MUKTI GHOSH vs NAGARJUNA FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS

THIS is complainant''s appeal against the decree of dismissal passed by the Forum at Murshidabad.

THE case of the complainant in short is that O.P. 1 is a manufacturer of fertilizer and chemicals and producer of seeds whereas O.P. 2 is its distributor. O.P. 3 is a dealer in fertilizer and seeds and it has a shop at Kandi. THE complainant along with proforma respondents 4 to 13 purchased 300 kgs. of paddy seeds of IET 1444 variety viz. Dhanasagar produced by O.P. 1 from O.P. 2 and O.P. 3. All the complainants purchased the said variety of paddy seeds of different quantity from O.P. 3. At the time of purchase, it was assured by O.Ps. 2 and 3 that the seeds would yield paddy crops @ 20 mounds per bigha. After purchase, the complainants cultivated 60 bighas of land and sowed the entire 300 kgs. of seeds. THE complainants took all measures to ensure the expected yield but unfortunately there was a failure of crop. It is alleged that because of poor quality of seeds the yield was far less resulting in loss to the complainants. THE Principal Agricultural Officer enquired about the matter through his subordinate Officer who attributed the failure of crops due to sub-standard seeds. Accordingly, they have approached the Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. O.P. 1 contested the case by filing written version wherein the allegations contained in the complaint petition have been denied and disputed. According to it, the "Dhanasagar" variety of paddy is a "notified" one and as such the allegation about its low productivity required enquiry into as per the provisions of the Seeds Act and the Rules made thereunder. O.P. 1 states that they had no knowledge as to whether O.Ps. 2 and 3 had given any assurance about the high yielding nature of the seeds. According to it, the failure of crops cannot be attributed to seeds alone. Many other factors are responsible for failure of crops.

O.P. 3 supports the case of the complainant. O.P. 2, however, does not file any written version and contest the case.

IT appears that the Forum after an analysis of materials on record came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to establish that there had been a failure of crops because of sub-standard quality of seeds alleged to have been produced by O.P. 1. IT is accepted that there had not been total failure of crops but the yield per bigha was far less than that stated by O.Ps. 2 and 3 at the time of sale of the same to the complainants. The complainant wanted to rely upon the report of the Principal Agricultural Officer but the said report has not been produced. The Forum noticed that the report of the Principal Agricultural Officer through its Subordinate Officer was allegedly made long after the harvest season was over. The contesting O.P. denies that there was any such representation made by them. IT disclaims any knowledge about the assurance given by O.Ps. 2 and 3 regarding high yielding variety of the paddy seeds. There is no evidence to establish the allegation. In fact, no such report was given by O.P. 1. During hearing the complainant wanted to get the seeds said to have purchased by him from the shop of O.P. 3 examined by an expert. IT appears that a torn packet containing some seeds was produced before the Forum but the Forum noticed that in the Cash Memo there is no mention of Lot No., Batch No., date of manufacture, period of validity etc. Nor there was any evidence worth the name to show that the said packet was purchased from O.P. 3. Despite our persistent demand, the appellant could not produce. The Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to O.P. 1 the complainant ought to have taken action to get them examined by the Seed Inspector appointed under Section 13 of Seeds Act, 1936. IT is contended that the Seed is of notified variety and as such elaborate investigation/enquiry under the Seeds Act is required to be made before the allegation could be established. Besides the allegations contained in the complaint petition there is nothing to show that there was a crop failure resulting in loss to the complainant. IT appears that the Forum has discussed the points in dispute elaborately and came to the clear finding that the complainant had failed to establish the allegation we have perused the judgment and we have no hesitation to agree with the views taken by the Forum. Therefore, we think that the appeal is without any merit and as such it is liable to be dismissed which we hereby do. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed on contest. Appeal dismissed.