State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sudarshan Krushi Agencies vs 1. Mahendra Baburao Shelke on 20 January, 2015
1 F.A. No. 299,300-11
MAHARASTHRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
AURANGABAD
Date of filing: 14.06.2011
Date of Order:
20.01.2015
(1)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 209 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR
M/s. Sudarshan Krushi Agencies
Through its, Proprietor
Vilas Bapurao Chillawar
R/o. Shivam Lodge Complex,
Opp. Shivneri Gate, Latur. ... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Mahendra Baburao Shelke
R/o. Ramegaon,Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur.
2. District Manager,
(MHADA)
Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd.,
A.P.M.C.Building, Shri. Chatrapati
Shivaji Market, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur.
3. Seeds Producer & Distribution Co.
Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd.,
Mahabeej Bhavan,Krushi Nagar, Akola. ... Respondents
(2)
FIRST APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 209 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR
District Manager, (Mahabeej)
Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd.,
A.P.M.C.Building, Shri. Chatrapati
Shivaji Market, Latur, Tq. & Dist.Latur. ... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Mahendra Baburao Shelke
2
R/o. Ramegaon,Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur.
2. The Manager, M/s. Sudarshan Krushi Agencies
R/o. Shivam Lodge Complex,
Opp. Shivneri Gate, Latur. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. A. K. Jawalkar for opponent dealer.
Adv. Shri. D. S. Kulkarni for opponent Seed Company.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
Per Shri. K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member (Delivered on 20 th January, 2014)
1. Both these appeals have been emerged from the judgment and order dated 20.04.2011 passed by District Forum, Latur in consumer complaint No.200/2009, whereby complaint is partly allowed by holding the original opponents-1 to 3 as liable for deficiency in service. Appeal No.299/2011 is filed by the original opponent no.1 who is dealer of the seeds, and is hereinafter referred as "opponent dealer". Whereas, appeal No. 300/2011 is filed by the original opponent no.2 who is the branch officer of the Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Limited and representative of the Seed Company i.e. original opponent no.3, is hereinafter referred as "opponent Seed Company". The opponent no.1 in both the appeals is the original complainant and is hereinafter referred as "complainant".
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the complainant Mahendra Bapurao Shelke is a member of joint family having land from Gut No.464 admeasuring 1 hector 03 R and the same is in the name of his mother Smt. Kashibai Shelke. The complainant submitted that he had purchased 3 bags of Soyabeen Seeds of the variety of JS-335 from the lot No. 1164 on 15.06.2007 from the opponent seed company. He further submitted that, part of the said seed sown in the land on 23.06.2007 admeasuring 60 R from Gut No. 464 and the remaining seed was sown in 3 F.A. No. 299,300-11 the land admeasuring 60 R from Gut No. 401 owned by Shri. Pralhad Tatyarao Shirole which was being cultivated by complainant for two years 2006 to 2008 in lieu of money which was lend to the said owner of the land. It was submitted by him that before sowing the seeds he had properly prepared the land and also applied manure as well as fertilizers etc for which he spent Rs.10,160/- which included cost of the seeds. The complainant however contended that, despite taking precaution regarding proper preparation of land germination of seed was very poor. He had therefore approached to the opponent dealer and told him about the improper germination of the seeds. That, the dealer had assured that the complainants representative would inspect his land as well as the land of other farmers who had sown the seed of same lot No. 1164. However, no representative of the company visited the field and the dealer also denied to pay any compensation. The complainant therefore made complaint vide his application dated 02.07.2007 to the BDO Ausa and Agricultural Officer, Latur regarding improper germination of seeds. Accordingly Taluka Agricultural Officer, Ausa and Agricultural Officer, P.S. Ausa visited his crop from both the Gut Nos. on 02.07.2007 when the complainant himself and the owner of Gut No.401 namely Pralhad Shirole were present. That, these Agricultural Officers drew panchnama on
02.07.2007 and observed that, there was only 0.45% of germination in Gut No.464 and 1.78% in Gut No. 401 giving remarks that the improper germination was because of the defective seeds. He therefore issued notice dated 30.05.2009 to the appellants and also to the seed company i.e. original opponent no.3 claiming compensation Rs. 76,107/- which included the expected income at Rs.66,000/- and the amount of expenditure incurred towards cultivation of Rs.10,160/-. However since there was no response from the opponents the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to all the opponents to pay him a total compensation Rs.76,160/- and further compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint along with interest @ 16% p.a. 4
3. Both the appellants i.e. opponent dealer and opponent Seed Company appeared before Forum and by way of their separate written version contested the claim of the complainant. The claim of the complainant was denied on various among other grounds as given below:
It is submitted that the complainant had no any relevance with the lands as owned by Smt. Kashibai Shelke and Shri. Pralhad Shirole. Therefore the complainant has no locus standy to file this complaint. It was also contended that the panchanama was made by the concerned Agricultural Officer without giving any intimation regarding the date of inspection and hence the said panchanama was not binding on them. It was further contended that the complainant was not the consumer within the purview of the definition given under Consumer Protection Act. It was also averred by both the opponent dealer and the opponent seed company that, Soyabeen seeds of the said variety and of the same lot was purchased by various other farmers and that there was no any complaint. It is also the contention of the opponent dealer and the seed company that the panchanama conducted by the said Agricultural Officer did not specify the reasons regarding poor germination of the seeds. There are various other reasons or factors i.e. the type of land, its quality, application of fertilizers and pesticides etc. The opponent Seed Company also specifically submitted that before the seeds are marketed they are tested according to the provisions of Seed Act from the authorized and appropriate laboratory and after confirming its purity the seeds are sold in the open market and therefore the allegations regarding defective seeds cannot be accepted. The opponent dealer further contended that the seeds are sold in a sealed packet and therefore if at all there was any defect in the seeds he was not responsible. Thus on these grounds the claim of the complainant was denied and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. District Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties has partly allowed the complaint and directed opponents i.e. present appellants to pay to the complainant total compensation of Rs.31,500/- within a period of 30 days and also further 5 F.A. No. 299,300-11 compensation of Rs.3000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint. It is on the basis of panchanama drawn by the Taluka Agricultural Officer. The District Forum has held the seeds in question as defective and accordingly held the opponent dealer and the opponent seed company as liable for deficiency in service. The District Forum further on the basis of the report of the District Agricultural Officer and on enquiry with the Agriculture Produce Market Committee it has considered the expected yield of soyabeen at 7 to 8 quintal per acre and accordingly awarded the compensation by way of its impugned judgment and order.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeals are filed in this Commission which came to be finally heard together on 06.01.2015. Adv. Shri. A. K. Jawalkar for the opponent dealer and Adv. Shri. D. S. Kulkarni for the opponent seed company were present. The complainant though served with the notice did not remain present during the hearing of both the appeals and therefore the appeals were proceeded exparte against him. Both the counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted their written notes of arguments. We also heard them finally and appeals were adjourned for judgment and order.
