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
| Case Number | First Appeal No. A/10/466 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/08/2010 in Case No. 218/2009 of District Satara) |
| Judges | P. N. Kashalkar (Member) & S. P. Lale (Member) |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | February 11, 2011 |
| Court | Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Judgment:
P. N. Kashalkar (Member)
-
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.
-
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 agreed that the Cultivator may get 35 to 40% lesser yield and the Committee was of the view that there was defect in the seeds. The Complainants therefore lodged consumer complaint in the District Forum and claimed amount of 1,03,400/- for the loss he had to suffer. He also claimed compensation and costs.
-
Opponent Nos.1 and 2 contested the claim. It was their contention that the pinnacle seed supplied to the farmers was best quality one. The seed from the said lot was also sold to the various farmers and there was no complaint from any farmer. According to Opponents the Complainant had not taken due care in cultivation of the said crop. He had not given zinc sulfate properly and he had failed to maintain the proper temperature in the field with the result he was likely to get lesser crop than expected. He pleaded that seed in question was proper one. It was of good quality and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
-
Upon hearing Advocates for the parties and upon perusal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial