State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahyco Seeds Limited vs Mr. Gopal Eknath Badgujar on 21 July, 2010
1 F.A. No. 976-06
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing :23.05.2006
Date of Order:21.07.2010
FIRST APPEAL NO. 976 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 565 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGOAN.
1. Mahyco Seeds Limited
4th Floor, Resham Bhavan,
78, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai- 20.
2. M/s. Khandesh Agro Agencies
Main Road, Erandole,
Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellants
//VERSUS//
1. Mr. Gopal Eknath Badgujar
2. Mrs. Bhatabai Eknath Badgujar
Both r/o. Erandol, Tq. Erandol,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. K. B. Kachhava, appeared for appellant.
Adv. S. P. Katneshwarkar :: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. Mahyco Seeds Limited and M/s. Khandesh Agro Agencies appellants herein challenges the order in complainant case No. 565/2005 decided on 31.03.2006.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-2 F.A. No. 976-06
Gopal Eknath Badgujar & Mrs. Bhatabai Eknath Badgujar resident of Erandol, District Jalgaon are owners of land Gat No.1291/1 admeasuring 41-R and G.No. 1292/1 admeasuring 99-R of village Erandole. Complainants' purchased B.T. cotton seeds from the respondents and sowed in their lands after performing all the agricultural operations properly. For the said purpose they have incurred expenses. The seeds were sown in the month of May-2004. It is found in the month of August that there was 50 % genetical mixing up of cotton plants. The leaves of 50% crop became red and bolls also became radish black and started falling down, therefore they approached to quality control officer, panchayat samiti. The said officer visited the field on 18.08.2004. He submitted his report. According to said report the leaves and bolls of the cotton were becoming black and falling down. It is also mentioned in the report that growth of crop is slow. It is also mentioned in the report that there is a effect of green thrifs on the crop. After receiving the said report complainant approached the District Forum by demanding compensation.
3. Respondent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- for mental agony.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order Mahyco Seeds Limited came in appeal
6. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Adv. K. B. Kachhava, appeared for appellant and Adv. Katneshwarkar appeared for respondent. Adv. Kachhava for appellant submitted that, no notice of inspection by quality control officer is issued to the appellant and 3 F.A. No. 976-06 therefore report of said officer is not binding on the appellant. It is further submitted that District Forum did not follow the provision of Section 13 (1) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act, while allowing the complaint. In absence of report of any expert about the quality of seeds it can not be said that seeds are defective. Adv. Kachhava further submitted that, the report of quality control officer clearly mentions that crop was attacked by the green thrifs within short period of the sowing.
As the crop was affected by the disease it can not be said that, seeds are defective. In support of his argument he produced some judgments of State Commission and National Commission.
i) I (2000) CPJ 439, Andhra Pradesh State Commission in Kesari Venkata Reddy vs. Anaparthy Venkata Chalapathi Rao & Anr.
ii) III (2006) CPJ 269, Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai, in KhamgaonTaluka Bagayatdar Shetkari & Fale (Fruits) Vikri Sah. Sanshta Khamgaon Vs. Babu Kutti Daniel.
iii) II (2009) CPJ 414, Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai, in Somnath Kashinath Ghodse Vs. Vilas Gangaram Gladioli Grawori Vs. Ram Babu.
iv) II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) in Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram.
v) II (2005) CPJ 47 (NC) in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Kopolu Sambasiva Rao & Ors.
7. Adv. S. P. Katneshwarkar, appeared for respondent submitted that the quality control officer is responsible officer and his report can not be disbelieved. He submitted that complainant after performing the agricultural operations had sown the seeds. Complainant also sprayed the insecticides to prevent the disease. This fact is cleared from the inspection report of the quality control officer. He further submitted that, 4 F.A. No. 976-06 according to said report there is 50% adulteration in the crop and for that purpose only defectiveness of seeds is responsible. District Forum rightly considered all the facts and record and allowed the complaint.
8. We heard both the counsels at sufficient length and perused the record. Its admitted fact that complainant purchased the seeds from the appellant. It appears from report that complainant suffered the loss due to falling of leaves and bolls. But, it is apparent from the report of quality control officer that crop was affected by green thrifts within short period of sowing of the seeds. When the crop is affected by the disease it can not be connected with the quality of seeds. The quality of seeds is not responsible for affecting the crop. Report of quality control officer nowhere mentions that due to defectiveness of seeds crop was affected. The said report only explains the factual position of the crop. Said report is silence about quality of seeds. In the absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds no interference can be drawn against the Seed Company. As the crop is affected by the disease and no clear finding is given by the responsible officer about the quality of seeds, we are not inclined to uphold the order of District Forum. District Forum did not consider all the facts and record in right perspective, while allowing the complaint. Hence, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed & judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
2. Complaint stands dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
(Mrs.Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
5 F.A. No. 976-06
Kalyankar