BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 13th day of August, 2009
C.C. 116/08
Between:
Nehaumnthun Bee, W/o. Pedda Murthuja ,
H.No.1/76, Kokkaroncha Village, Kothapalli Mandal , Kurnool District-518422 … Complainant
Versus
1. The District Manager, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation ,
16-21, Industrial Estate, Kurnool-518002.
2. Managing Director, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation ,
5-10-193, Haka Bhavan, Hyderabad-500 004. ….Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan , Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)
C.C.116/08
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased 20 of Maize seed of Seed Tech 740 variety produced and manufactured by opposite parties for Rs.70/- per Kg from opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 assured that the seed would give an yield of 30 quintals per acre under the irrigation facility available to the land. In July the complainant sowed the seed in his land of Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No. 512 A1 of Kokkarancha Village.
3. The land had irrigated facility. The complainant spent Rs.3,000/- per acre totaling Rs.10,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides and Rs.8,000/- for agricultural operations and irrigation. The germination was good and the plants grew satisfactorily , but it had multi cobs (KANKI) . The multi cobs would lead to low yield.
4. On 05-10-2006 the complainant gave a complaint to the Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kothapalli , and District Collector , Kurnool about the crop loss. On the same day the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kothapalli visited the land and inspected standing crop and submitted a report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture , Atmakur. On 18-10-2006 Sri. B.Narendra , Senior Scientist , RARS , Nandyal also inspected the land and submitted report to Assistant Director of Agriuclture , Atmakur . Both the reports disclosed total failure of crop. The report revealed that 80% plants were multi cobs and ill filled. As per the opinion of Senior Scientist the ill filled multi cobs would lead to low yield. The complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 . They did not take any steps for payment of compensation. The seed supplied by the opposite parties was defective and hence the complainant sustained crop loss of 30 quintals per acre. The present market value of maize was Rs.1,000/- per quintal. Thus the opposite parties were liable to pay compensation and damages towards fertilizers ,pesticides expenditure seeds and crop loss. Thus the complaint was filed for Rs.56,530/- with interest at 12% p.a. together costs.
5. The particulars of the claim was loss of yield for Rs.30,000/, the seed cost was Rs.530/- , expenditure was Rs.21,000/- compensation for mental agony Rs.5,000/- .
6. The opposite party No. 1 filed the written version adopted by opposite party No. 2 with a memo . The opposite party denied contained the complaint averments . The complainant was called to produce the sample seed to be compared for genetic purity with the seeds of the opposite party. The complainant did not produce the sample seed and also did not send for analysis . Many reasons were the cause for failure of the crop. Elaborate evidence was required and therefore the case should be agitated in Civil Court and not in the Forum. The complainant had to establish that the seed sown was the same seed belonged to the opposite party. Without establishing the same no relief could be claimed. Development of multi cobs and ill filled cobs was due to survival to water stress , nutrient stress , rain fall and poor cultivation. It was not a consequence of genetic purity . The complainant failed to implead necessary parties i.e, M/s. Bisco Seed Tech Private Limited , 31-4A , Baharani complex, Minister Road, Secunderabad . They supplied the seed on 50% subsidy to the farmers. The opposite parties did not produce the seed. As per agreement between opposite parties and M/s. Bisco Seed Tech Private Limited any complaint regarding genetic purity , quality and germination was responsible of company ie., Bisco Seed Private Limited , and they would be held liable on defective seed supplied by them. The seed was certified by A.P. Seed Certification Agency for conducting grow cut test for genetic purity and a tag was issued and attached to the seed bag. Therefore , the opposite party sold the seed. The seed verification agency was necessary and proper party. Thus the complaint was not maintainable and the opposite party was not liable.
7. The opposite party was a Government Institution for the welfare of the farmers. There was no other complaint against the opposite parties . It showed that yield was good in Kurnool District. The agricultural officer also admitted the fact . The failure of the crop was due to bad crop management. The seed was not a defective. There was a seeds Act and the provisions of the said Act should be followed by the complainant or by Agricultural Department with regard to quality of seed. The Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kothapalli had to be examined. The certificate issued by him was not sufficient . The complainant concoted the fertilizers and bills for filing a false complaint. The opposite parties never assured that the yield would be 30 quintals per acre . The complainant voluntarily purchased the seed from the opposite party. Due to lack of rain and atmosphere condition , the crops were spoiled for the last two years . The opposite parties were not responsible for any damages. The entire complaint was on the basis of hypothetical facts . Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are
(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties .
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief?
9. On behalf of the complainant PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked and also Ex.X1 to X3 , on behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 was marked .
10. Point No. 1 & 2 : The complainant was a farmer having Ac.1-53 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos. 512A1 . He filed Xerox copy of Pattdhar Pas book under EAx.A3.
11. The complainant in order to raise maize crop in his land purchased 10 kgs of seed Tech maize seed for Rs,530/- @ Rs.70 per kg on 24-06-2006 under bill bearing No. 807479 under Ex.A1. After the sowed the seed the germination was good and the plants grew satisfactorily with multi cobs (kanki) . Surprisingly the crops were ill filled . The ill filled multi cobs would lead to low yield to crop.
