DISTRICT MANAGER, MAHARASHTRA STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD & ANR Vs. ABHIMANU BHAURAO MANE & 3 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants / respondents, who are soyabeen farmers, purchased soyabeen seeds of variety J.S. 335 from the petitioner in June, 2013. According to the complainants they have experience of soyabeen farming and therefore had sown the said seeds in their respective land as per the guidelines issued by the petitioner Corporation, besides taking proper care of the crop. The grievance of the complainants is that after some days they found that the soyabeen crop had different type of flowers and leafs, besides varying length of the pods. Suspecting adulteration in the seeds sold to them, they approached the concerned Taluka Agricultural Officer, who along with the Members of the Taluka level Seeds disputes Redressal Committee visited the fields of the complainants on different dates and drew spot panchnamas. The report thereafter was submitted by the Committee, which revealed adulteration in the seeds. It was reported by the Committee that the soyabeen seeds had been mixed with seeds of other variety and percentage of the mixture of other seeds varied from 25% to 68%. Being aggrieved from the loss suffered by them, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints after the legal notice sent b them to the petitioner Corporation did not yield a favourable result.

(2.) The complaints were resisted by the petitioner Corporation which took a preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers, they having purchased the seeds under buy-back scheme for resale. It was also stated in the written version filed by the petitioner Corporation that the seeds were sold only after the same had been certified by the Seeds Testing Officer, and in fact, the complainants had sown the seeds through unskilled persons. It was also alleged that there were insufficient rains during the relevant period and compensation had already been granted to the complainants, who had also received insurance amount.

(3.) The District Forum having partly allowed the complaints, separate appeals were preferred by the petitioner Corporation as well as by the complainants before the concerned State Commission.