State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahyco Seeds Limited vs Shri. Umakant Pandurang Jawade on 4 March, 2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Date of filing : 17.10.2005 Date of Order : 04.03.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1975 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 259,260,261,263,26 OF 2004 & 20/2005. DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON. Mahyco Seeds Limited 4th Floor, Resham Bhavan, 78 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant -VERSUS- 1. Shri. Umakant Pandurang Jawade (C.C.No.259/2004) R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. M/s. Sakharam Patel & Company Gul Market, Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. M/s. Krishi Seva Kendra, Kavha Road, Latur. 1. Shri. Babu Gyanba Shinde (C.C.No.260/2004) R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. M/s. Vasant Seeds Kava Road, Dist. Latur. 1. Shri. Ramesh Chandrahas Patil (CC. No.261/2004) R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. Murari Krishi Seva Kendra Near Bus Stand, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 1. Shri. Ratnagir Shivgir Giri R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. Shrisailesh Krishi seva Kendra In front of S.T. Bus Sgtand, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. 1. Shri. Balu Vitthal Mali (C.C.No.264/2004) R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. M/s. Sangram Krishi Seva Kendra Main Road, Ausa, Dist. Latur. 1. Shri. Bhalchandra Pandu Shinde (C.C.No.20/2005) R/o. Nagarsoga, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 2. M/s. Karanje Krishi Seva Kendra Near Bus Stand, Ausa, District: Latur. Respondents Coram : 1) Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
2) Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv.
K. B. Kachhava, for appellant.
Adv. R. M. Sutar, for all the respondents.
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Mrs. Uma S. Bora, Hon,ble Member
1. Mahyco Seeds Limited, Mumbai challenges in this appeal order passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur by its judgment and order dated 02.08.2005. The said order under challenge is passed by common judgment in Complaint Case Nos. 259, 260, 261, 263, 264 OF 2004 & 20/2005 against the said judgment appellant filed only one appeal.
2. Complainants are all agriculturists and the resident of Nagarsoga Dist. Latur. All the complainants purchased sunflower seeds produced by the original opponent no.1/appellant herein and sold by respective dealers. The said seeds were purchased in the month of June-2004. The seeds were germinated very well.
Growth was also very well but it was found that, the flowers are multi headed flowers therefore, quality of flowers was affected. All the complainants approached the Dist. Agriculture Officer. The Seeds Grievance Committee accordingly inspected the fields of all the complainants and submitted their report. As per said reports the crop which was bearing multi headed flowers is more than 50%. It is also concluded that there must be mixture of male quality seeds in hybrid quality seeds therefore, there are multi headed flowers, and therefore there will be loss in yield.
After receiving said report all the complainants approached to District Forum.
3. Opponent/appellant appeared before Dist. Forum and resisted the complaint. It is submitted that, the germination of seeds was proper. Growth of crop was also proper but, for the forming multi headed flowers other factors are responsible. It is contended by opponents that 7/12 extract of all the complainants were not produced therefore their possession or ownership of the agriculture field is doubtful. Before the completion of stipulated period inspection was carried therefore finding of committee can not be said to be correct or true.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum granted compensation to all the complainants.
5. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties in appeal. Adv. K. B. Kachhava, appeared for appellant. Adv. R. M. Sutar, appeared for all the respondents. Adv. Kachhava submitted that, it is an admitted fact that seeds were purchased by the complainants but as 7/12 extract were not produced by complainant, it can not be said that they sowed the seeds in their own lands. The land area mentioned in the complaint and mentioned in the report of Seeds Grievance Committee is not the same but it differs therefore, it creates doubt about genuineness of the complaint. Seeds were sold in the month of June and inspection was carried on 25.08.2004, it seems that committee inspected the field before stipulated period of maturity of crops. Adv. Kachava further submitted that, no details about the receipt of yield produced by the complainant neither proof about loss have been submitted by the complainants. Forming of multi headed flowers depend upon many other facts like climate, irrigation, quality of soil etc. Committee did not follow the procedure for inspection prescribed by Government Regulation. Even Dist.
Forum did not follow the procedure of C. P. Act. Seeds would have been sent to the Government Laboratory for testing. Without giving any reason Dist. Forum granted the compensation.
Adv. Kachava relied on the judgment of National Commission in Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs. Babu Ram reported in II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) in which it is held by National Commission that, absence of clear finding regarding quality of seeds supplied no interference can be drawn against petitioner non-standard quality of seeds not proved compliant dismissed by Forum. Order set aside in appeal.
6. Adv.
Sutar, for the complainants/ respondents contended that, there were six complaints filed by the complainants. But, only one appeal was filed by the appellant which is not maintainable. He submitted that receipts of purchase of seeds and 7/12 extracts of each complainant were produced before the Dist. Forum. Notices of inspection by Seeds Grievance Committee were issued to the Seeds Company and its dealers, but, they did not remain present at the time of inspection. The Seeds Grievance Committee is of expert in the field of agriculture therefore their report can not be neglected. It is clearly mentioned in the report that more than 50% flowers are found multi headed and due to said multi headed flowers all the complainants will suffer loss. Complainants had grievance about multi headed flowers and not about germination or growth and therefore committee visited the fields at the time of harvesting all the flowers. He further submitted that Dist. Forum considering all the facts and record rightly granted the compensation. He prayed that as District Forum did not grant interest on the said compensation, interest be granted.
7. We heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. It is crystal clear that, complaints are not about germination of the seeds or growth of crops but those are for multi headed flowers which affected the yield of sunflower therefore; the judgment in Sonekaran Gladioli (Supra) is not applicable in the instant case. The report of Seeds Grievance Committee clearly mentions that more than 50% plants are having multi headed flowers and due to said farmers will suffer the loss. In the sunflower crop only one flower of best quality to each stem is required to bear as there are multi headed flowers the quality of total yield can be affected. The Seeds Company could have made application before Dist. Forum and requested the Forum to send the seeds to the Government Laboratory for testing. But Company also did not tried to get tested the seeds. Even no report of any expert to counter the report of Seeds Grievance Committee has been produced by the Seeds Company. As the Seeds Grievance Committee is of expert in the field of agriculture their report can not be neglected. Seeds Company could have produced the evidence to show that, for forming the multi headed flowers is the result of other factors and not the quality of seeds. We are relying on the judgment of National Commission in various judgments in Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Kondabrolu Hasen Rao & Ors, reported in II (2008) CPJ 165 (NC). It is held that defective growth of plant noticed3-4 type of plants observed- report of horticulture officer produced in support No expert report produced to counter report of horticulture officer.
In Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahavir Singh reported in II 2009 CPJ 395 (NC). National Commission held that, Seeds- Mixture in nature-alleged-mixed nature crop grown, did not give proper yield-- Allegations proved by inspection report and independent agriculture officer- complaint allowed by Forum upholding in appeal.
In this case inspection by the committee was done. Report of committee was on record. The said report was not countered by the Seed Company even Seed Company did not try to test the seeds from appropriate laboratory. Dist. Forum after considering all the facts rightly granted the compensation in proportionate of holding of land to each complainant. We do not want to disturb the said finding. Hence, the order.
* O R D E R *
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
Mrs.Uma S. Bora S. G. Deshmukh Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar