First Appeal No. 354 of 2011. Case: Mahagujrat Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sahebrao Totaram Patil. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 354 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: D.D. Mali, Advocate and For Respondents: None
JudgesS.M. Skembole, Presiding Member (J) and Uma Bora, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 92 (Maha.)
Judgement DateJune 13, 2014
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Uma Bora, Member

  1. Mahagujrat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Jalgaon on 5.4.2011 partly allowing the complaint case No. 122/2009. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

    Shri. Sahebrao Totaram Patil and Sau. Sindhubai Sahebrao Patil both resident of Chinchkhede Tq & Dist. Dhule are agriculturist. Complainant had purchased Tur seeds of "Kanak" variety manufactured by appellant. Complainant had purchased 5 kgs of said Tur and after performing all agricultural operations complainant sown the said seed and thereafter applied fertilizer also. At the time of collection of pods complainant found that there is no formation of grain in the pods and therefore he suffered the heavy loss. It is revealed by the complainant that the seed supplied by the appellant were of inferior quality. Therefore, complainant approached to Seed Grievance Committee by making application dated 23.9.2006. Accordingly, Committee visited the field of the complainant and came to the conclusion that there is admixture seed upto 56.44% and therefore complainant suffered the loss. After getting said report complainant approached to Dist. Consumer Forum and demanded Rs. 2,06,000 as a compensation with 12% p.a. interest and Rs. 25,000 for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

  2. Appellant seed company appeared before the Dist. Consumer Forum and resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the appellant seed company is well reputed company in the field. The seed manufactured by the appellant company were brought in market after getting the certificate from seeds certification agency. Therefore, the contention of complainant that seed were of inferior quality cannot be accepted. It is further submitted by appellant that for non-formation of grain in the pods many factors are responsible such as climate, condition/type of soil, water and irrigation facilities, quality of fertilizer, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to defective seed complainant suffered the loss.

  3. After hearing both the parties Dist. Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs. 45,000 as a compensation Rs. 1,000 for mental agony and Rs. 500 as a cost of the complaint.

  4. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponent came in appeal.

  5. Adv. Mr. D.D. Mali holding for Adv. Mr. Deelip B. Mandore appeared for the appellant. Respondent though duly served did...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT