WESTERN AGRI SEEDS LIMITED THROUGH MARKING OFFICER 802/11, WESTERN HOUSE G.I.D.C., ENGG ESTATE SECTOR 28, GANDHI NAGAR Vs. RAMESH SHYAMRAOJI DHOTE & ANR. R/O AT POST TIRODA TAH, KARANJA GHADGE, WARDHA MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.02.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur in two appeals, FA/13/45, Western Agri Seeds Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote & Anr. and FA/14/57, M/s. Sriram Agro Centre Vs. Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote , vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order dated 19.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wardha in Consumer Complaint no. 108/2011, filed by respondent no. 1, Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote against the two petitioners, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case says that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Ramesh Shyamraoji Dhote stated in his consumer complaint that he was a small farmer at village Maoji Taroda, Tehsil Karanja, District Wardha, having 7 acres of agricultural farm in his name, which was the means of livelihood for him. During Rabi season 2011, he had sown groundnut seeds of Western 51 variety, produced by the petitioner/OP-2, Western Agro Seeds Ltd. and purchased from the dealer petitioner/OP-1 Sriram Agro Centre by paying Rs. 14,760.00 for nine bags of 20 kg seeds each. He sowed the seeds on 13.01.2011 in 3 acres of land, after preparing the same as per the usual package of practices, including application of fertilizers, weedicides, micro-nutrients and water etc. On 16.05.2011, after the maturity duration of the crop was over, he found that seed pods were grown in very less number for the crop. The complainant made a complaint dated 16.05.2011 to the OP-1, dealer and also to the agriculture officer, Panchayat Samiti Karanja. The agriculture officer visited the farm of the complainant and submitted his preliminary report to the District Level Seed Complaint Redressal Committee Vardha for further inquiry. The District Seeds Grievance Redressal Committee, Vardha paid visit to his farm on 31.05.2011, and had drawn the following conclusion:-

(3.) Since as per the report of the District Committee, there was financial loss to the farmer, he sent a legal notice to OP-1 and OP-2, demanding compensation for the loss. It was stated that he had obtained yield of 20 quintals against the expected yield of 90 quintals. He also stated that taking the current market rate of groundnut as Rs. 4100-Rs. 4300 per quintal, the estimate of loss to the complainant was around Rs. 2.45 lakhs to Rs. 2.58 lakhs. The OPs, however, rejected the plea taken by the complainant. The consumer complaint in question was then filed, seeking directions to the OPs to compensate for the loss to the extent of Rs. 2.46 lakhs along with 10% interest per annum. The complainant also demanded a compensation of Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 7,500.00 as litigation cost from the OPs. In reply filed before the District Forum by the petitioner/OP-2 manufacturer, it was stated that the complainant had failed to follow the directions of the Company for taking necessary steps to ensure good production from the said seeds. The factors like the type of soil, weather, humidity, temperature, proper use of fertilizers, medicines, water etc. also mattered. The petitioner/OP-2 admitted that the complainant had purchased nine bags of 20kg each for seeds for groundnut western-51 variety from OP-1 and sown them on 3-acre farm. The OP, further, stated that the complainant was engaged in commercial production and hence, he was not covered under the definition of consumer. The OP-2 stated that a copy of the report of the District Committee had not been given to them. In nutshell, the OP-2 stated that there was no defect in the seeds, but the production depended on several other factors.