3

November. It was not correct that the seed supplied by R2 to R1 was defective and

substandard. The respondents came to know that the complainant got good yield

and sold in the market at Proddatur. The respondents had no knowledge about

representation to the Asst. Director of Agriculture and Panchayat Secretary and they

inspected the land and crop growth and issuing of the opinion. The respondents

were never intimated by Agriculture Department. During the crop season the

complainant did not make any allegations against the respondents and the crop

growth was good. There were no allegations about variety of the crop. The

germination and genetic purity were good. Regarding the defect in germination and

genetic purity it had to be intimated within 7 days i.e. period required for germination

and within 35 to 45 days i.e the period required for flowering. As the yield was good,

there was no complaint. The respondents received a notice after 4 months. The reply

notice was issued by the respondents immediately. There was no complaint from

others, who purchased the same seed. The Mandal Agricultural Officer gave a list of

farmers. The Mandal Agricultural Officer had not alleged any defect of the seed. He

visited after completion of crop season. The certificate of the Panchayat Secretary

need not be considered. The yielding of crop was on the basis of water, pest control,

virus, sudden climatic changes and manures. The complainant did not file the seed

analysis report. The certificates issued by the Agricultural officer and V.A.O, were

without any evidence of quality of seed. The seed purchased by the complainant was

not sufficient. He got seed from one D. Ramamohan Reddy, who was complainant in

C.C No. 27/2009. The respondents did not supply seed of the complainant. There

was no complaint from other farmers. There was no deficiency or negligence on the

part of the respondents. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the

part of the respondents?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?

4

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of

the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked.

7. Point No. 1 & 2 Ex. A1 was Xerox copy of receipt issued in the name of

D. Ramamohan Reddy, but not in the name of the complainant. Hence, the

complainant was not a consumer. The complainant had not filed any bill or receipt

for purchasing of the seed from R1. When the lands of the complainant and

D. Ramamohan Reddy were with separate cultivation, the bills should be separate.

He claimed compensation on the basis of bill of D. Ramamohan Reddy, for which he

was not entitled to any relief. The R2 was producer of Black Gram seed. The

duration of the crop was 85 days. After sowing the seed in November 2006 it was

grown well in the land but it had no flowers and pods. The petitioner spent

Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards fertilizers, pesticides, land preparation and weeding.

The petitioner contended that he purchased seed under wrong advice given by R1

that the crop in the month of November would grow with good yield. Even, after

taking all precautions there was no yield. The reasons were the seed was defective

and substandard. If the seed was not defective and good seed the yield would be 10

to 15 quintals per acre. In the complaint at para – 6 it was disclosed that the Asst.

Director of Agriculture, Muddanoor and Panchayat Secretary inspected the crop and

gave their opinion. But either the opinion or the report of the Asst. Director of

Agriculture was not filed. The complainant filed Ex. A2 a copy of list of farmers

grown Black Gram LBG 645 variety in Yamavaram village of Muddanoor Mandal

issued by Mandal Agriculture Officer, Muddanoor in which the total extent with

survey Nos. and purchase of seed with bill No. and date from R2 by the complainant

was mentioned. Ex. A3 was statement of Panchayat Secretary, Yamavaram that the

farmers shown in the list had raised Black Gram crop in their lands. But there was

no yield. In the statement Ex. A3, it was disclosed the names of farmers and survey

Nos. extent and quantity of seed purchased with bills Nos. and dates. Ex. A3 was

counter signed by Tashildar, Muddanoor as the Black Gram crop did not give good

5

yield. The complainant got issued a notice along with other farmers to both the

respondents to pay compensation. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A4. Ex. A4

included the reply notice from both the respondents. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of

pattadar passbook and adangal extract. When the complainant had not purchased

the seed and did not produce the bill, it is not known how the Mandal Agriculture

Officer, Muddanoor and Tahsildar, Muddanoor certified the Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 that

the complainant purchased vide bill No. nil, dt. 8-11-2006 which was in the name of

