National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jagdevrao vs Modhi Agro Jentix Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 26 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 427 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 23/12/2015 in Appeal No. 49/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. JAGDEVRAO S/O NAMDEV RAO SHINDE, NAVARI TQ. HADGAON, NANDED-431602 MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MODHI AGRO JENTIX PVT. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, NEW MONDHA, NANDED-431602 MAHARASHTRA 2. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. GOVERNMENTT. OF INDIA BEEJ BHAVAN POOSA PARISAR NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 26 May 2016 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Amol B. Karande, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 26th MAY, 2016
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 23.12.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad Bench, (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA/14/49, Jagdevrao vs Modhi Agro Jentix Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded on 05.12.2013, allowing consumer complaint no. 360/2011, filed by the present petitioner, was upheld.
2. The complainant/petitioner Jagdevrao is an agriculturist and resident of Newse, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded, having land at Mauje Nevri and Mauje Talang, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded. He purchased 50 bags of soyabean seeds of brand J.S. 335 from OP-1/R-1 on 01.06.2011 for Rs. 33,850/- for sowing the same in his fields. It is stated that he sowed the seeds in land measuring 19H11ARE, belonging to his family. However, he found that there was no proper germination on his fields, following which, he made a complaint with the Agricultural Officer, Hadgaon on 04.07.2011. A team of agriculture department visited his fields and a panchnama was also prepared. The complainant alleged that the seeds of soyabean were sub-standard and that he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 3,41,350/- on sowing of seeds. He claimed that he suffered a loss of Rs. 12 lakhs for non-production of soyabean. He filed the consumer complaint in question, demanding a total compensation of Rs. 15,41,350/- alongwith interest and also a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the alleged wrong and negligent services provided by the respondent and mental harassment undergone by him.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP-1/respondent by filing a reply before the District Forum, stating that the seeds were not tested by any Government laboratory. It could not be concluded, therefore, that there was any manufacturing defect in the said seeds. In the report of the Seeds Grievances Committee also, there was no complaint about the defectiveness of the seeds.
4. The District Forum partly allowed the said complaint and directed the OP-2, National Seeds Corporation to pay the price of the seeds i.e. Rs. 33,850/- to the complainant, alongwith Rs. 7,500/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as cost to the complainant. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant/petitioner challenged the same before the State Commission in the form of appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the orders passed by the consumer fora below were erroneous, because they had not considered the claim made in the complaint regarding compensation on account of non-realization of crop and the expenditure incurred on sowing of seeds. The seeds in question were defective as made out from the panchnama and the report of the Department of Agriculture. The complainant should, therefore, have been properly compensated.
6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
7. It has been observed by the State Commission, in their order, that the germination of the seeds is dependent on so many factors like agro-climatic conditions, irrigation system, application of manure etc. It was pleaded before the State Commission that the complainant had not been able to produce any evidence to show that the seeds were of defective quality, neither the seeds were tested.
8. A perusal of copy of the panchnama placed on record shows that germination was observed as 7% only. The panchnama has been signed by 5 witnesses. However, from an examination of the grounds of revision petition and the contentions made by the petitioner/complainant before the consumer fora below, it is made out that the complainant has failed to provide any evidence before the District Forum, regarding the quantification of loss, suffered by him. In his complaint, he has mentioned that he spent a sum of Rs. 3,41,350/- on sowing of seeds, but there is no evidence to support his version that he actually spent the said amount. Moreover, there is no report from any technical authority or laboratory on record to establish that the seeds in question were defective. It was the duty of the complainant to make efforts to have the sample of seeds tested from a laboratory, or get the opinion of the agricultural experts instead of his contention that the seeds were of inferior quality. On the other hand, the State Commission have observed in their order that after learning that there was no germination in soyabean seeds, the complainant took another crop from the said fields, meaning thereby that the complainant did not suffer loss due to non-production on his fields during that particular season.
9. Considering the material on record, it is established that there is no technical report or substantial evidence produced by the complainant in support of his version that he suffered the loss as stated in the consumer complaint. It is held, therefore, that there is no perversity in the orders passed by the consumer fora below, which may merit any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
The Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER