Case nº Revision Petition No. 3788 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 22, 2014 (case Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Vs Prakashrao)

JudgeFor Appellant: Narendra Dhoot, Advocate and For Respondents: Surendra Chichbankar, Advocate
PresidentK.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member) and Vinay Kumar, Member
Resolution DateJuly 22, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. A/06/1608 - Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. Vs. Lohiya Beej Bhandar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent possesses Bhukhand No. 386 at Parshioni comprising 4.96 H. land and has sown seeds of Banny Bt. Cotton purchased from OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 1/Petitioner No. 1. After sowing seeds, complainant found that there was less germination; so, he made complaint to OP No. 2, but as no response was received, he contacted Taluka Agriculture Officer, who visited field on 17.7.2005 and found that there was only 30% germination and prepared Panchanama. Taluka Agriculture Officer forwarded Panchanama to Agricultural Development Officer, Zilla Parishad Nagpur who observed that there was 62% germination, but further observed that seed was not defective. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that seed was not defective as per the record of District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee and Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to return cost of seeds of Rs. 27,270/- and further allowed compensation of Rs. 65,000/- as cost of cultivation, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the OPs was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

  3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

  4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of report of District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee and Central Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and...

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