D. Ramamohan Reddy, who filed the complaint in C.C. No. 27/2009.

8. The respondents filed Ex. B1 and B2 the reply notice issued to the

complainant. The same were filed by the complainant along with office copy of the

notice as Ex. A4. The respondents filed Ex. B3 statement of some other farmers

with their pattadar passbooks in Xerox copies that the Black Gram seed LBG 645

variety gave good yield and hence, it was not a substandard seed. They filed Ex. B4 a

Xerox copy of literature of Black Gram seed and various varieties of seed including

LBG 645. Under Ex. B4 the duration of the crop was 85 to 90 days and the yield per

acre would be around 8 to 10 quintals. In Ex. B4 the method of cultivation including

application of pesticides and fertilizers and quality of both of them and quantity of

seed required per acre in dry land during the month of October has been mentioned.

During Rabi season, the time for sowing was October for dry land and for wet land it

was November and the quantity of seed per acre in the dry land was 6.4 Kgs to 7.2

Kgs and in the wet land it was 16 Kgs. The land of the complainant was dry land

and so the crop should be raised in October and not during November and the

required seed was 6.4 Kgs to 7.2Kgs per acre. But in the present case the Black

Gram LBG 645 variety was sown in November 2006 instead of October 2006 and for

the entire extent of land of the complainant, he had to sow 12 Kgs to 14 Kgs but he

sowed only 8 Kgs out of 68 Kgs as shown in para – 7 of the complaint. So the

complainant raised the crop in his entire land with less quantity of seed 8 Kgs only

and hence, he did not get the required quantity of yield of 8 to 10 quintals per acre as

6

mentioned in Ex. B4 literature. In addition to it was not mentioned anywhere in the

complaint about the quantity received by the complainant in previous years. He did

not file any scrap of paper regarding purchase of fertilizers, pesticides. In its absence

it is clear that the complainant did not apply any quantity of fertilizers or pesticides

to the crop as shown in Ex. B4. There was no calculation arrived for Rs. 45,000/-

towards compensation. As soon as the complainant had an idea that there were no

pods to the plant, he would have taken the report of the Asst. Director of Agriculture

about the stage of the crop and defects in the crop. He did not file the report of Asst.

Director of Agriculture. The respondents also did not file the analysis report

regarding the germination of the seed. There was no proper report from any

laboratory or an expert in agriculture. It could not be said that the seed in question

was defective as reported in 2009 CTJ 740 (CP) (NCDRC) Gyan Chandra Sharada Vs.

Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and others. When the

complainant mentioned in para – 6 of the complaint that the Asst. Director of

Agriculture and Panchayat Secretary inspected the crop, it was his duty to file their

report regarding the stage of crop and defects in not getting yield. The complainant

did not file at least the empty packet of the seed to show when the seed was packed

and when the date would be expired and its lot Nos. The loss of crop was on various

factors like excess water, rains, climatic conditions and not using fertilizers and

pesticides as mentioned in the concerned literature and whether there was any

disease to the crop. In its absence they could not say that the Black Gram seed was

defective and substandard. The seed was defective was not proved by the

complainant through the Department of Agriculture. So the complainant was not a

consumer. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.

9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 01

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 X/c of Cash / Credit bill issued by R1, dt. 8-11-2006.

Ex. A2 Copy of list issued by Mandal Agriculture Officer, Muddanoor, dt. 2-2-07.

Ex. A3 Copy of list issued by Tahsildar, Muddanoor Mandal, dt 21-4-2007.

Ex. A4 Office copy of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to respondents,

dt. 28-2-2007.

Ex. A5 X/c of pattadar passbook and adangal extract of the complainant.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -

Ex. B1 X/c of reply notice from R2’s advocate to complainant’s advocate,

dt. 9-3-2007.

Ex. B2 X/c of reply notice from R1’s advocate to complainant’s advocate,

dt. 23-3-2007.

Ex. B3 X/c of statement of some ryots with X/c of pattadar passbooks,

dt. 19-3-2007 and 20-3-2007.

Ex. B4 X/c of literature i.e. cultivation of Black Gram seeds.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) Sri P. Sekhar Reddy, Advocate.

3) Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P. - - -