He thus submitted that delay of 23 days is occurred only because of completing aforesaid procedural aspects for filing appeal and hence said delay may be condoned.
On the other hand, Adv.Shri.M.G.Kochhar appearing for original complainants opposed the application on the ground that delay is not properly explained.
We have considered the material placed before us. We find the delay is of 23 days only. It has been occurred due to procedural aspects for filing appeal. Therefore we hold that delay has been properly explained and hence it needs to be condoned to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, delay of 23 days occurred in filing of these ten appeals is hereby condoned.
7 F.A.No. :372 to 381/20109. We also heard Adv.Shri.G.P.Shinde and Adv.M.G.Kochhar on merits of the appeals finally today with their consents. Advocate of the appellant made common submission in all these ten appeals that Dist.Forum below has not properly considered the evidence brought on record and passed the erroneous judgment and order. He also raised same contentions in his arguments as raised by manufacturer in it`s written version, which are reproduced above in brief. He further argued that District Forum has erroneously applied interest on the compensation of Rs.3000/- awarded towards mental agony and cost of Rs.2000/-. He submitted that when the compensation has been granted on account of loss sustained by complainant then again interest ought not to have applied to additional compensation of Rs.3000/-. He relied upon observations made by Hon`ble National Commission in the case of "M/s Ketan Consultants Pvt.Ltd. -Vs- Sanjiv P.Bansod and others"
reported in 1986-2002 Consumer 5927 (NS). In that case there was agreement with builder for construction and delivery of flats. Suit was filed by owner of the land and injunction was issued restraining appellant from handing over possession to respondents. Complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service on the part of builder. State Commission gave direction to refund amount deposited with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Appeal was preferred by builder before Hon`ble National Commission. It was held that appellant was deficient in rendering service. However Hon`ble National Commission also observed that as regards compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and loss of accommodation, we are of the view that having awarded interest as 18% there is no justification for any additional compensation .8 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010
It is thus submitted by advocate of appellant that as impugned judgment is not legal and proper, it may be set aside and all the complaints may be dismissed.
10. Adv.Shri.M.G.Kochar appearing for original opponents also made common submission in all ten appeals that District Forum below has given proper reasoning for arriving at conclusion. Therefore he supported the impugned judgment and order in all ten appeals. He also submitted that aforesaid case law relied upon by advocate of appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases as in that case, compensation was granted not only for harassment but also on loss of accommodation and interest was applied on it. He further submitted that facts of the present case are different from the facts of that case and hence said case law is not applicable to the present case. That he submitted that there is no merit in all these ten appeals and they may be dismissed.
11. We have considered the papers placed before us by both sides and submissions made before us by aforesaid advocates. It is not disputed that each of the original complainants had purchased Bajara seeds of the same variety from original dealer by paying price thereof to it. It is also not disputed that appellant is manufacturer of said seed. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of each of the complainants as supported by their respective affidavits. They after purchasing aforesaid Bajara seeds had sown the same, in their respective fields and that crop was grown in their respective fields after due cultivation. It is also seen from papers placed before us that after said Bajara crop came to the stage of feeling of grains, each of the complainants found that ear-corn of Bajara crop did not bear sufficient grains and that size of those grains was very small and that the crop did not get proper yield as expected. Therefore they 9 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 made complaint to the concerned District Agriculture Officer. It is also found from papers placed before us that District Seeds Committee inspected the field of each of the complainants and after due inspection submitted the report. Sum and substance of the said report is as follows.
" Bajara crop of 9332 variety as grown by complainant is inspected by Committee and it is found that grains are not having original characteristic of the aforesaid variety i.e. they are of small size pre- mature, scattered and not solid. Ears contain defective seeds to the extent of 88.26%. Agriculturist sustained loss of 88.26% due to the said defective seeds".
12. District Forum below has considered properly the said report of the District Seeds Committee. No doubt the complainants did not get tested the seed from any laboratory to prove that the seeds are defective. However, District Forum below has considered the decision of Hon`ble National Commission given in case of South Eastern Seeds Corporation - Vs- R.Shekhar @ Shridhar reported in I(2008) CPJ 158(NC). It is observed in it by Hon`ble National Commission that it is not binding on the agriculturist to keep some of the seeds and to send the same to the laboratory for testing. Therefore it is clear that it was not obligatory for the complainants to get tested the seeds from laboratory. It is also found that appellant could have got tested the seeds of the same variety in the laboratory in support of his case that they were of good quality and not defective. No such report is obtained by manufacturer in support of its defence. On the contrary, District Seeds Committee has clearly observed in the inspection report that seeds were defective and there is loss of income to the extent of 88.26% sustained by agriculturist due to 10 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 defective seeds. We find no reason to disbelieve said opinion given by District Seeds Committee. Therefore we hold that District Forum has rightly held that as the Bajara seeds manufactured by appellant were defective there is deficiency in service provided by it to the respective original complainants. Therefore it is liable to pay compensation to each of complainants.
13. Dist.Forum below has rightly considered the rate of per acre yield of the said crop as 10 quintals per acre considering the affidavit filed by appellant of the other agriculturists along with written version. Dist.Forum below has also rightly considered the rate of Bajara grains as Rs.800/- per quintal. Moreover, Dist.Forum below has also properly considered income of 2.5 quintals per acre obtained by each of the complainants. Dist.Forum has adjusted the said income of the complainant towards their respective claim of compensation. We thus find that Dist.Forum below has rightly assessed the loss sustained by each complainants and rightly awarded compensation on account of loss sustained by each of complainants on account of defective seeds manufactured by appellant. Dist.Forum below has granted compensation of Rs.3000/- towards mental harassment to nine complainants and granted compensation of Rs.3500/- to remaining one complainants. Moreover it also granted Rs.2000/- cost of each complaint. Dist.Forum granted time of 30 days to the appellant to pay compensation and cost awarded by it to each of complainants. It also observed that on failure to make said payment, said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. In our view grant of said compensation and cost and direction to pay these amount within 30 days is just and proper. We also find that grant of interest on said compensation and cost is also just and proper since the said interest is applied only after making default in payment of said amount within 30 days. The case on which reliance is 11 F.A.No. :372 to 381/2010 placed by advocate of appellant, compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded for harassment as well as loss of accommodation and therefore grant of interest over the same was found not justifiable. In these ten cases, 30 days time was granted to the appellant in making of payment. The facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above are totally different from those of the case relied upon by advocate of appellant. Therefore the said decision is not applicable to the present case.
14. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum in each of the aforesaid ten complaints. Those ten appeals thus deserve to be dismissed.
O R D E R
1. These ten appeals bearing Nos. 372/2010 to 381/2010 are hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Pronounced and dictated on 20.12.2012.
K.B.Gawali B.A.Shaikh, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane