Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

First Appeal No. A/10/466 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/08/2010 in Case No. 218/2009 of District Satara). Case: Monsanto India Limited, Mumbai Vs 1. Dattatraya Ganapati Kadam and others, 2. Dhondiba Vithoba More, 3. Rajendra Anna Mane, Shree Sidhanath Krushi Seva Kendra, Satara. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. A/10/466 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/08/2010 in Case No. 218/2009 of District Satara)
JudgesP. N. Kashalkar (Member) & S. P. Lale (Member)
IssueConsumer Law
Judgement DateFriday February 11, 2011
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Judgment:

P. N. Kashalkar (Member)

  1. This appeal takes an exception to an award passed by the District Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.218/2009 decided on 27.08.2009. By the said judgement and award the District Forum allowed the complaint partly directing Opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of 1,15,500/- to the Complainants for the defective seeds and also directed to pay 2,000/- by way of mental harassment and 1,000/- towards costs. As such original Opponent no.2 has filed this appeal.

  2. Facts lie in narrow compass. The Complainants had sown pinnacle seed in his field which he had taken on rental (khand) from the owners of the field. It was found by them after about 100 days that though there was proper germination of pinnacle there was no proper fruit to the said pinnacle. Hence, complainant lodged complaint with the District Agriculture Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee at Satara. The District Agriculture Seeds Grievances Redressal Committee and its members inclusive of members of the Appellant and Respondent No.3 went for spot inspection in the field. After inspecting the said crop, committee opined that the yield might be less to the extent of 35% to 40%. It was the contention of the Appellant before the Committee that the cultivator had not used zinc-sulfate properly and he had not maintained temperature in the field and that is why he was required to suffer in terms of lesser yield. Committee however...

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