MAHYCO SEEDS LTD Vs. SHARAD MOTIRAO KANKALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahyco Seeds Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner ) has filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in First Appeal No.812/2007. Sharad Motirao Kankale, Respondent herein was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had contended that he had purchased two bags of NHH-44 cotton seeds produced by Petitioner/Company through its agent (Respondent No.2 herein) for a sum of Rs.560/- which he sowed in the two acres of agricultural land belonging to him. Despite having followed the correct agricultural practices, the yield from the cotton seeds were very poor, the flowers and bolls were not formed and the cotton cultivation was totally damaged because of which he suffered a huge financial loss. Respondent contacted the Petitioner/Company and its agent but they did not pay any heed to his grievances. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and requested that the Petitioners be directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.48,560/- on account of the losses including for mental agony and litigation cost with interest.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that the seeds are marketed by them only after ensuring their physical and genetic purity after testing the same in a laboratory as per the provisions of the Seeds Act, 1966. Further, Respondent had intentionally lodged his complaint with the Agriculture Department for inspection of his crops only after the harvesting period was over and therefore, the competent authority could not inspect the crops of the Respondent from which an adverse inference can be drawn. Also, the growth of the crops depends on various other factors and in the instant case, the loss occurred due to the heavy attack of bollworms because the Respondent had not taken adequate care to protect the crops.