12. The complainant on 05-10-2006 reported to the matter to the Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kothapalli and District Collector , Kurnool regarding the crop in his land . On 05-10-2006 itself the Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kothapalli inspected the standing crop in the complaint’s lands and submitted report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture , Nandyal to take further action. On 18-10-2006 a Senior Scientist , RARS , Nandyal also inspected and found the failure of crop and filed the report that 80% plants were multi cobs and ill filled and causing low yield. The complainant reported to the matter to opposite party No. 1 who sold away the seeds under Ex.A1.
13. The complainant examined the Mandal Agricultural Officer as PW.1 . The PW.1 filed Ex.X1 ,the complaint given by the complaint regarding the multi cobs and ill filled . The PW.1 filed a copy of the report submitted by him with covering letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture , Kurnool .The report was Ex.X2 and covering letter was Ex.X3. In Ex.X2 the PW.1 revealed that 80% of the crop had 3 to 4 cobs and the grain filling was very low i.e, below 50% .At the time of inspection by PW.1, the complainant and the seed company were present. In Ex.X2 the PW.1 mentioned that the genetic purity shown on the lable of the seed was 95%. At the time of inspection of the PW.1 the age of the crop was 65 days. During the cross examination PW.1 stated that none of the persons were present at the time of inspection from both opposite parties . Since the sample seed was not kept by the complainant it was not sent for any test. The complainant did not produce the labels attached to the seed bag . He did not verify the fertilizer and pesticides and bills, or receipts. Heavy rains followed with fertilizer application would lead to multi cobs. In natural conditions the yield would be around 20-22 quintals per acre.
14. The complainant filed Ex.A5 , a certificate issued by Agricultural Market Committee , Atmakur regarding the rate of maize per quintal during 2006 , 2007. He filed Ex.A2 Xerox copy of the paper clipping that the maize seed supplied by the opposite parties was defective.
15. The opposite parties filed Ex.B1 a copy of the agreement in between then and to manufacturer of the seed by name M/s. Bisco Seed Tech Private Limited , Secunderabad . The Ex.B1 disclosed the rate of different variety of maize seed for Kg . The maize seed was not produced and manufactured by opposite parties but purchased the seed from the manufacturer namely M/s. Bisco Seed Tech Private Limited , Secunderabad and supplied to farmers. Therefore the seed bag and its tag should bear the name of the manufacturer of the seed with details of genetic purity and to date of manufacturing date of expiry of the seed. It was not produced. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 contended that the manufacturer of the seed namely M/s. Bisco Seed Tech Private Limited, Secunderabad was necessary and proper party of the case. The seed was certified by A.P. Seed Certification Agency . It was not a party . The farmer should not keep any some quality of seed expecting that it would not give good yield and would be sent for analysis and claim compensation. However in Ex.X2 stage of the crop was in grain formation stage. It was the duty of the PW.1 to give notice to the opposite parties before conducting inspection on 05-10-2006 . It was not mentioned any where in the complaint regarding the quantity of seed used for sowing in the land. There was no proper proof from the complainant regarding the quantity of seed used by him. The PW.1 did not produce any type of literature regarding raising of the maize crop including the quantity of seed per acre and variety of fertilizer and pesticides with different intervals for application and the time for sowing the seed in the dry land. The PW.1 had not given any analysis arriving at for his report under Ex.X2 .
16. However the opposite party had an opportunity to inspect the manufacturer of the seeds. But they were silent . Even though the complainant had not produced the tag or the seed bag containing of the information regarding purity , germination and expiry date of the seed ,the respondent had such information and would have filed the same to prove its case. Before purchasing the seed the opposite parties ought to have verified the purity and germination of the seed at the manufacturing level in the interest of the farmers. The opposite parties should have taken care of the laboratory analysis report of the manufacturer before purchasing the seed to be sold to the farmers. The opposite parties should have such report of the manufacturer , but they have not produced . The farmer had no capacity to get such analysis report available with the manufacturer .
17. In the compliant any where the complainant had not mentioned his yield in the previous years. He simply mentioned that he would get 30 quintals of yield. There was no proper proof. Unless pesticides and fertilizers have been applied there was no crop to grow with the plant. He filed Ex.A4 a receipt for fertilizer dated 20-07-2006. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in selling defective seeds.
18s. Point No. 3 : In the result , the compliant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only ) for loss of yield and Rs.530/- (Rupees five hundred and thirty only ) for seed cost and Rs.5,000/-( Rupees five thousand only) towards expenditure and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony totaling Rs.22,530- (Rupees twenty two thousand and five hundred only) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13th day of August, 2009.
LADY MEBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :Nil
PW.1. Deposition of PW-1 G.N. Naga Prasad,
dated 14-10-2008 .
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Seed purchase bill dated 24-06-2006.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of paper clipping dated 14-10-2006 of Eenadu
Kurnool edition at Pg.No. 15.
Ex.A3. Patadar pass book of complainant (Xerox copy)
Ex.A4. Fertilizer bill dated 20-07-2006
Ex.A5. Certificate issued by Agricultural Market Committee, Atmakur.
Ex.X1. Letter of complainant addressed to Agricultural officer,
, Kothapalli (M)
Ex.X2. Investigation report.
Ex.X3. Mandal Agricultural Officer letter addressed to Joint
Director of Agriculture , Kurnool .
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy of Agreement between Ops 1 and 2 and
Bisco Seed Tech Company dated 15-05-2006.
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
