MUKTI GHOSH Vs. NAGARJUNA FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's appeal against the decree of dismissal passed by the Forum at Murshidabad.

(2.) The case of the complainant in short is that O. P.1 is a manufacturer of fertilizer and chemicals and producer of seeds whereas O. P.2 is its distributor. O. P.3 is a dealer in fertilizer and seeds and it has a shop at Kandi. The complainant along with proforma respondents 4 to 13 purchased 300 kgs. of paddy seeds of IET 1444 variety viz. Dhanasagar produced by O. P.1 from O. P.2 and O. P.3. All the complainants purchased the said variety of paddy seeds of different quantity from O. P.3. At the time of purchase, it was assured by O. Ps.2 and 3 that the seeds would yield paddy crops @ 20 mounds per bigha. After purchase, the complainants cultivated 60 bighas of land and sowed the entire 300 kgs. of seeds. The complainants took all measures to ensure the expected yield but unfortunately there was a failure of crop. It is alleged that because of poor quality of seeds the yield was far less resulting in loss to the complainants. The Principal Agricultural Officer enquired about the matter through his subordinate Officer who attributed the failure of crops due to sub-standard seeds. Accordingly, they have approached the Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs.

(3.) O. P.1 contested the case by filing written version wherein the allegations contained in the complaint petition have been denied and disputed. According to it, the "dhanasagar" variety of paddy is a "notified" one and as such the allegation about its low productivity required enquiry into as per the provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder. O. P.1 states that they had no knowledge as to whether O. Ps.2 and 3 had given any assurance about the high yielding nature of the seeds. According to it, the failure of crops cannot be attributed to seeds alone. Many other factors are responsible for failure of crops.