State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govind V. Raje vs Rajeshwari Krishi Bhandar & Anr. on 10 June, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2008 Date of filing : 13/03/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 162 OF 2002 Date of order : 10/06/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOLAPUR Govind V. Raje At Gunjagao, Tal. South Solapur, Dist. Solapur. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. 1. Rajeshwari Krishi Bhandar 18A North Kasba, Panjarapol Chowk, Balives Road, Solapur. 2. Spic Ltd., Biotechnology Division, 97, Mount Road, Anna Salav Chennai 32, Tamilnadu. Respondents/org. O.Ps. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : None for the appellant as well as for the respondent.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by org. complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the Forum below vide impugned order dated 22/02/2008 delivered in consumer complaint No.116/2002.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainant is resident of Gunjagao, Taluka South Solapur, Dist. Solapur having agricultural land of 2 Hector & 40 R at Gat No.45/1. Complainant had purchased watermelon SPW-6 seeds from O.P.No.1/ Rajeshwari Krishi Bhandar, Solapur. According to the complainant, as per instructions given he had cultivated said seeds and he received some crop of watermelon of various sizes, but he had not got expected yield. Hence, he had reported this fact by making complaint to the Agriculture Development Officer, Solapur. The Agriculture Development Officer deputed Part-time Quality Inspector who then submitted report to the Agriculture Development Officer. Report was to the effect that watermelon seed manufactured by O.P.No.2 supplied through O.P.No.1 was defective. Hence, on receipt of this report, complainant filed consumer complaint claiming damages of Rs.4,50,000/- for supplying sub-standard quality of seeds and also prayed for Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
O.P.No.1/dealer denied the complainants allegations. According to O.P.No.1, O.P.No.2 supplied seeds of 10.5 kg. to the nearby field owners in Solapur District and also sold 103 kg.
seeds at other places from that particular lot. None except the complainant had made any complaint. Others were satisfied with the performance of their quality of seeds. According to O.P.No.1 complainant is not an agriculturist. He is a government employee and he is cultivating his land with the help of agricultural labours and is not monitoring the day-to-day development/growth of his crop. He pleaded that insecticides were not sprayed on the said plants and plants were found with some diseases and because of spread of disease, sizes of the watermelon were different and ultimate yield were found to be not as per expectations. O.P.No.1 also pleaded that two types of seeds were sowed by the complainant in his field and therefore, two sizes of watermelon were reaped by him. Therefore, O.P.No.1 pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
O.P.No.2 denied the allegations of sub-standardness in the seeds sowed by the complainant. According to the O.P.No.2, seed produced by the Company was best quality seed and after quality control testing certificate, seeds were packed and sold to the retailers. The Company pleaded that if farmer has got yield of watermelon of different sizes and different colours, then it may be presumed that farmer had sowed seeds of various types and not only the seeds manufactured by the said Company. O.P.No.2 pleaded that if there is no proper planning, if water supply is not adequately given, if soil is sub-standard and if there is climatic variation, then there can be decrease in production as cumulative effect. The Company also pleaded that 7/12 extract of the field of the complainant does not show that complainant had sown watermelon in that particular year. The Company also pleaded that at the time of inspection of the crop, Agriculture Development Officer had not called Companys Representative deliberately and they had not taken seeds from the complainant from the particular lot from which lot the seeds were purchased by the complainant from O.P.No.1 and therefore, O.P.No.2 pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below found that the Agriculture Development Officer himself had not gone to the field in question to inspect the crop. He had deputed one Part-time Quality Inspector and on the basis of report submitted by him, Agriculture Development Officer, Zillah Parishad, Solapur had issued certificate. The Forum below found that since certificate issued by District Agriculture Development Officer was without actual physical visit and inspection made by him, report of Part-time Quality Inspector is not useful to hold that seeds were defective in any manner. Moreover, complainant had not produced before the authority the sample of seeds from the said lot for quality testing and therefore, this was greatest handicap and therefore, Forum below brushed aside the report submitted by the Part-time Quality Inspector and held that complainant had failed to prove that there is any defect in the seeds supplied by O.P.No.1 and manufactured by O.P.No.2. The Forum below found that the case was not made out that there is any sub-standardness in the seeds manufactured by O.P.No.2 and therefore, it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant himself has filed this appeal.
Today, when we called out the matter, none is present for the parties. We perused the impugned judgement and relevant documents and we are finding that there is no merit in the appeal. Complaint was rightly dismissed by the Forum below. The reasons given by the Forum below for dismissal of complaint is appearing to be just and sustainable in law and we cannot take a different view in the matter than the view taken by the District Consumer Forum. In the circumstances, we are finding that the appeal is devoid of any merit. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.