BEJO SHEETAL SEEDS PVT. LTD. vs SHIVAJI ANAJI GHOLE

NONE for the respondents although duly served. Original O.Ps. in the aforesaid complaint are the appellants herein and they have taken exception to the order dated 23.6.1997, whereby the District Forum has held them deficient in having supplied the defective seeds of Cabbage to the complainants/respondents herein and on so holding have ordered and detected both the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- jointly and severally with 18% interest p.a.

HEREINAFTER for brevity''s sake respondents are referred to as "complainants" and appellants as "purchaser of seeds" and "dealer" respectively. Few relevant facts- Appellant No. 1 is the producer of seeds and unnumbered appellant No. 2 here is dealer.

It is a case of the complainants that they purchased cabbage seeds from the dealer in the year 1993, which was produced by the producer. However when they used the same for agricultural operation by sowing, they did not find satisfactory growth and development. They, therefore, addressed a notice to the producer and the dealer immediately being dated 5.11.1993. However, there was no response. Hence the complaint.

BEFORE the District Forum, producer and dealer appeared and they denied that the seeds supplied to the complainants were defective or otherwise. They asserted that the seeds were properly tested and, therefore, there was no substance in the grievance of the complainants. In the written statement, they have taken out the plea that the complainants had not adduced any evidence, for that matter reports of the Expert as provided under the Seeds Act and in absence of any evidence, complaint should be dismissed.

HOWEVER, the District Forum did not find the objection raised by the producer and the dealer as acceptable and notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence made available by and on behalf of the farmers/complainants in a form of report of the Expert Committee as provided under the Seeds Act, the District Forum held the O.Ps./producer and the dealer responsible and accountable, since they did not produce the Test Reports certifying about the quality of the seeds supplied although relied upon in the written statement and thus drawing adverse inference has saddled them with payment of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. as was claimed by the complainants. Across the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that in the matters of such nature, it is well settled that the burden lies upon the party claiming the damages. It is further asserted that the Statute itself provides the mode and manner in which the alleged defects in the suits should be proved and the Statute itself provides the independent agency in that behalf. We are of the view that since the Statute itself prescribes the mode in the matters of such nature it was necessary for the farmers/complainants to take recourse to such mode provided, which has not been done. In this respect, we wish to make reference to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., reported in III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 867=(2000) 7 SCC 688, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Consumer Fora established and functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have to follow the settled principles of law while assessing the claim of compensation before them. It has further posited in the said judgment, that party claiming the damages/compensation has to prove the same with all the requisite particulars in that behalf and the burden lays upon the said party. In such circumstances and in view of settled law on the point as above, in our view adverse inference drawn by the District Forum against the O.P. is not sustainable.

SINCE there was no evidence made available by and on behalf of the complainants nor anything is referred even in the complaint, which we have carefully gone through the award impugned in this appeal passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. ORDER Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 23.6.1997 passed by the Additional District Forum, Pune in Complaint No. 226/1995 is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties. Appeal allowed.