Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/15/2011

K. Niranjan Goud S/o K. Narayan Goud - Complainant(s)

Versus

. The Proprietor/Personnel Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud

22 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 22^nd day of July, 2011 

                                                     Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                     Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

                                                                                                  C.C.NO. 15  Of   2011

Between:-

K. Niranjan Goud S/o K. Narayan Goud, aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,  R/o Karkonda village, Bijnapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                                            … Complainant

And

1. The Proprietor/Personnel Manager, M/s Narsini Dattatreyulu & Co.,  Dealers: Pesticides, Seeds & Fertilizers, Main road, Nagarkurnool   509 209, Mahabubnagar District.   

2. The Proprietor/Director/Personnel Manager, M/s Sri Balaji Seeds Co., Damarachervu, Ramayampet – 502 101, Medak District. 

                                                                                                                                                                 … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 13-7-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.95,000/- towards loss of crop, Rs.10,000/- towards   deficiency of service and for adopting unfair trade practice, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant has purchased 3 bags of Tella Hamsa Paddy Seeds for Rs.1,650/- vide cash bill No.982, dated 26-7-2010 from OP-1 and in the end of August, 2010 he transplanted the same in his 3 acres of land in Sy.No.94/AA of Karkonda village.  The complainant being an experienced farmer has taken every care duly taking suggestions from local agricultural officials from time to time and adopted all managemental practices and he has applied DAP Urea, Fertilizers twice and incurred heavy amount.  Further he has also weeded the entire crop duly engaging labourers twice.  While the matter stood thus, surprisingly the crop came to the reproductive stage by 15 days from the date of plantation instead of 70 days and started shedding (falling down) and again after another 15 days the crop came to reproductive stage and fallen down and lastly by another 15 days the crop came to reproductive stage and fallen down, that more than 80 per cent of the crop which is an early crop fallen down and the rest is also about to fall down.  As such the complainant has no crop to harvest and his total investments and all efforts made futile. The complainant lost entire crop only due to defective/duplicate seeds sold by the opposite parties.  The non officials and expert farmers visited his crop on 29-10-2010 and they have observed that the seeds supplied by OP-1 are genetically defective and prepared Fact Finding Committee Report.  The press media also visited the field of the complainant and published the facts they noticed on the spot. The complainant approached the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally and they have visited the field of the complainant and they have observed the loss of the crop due to defective seeds and gave report.  The complainant sent notice on 17-11-2010 through Consumer Cell, Nagarkurnool to the opposite parties but the opposite parties having received the same failed to give any reply.  The opposite parties’ attitude is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service to the customers due to which the complainant sustained heavy loss.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.    

3. The opposite parties filed counter contending that the complainant has purchased Tella Hamsa seeds from OP-1 on 26-7-2010 for Rs.550/- per each bag. The opposite parties not aware whether the complainant transplanted the same in August, 2010 in his wet land of 3 acres and he followed necessary steps for the yield of the plants.  However, as per the information of the opposite parties the complainant has raised crop in an extent of 1 ½ acres and is not known as to which seed the complainant has used.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the complainant has planted the same seed which was purchased from OP-1. It is absolutely false to say that the crop came to the reproductive stage within 15 days from the date of plantation instead of 70 days and started falling down and then again after 15 days the said crop came to reproductive stage and fallen down. The complainant has not intimated the opposite parties about the alleged defects in the crop at no point of time.  The OP-2 has supplied the seed in question to various dealers during the relevant point of time including the OP-1 under the same batch and there were absolutely no complaints from anybody throughout Andhra Pradesh and the complainant alone is leveling allegations against the opposite parties on the quality of the seeds. The Facts Finding Committee observations if any are false and created by the complainant with their collusion. The agricultural officers who said to have inspected the land of the complainant ought to have collected the samples and ought to have sent the same for analysis before giving any opinion on the alleged loss of crop.  The OP-1 has sold the same lot/batch seed to various other farmers in and around 20 villages at the same time.  All those farmers have got good crops and they have also sowed the seed in August, 2010 and nobody leveled any allegations against the opposite parties. Thus it is evident that the complainant might have not sowed the seed supplied by the opposite parties or there might be defect in the land of the complainant or the complainant might have not taken required steps in raising crop and hence he might not have got good crop.  The complainant has suppressed the real and material facts and filed the present complaint with tainted evidence. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and any unfair trade practice. Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his proof affidavit and the same is treated as the evidence of P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11.  On the other hand, no proof affidavit filed on behalf of OP-1 and one of the partners of OP-2 filed his proof affidavit and the same is treated as evidence of R.W.1 and got no documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties. 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?
3.  To what effect? 

6. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant purchased 3 bags of Tella Hamsa Paddy seeds @ Rs.550/- each bag under Ex.A-1 cash memo dated 26-7-2010 from OP-1, the dealer of OP-2.    

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon the decision reported in II (2009) CPJ 395 (NC) (Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Mahavir Singh) and II (2011) CPJ 476 of A.P.S.C. (Syngenta India Ltd., Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy & Another). The complainant through Ex.A-11, the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally and so also Ex.A-5 the Facts Findings Committee report of expert farmers coupled with the evidence of complainant, he has clearly established the supply of substandard quality of seeds by the opposite parties resulting in his sustaining crop loss and therefore the opposite parties are liable for deficiency of service, as such the complainant is entitled for the compensation.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that there is absolutely no defect in the seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the complainant is falsely leveling allegations to gain illegally.  The OP-1 has sold the same lot/batch seed to various other farmers in and around 20 villages at the same time and all those farmers have got good crop and nobody leveled any allegations against the opposite parties about the quality of the seeds.  The agricultural officials have also not taken any steps which are legally required to know about the alleged defect in the seed.  In fact as per the information of the opposite parties the complainant has already harvested the crop and sold the same and he did not sustain any loss. Therefore the complainant cannot allege the defect in the seeds and fasten the deficiency of service to the opposite parties and thus the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.   

9.  As stated above, it is the contention of the opposite parties that there are no complaints of the present nature from any agriculturist except the complainant and the complainant filed the present complaint with untenable allegations in order to get wrongful gain from the opposite parties.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that simply because there are no complaints of the present nature from any agriculturist the case of the complainant cannot completely be ruled out on that score.  But at the same time, it is the duty of the Forum to carefully scrutinize the material placed on record by both sides because the facts and circumstances will differ from each case. 

10. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased 3 bags of Tella Hamsa variety of paddy seeds for Rs.1,650/- from OP-1 on high hope on the OP-1 that he would get good yield but the crop was coming to reproductive and early harvesting stage, more than 80% of the paddy grains started falling on ground and it is all happened due to defective and substandard seeds sold by the opposite parties which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also the further case of the complainant that at that juncture he has presented a representation through Consumer Cell to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally who inspected his field and accordingly submitted a report under Ex.A-11 so also the said fact was determined by the expert farmers who accordingly gave their Facts Finding Report under Ex.A-5.  A perusal of the recitals of Exs.A-5 and A-11 clearly goes to show that there is some truth in the case of the complainant, for the reason that as per the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally under Ex.A-11, the farmer (complainant) was in touch with him and he has taken every care and management practices but now the crop has put into a loss due to mixture of false variety of Tella Hamsa Paddy seeds sold by the opposite parties due to which there are very early matured panicles are there and they have fallen down and again panicles initiation is there and they have also matured and fallen down in every 15 to 20 days of intervals and some side panicles are also emerged in a clump of tillars and damaged.  Further Ex.A-5 Facts Finding Report of expert farmers who inspected the land of the complainant and prepared the said report also clearly supports the recitals of Ex.A-11.   So, the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally Ex.A-11 is clear, specific and definite that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties being defective the complainant sustained loss in his agriculture due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties contended that they have sold the same lot/batch seed to various other farmers in and around 20 villages at the same time and all those farmers have got good crops and they have also sowed the seed in August, 2010 and nobody leveled any allegations against them about the quality of the seeds, no documentary or oral evidence filed before this Forum to substantiate the said contention.  In view of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant and cash memo Ex.A-1 and the inspection report  Ex.A-11 of the independent Agricultural Officer due to reasons mentioned therein for not giving proper yield, we find that the complainant has clearly established the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   In view of the present facts and circumstances of the case and principles laid down in the said decisions cited by the complainant, the contention of the opposite parties that the Agricultural Officer i.e., the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bijinapally who issued Ex.A-11 has not taken any steps which are required to know about alleged defect in the seed is not tenable.  Hence, we find that there is no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

11. Further, it is the contention of the opposite parties that complainant might have not sowed the seed supplied by the opposite parties or there might be defect in the land of the complainant or the complainant might have not taken required steps in raising crop and hence he might not have got good crop and the complainant falsely leveling allegations to gain illegally. In the absence of any oral or documentary proof the self styled testimony of the opposite parties cannot be looked into.  Further there is no motive attributed by OP-2 either to OP-1 or to the complainant to falsely foist a case against the opposite parties. In fact the complainant is a resident of Bijinapally of Mahabubnagar District and independent person having no motive whatsoever to implicate the OP-2 a resident of Medak District. So, in view of the said situation and for the reasons stated above,   we hold that the complainant has clearly proved his claim of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   

12. As far as the compensation claimed by the complainant is concerned,  it is the contention of the complainant that he has sustained crop loss of Rs.95,000/- due to unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. But there is no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the said contention and to assess the actual loss sustained by him.  Further, the complainant in his complaint and affidavit evidence simply stated that he has no crop to harvest and his total investments and all efforts made futile.  The complainant did not produce any market value of the paddy at that time.  In the absence of any such proof produced by the complainant with regard to crop loss sustained by him and taking into consideration of the extent of the land and the expenditure of a sum of Rs.1,650/- spent towards purchase of seeds as per Ex.A-1 cash memo, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint will meet the ends of justice.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.             

13. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of July, 2011.    

 

   I agree                                                                                          I agree

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties: 

P.W.1: K. Niranjan Goud                               R.W.1: Krishna Murthy                                                                     

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Cash Bill, dt.26.7.2010.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Label of Seed.  

Ex.A-3: Original Newspaper item, dt.11.11.2010.

Ex.A-4: Photostat copy of Pattadar Pass Book.

Ex.A-5: Copy of Facts Finding Report.

Ex.A-6: Copy of Letter, dt.4.12.2010.

Ex.A-7: Copy of Notice, dt.17.11.2010.

Ex.A-8: Photostat copy of Authorisation Letter, dt.11.11.2010.  

Ex.A-9: Original Photos.

Ex.A-10: Original Courier Receipts, dt.22.11.2010. 

Ex.A-11: Copy of Letter, dt.4.12.2010. 

On behalf of OPs.:           

- Nil -

                                                                   

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                     

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.