AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Parbham dated 15th October, 1992, passed in Complaint No. 66/92. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint before the District Forum are that the complainant i s a marginal cultivator, having a small piece of land. The survival of the entire family of complainant depends on the income from the land in question. The complainant purchased Cotton Seeds NHH-44, manufactured by M/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. Opposite Party No.3, through Opposite Party No. 1, M/ s. Giriraj Krishi Agency. The seed was sown by the complainant in his field, which is alleged to be a defective seed. The fact that complainant is a marginal cultivator and purchased the above named seed and sown it in his land is not in dispute. The only dispute was whether the seed was defective.
THE District Forum by the impugned order has held that the seed was defective and as against the claim of complainant for compensation of Rs. 82500/- granted Rs. 7500/- only towards compensation. According to the District Forum, the complainant and his 2 witnesses had filed an affidavit on record and they were further crossexamined . But nothing has come out in the cross-examination to disbelieve their customary testimony. The complainant had alleged that he has purchased the seed manufactured by M/s. Sandoz India Ltd. for his land, which was certified and he spent sufficient amount for manuring and for cultivation purposes. The complainant further stated that witness Shri Narayan Kondaba, is a witness for the sowing of the said seed. Complainant further stated that Shri Wamanrao Itolikar, an officer from Zilla Parishad had visited the cotton crop in his field and rendered his report in which he has stated that the seed was defective. The report rendered by Itolikar and the written panchanama of the condition of crop is on record. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the District Forum found that the seed of the opposite party has been proved to be defective, as a result of which, complainant suffered the loss.
The aforesaid order has been challenged in this appeal by Sandoz India Ltd. We have heard Ms. Kalyani, Advocate for the appellant. It has been contended by Ms. Kalyani, learned Advocate for the appellant that complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act as he purchased the seed for commercial purpose. According to District Forum, the complainant has been a marginal farmer and in ordinary course of nature, the cotton was not for his personal consumption. However, the entire family was depending on the income from the land and therefore, it is very clear that the complainant was not engaged at a large-scale profit making activity, but was doing the agriculture for self-employment and therefore, he cannot be said to have purchased the seed for a commercial purpose. The agricultural activity by a cultivator for self-employment cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a profit making activity and therefore, the purchase of seed by a marginal farmer cannot be said to be for a commercial purpose. There are no other contentions raised. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in this appeal and hence it is hereby rejected. Appeal dismissed.