6. We have carefully gone through the record containing the copies of the complaint, written version filed by both the dealer and opponent seed company, inspection report submitted by Taluka Agricultural Officer, extract of 7/12 record of both the Gut numbers, impugned judgment and order, appeal memo and written notes of augments as submitted by learned counsel for the opponent dealer and for the opponent seed company. The only point which arises for our consideration is whether, the deficiency in service against the opponent dealer and the seed company is proved as alleged by the complainant and as held by the District Forum.
67. The grounds on the basis of which the complainant has alleged the deficiency in service against both the appellants/opponents is the defective seeds of soyabeen as supplied by the opponent dealer as manufactured by the opponent seed company. It is on the basis of the inspection report dated 02.07.2007 conducted by Taluka Agricultural Officer and Agriculture Officer, Panchayat Samiti. The complainant has supported his allegation about defective seeds and the said allegation is upheld by the District Forum on the basis of the same inspection report.
8. The question is therefore whether this inspection report has evidentiary value. As contended by the learned counsel Shri. A. K. Jawalkar, appearing for the opponent dealer that the inspection report bears the signature of only two members out of the 7 members of the District Seed Dispute Redressal Committee. In fact, as per the Government Circulation dated 27.03.1992 issued by Directorate of Agricultural, Maharashtra State and the further circular dated 29.03.2005 issued by Agriculture Department, the Government has appointed 7 members committee for looking into the dispute raised by the farmers regarding defective seeds. As per the said circular the representative of the dealer of the seed and also of the seed company are required to be intimated about the date of inspection by the concerned committee and the statement of these representatives is also required to be recorded and the same is binding on the committee. However, in the present case it is revealed that only the Taluka Agricultural Officer and the Agricultural Officer from the panchayat samiti have inspected the said crop in question and submitted their report. It is further revealed that the representatives of the opponent dealer as well as opponent Seed Company were not intimated and the inspection was done behind their back. It is further to be noted that as submitted by the complainant in his complaint he has submitted his application complaining about defective seeds to the Taluka Agricultural officer and to the B.D.O. on 02.07.2007 and the inspection report has doubtful and the same cannot be relied as authenticated evidence.
7 F.A. No. 299,300-119. It is further to be noted that as per the contention of the complainant he sown the seeds in question in the land from Gut No.464 and 401. However, as per the 7/12 extract produced before us the Gut Nos. 464 stands in the name of the mother of the complainant and Gut No.401 in the name of Shri. Pralhad Shirole. Though the complainant has contended that, he has cultivated the land from Gut No.401 for two years i.e. 2006 to 2008 in lieu of the money lend to the owner of the said land namely Shri. Pralhad Shirole. However he has not produced any agreement or other documents to support his said statement. Therefore although in case of Gut No.464 which stands in the name of his mother he can be entitled to cultivate the land in case of Gut No.401 he has not produced any documents to show that he was authorized to cultivate the said land. It is further to be noted that from the perusal of 7/12 record of both the Gut numbers there is no crop entry regarding sowing the crop of soyabeen crop in the year 2006-07.
10. We therefore find that the complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands and there is also no proof on the basis of which the seeds produced by the complainant can be treated as defective. As pointed out by learned counsel Shri. Jawalkar for the opponent dealer and Adv. Shri. Kulkarni for opponent seed company the germination of seed depends not only on the quality of seeds but on other agro-climatic factors such as type of soil, temperature, rain fall, the method of sowing, application of fertilizers etc. However, the District Forum appears to have not considered all these aspects and on the basis of the said inspection report which otherwise is not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Government has wrongly concluded the seeds as defective and held the opponent dealer and the opponent seed company liable for deficiency in service. We are therefore constrained to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing both the appeals. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 8
1. Both the appeals nos. 299/2011 and 300/2011 are allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
(K. B. Gawali) (S.M. Shembole)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar