PRERNA W/O. SUBHASH BARLOTA vs M/S. SEED WORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 508/2015 - Smt. Prerna Vs. M/s. Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd. by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is a farmer having irrigated land in survey no. 38 of village Waluj (khu.). On 24.12.2012, she purchased 15 sealed packets of cauliflower seeds of the variety of US-5010 each containing 10 gms bearing lot No. 1124104 from the opponent/Respondent no. 2 dealer, as manufactured by opponent/Respondent no. 1 seed company. That as per the procedure firstly she developed the plants of cauliflower and thereafter in between 28.01.2013 to 04.02.2013 she transplanted the said plants as inter cropping between the newly planted banana in three acres of said land. That there was a visitative growth but none of the plants bore fruits i.e. bulbs. The complainant had contended that the opponent dealer had assured minimum yield of 50 quintals of cauliflower per acre, but as the plants did not bear the fruits there was no any yield. Hence, she contended that considering the expected yield of 150 quintals from three acres and the then market price at Rs. 4 to 5 thousand per quintal she had a loss of income at about Rs.7,50,000/- and further Rs.90,000/- which she had spent for cultivation of the said crop. She had therefore reported the same to the Taluka Agriculture Officer. Accordingly the Taluka Agriculture Officer carried out inspection in presence of Agriculture Officer, Quality Control of Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur, Asst. Horticulturist along with other officers. In the report submitted by Taluka Agriculture Officer it has been clearly mentioned that the seeds were faulty. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that the Agriculture Officer along with others has inspected the disputed crop on 9.7.2013 i.e. after harvesting period of the crop of cauliflower. It was submitted that as per the information displayed through the pamphlets, the harvesting period of the cauliflower is about 75 to 80 days. That according to the complainant the plants of cauliflower were transplanted in between 28.1.2013 to 4.2.2013. Therefore, considering the harvesting period the said crop was ready for harvesting on or about 20 th of April, 2013 However, the crop is inspected much later the said date i.e. 9.7.2013 and hence the said report has no evidentiary value. The other ground of defense is that the bearing of fruits and its quality depends upon agro-climatic conditions i.e. temperature, availability of water, type of land, application of fertilizer and insecticide etc. It was further submitted that there is no test report of seeds from the laboratory and seeds supplied by them were already tested in the laboratory which were of good quality. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inpsite of inspection report by Taluka level Complaint Redressal Committee in presence of OP''s representative, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

It is not disputed that plants were developed between 28.1.2013 to 4.2.2013 and inspection was done on 9.7.2013 whereas crop was ready for harvesting on or before 20.4.2013. As inspection has been made almost after 3 months, inspection report has no evidentiary value particularly when representative of OP''s statement has not been recorded by inspection committee and has not given any opportunity to express his opinion about the said seeds. Learned State Commission has rightly relied onin 2011 STPL (CL) 1021 (NC) - Myhuco Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors. in which it was held that where Agriculture Officer has inspected the crop after harvesting period genetic defect in the seeds cannot be detected through visual inspection. Learned State Commission after considering all the points has rightly dismissed appeal. Complainant has also not got seeds tested from any other laboratory to prove that seeds supplied by OP were defective.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed in limine.