BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 27th June 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 45 / 2013
Dasari Prabhakar, S/o Yerra Gangaiah,
aged about 30 years, Hindu, residing at Payasampalli (V),
V.N. Palli (M), Kadapa District. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Advanta India Ltd., Rep. by its Sales Manager,
C/o Bharathi Brahma Seeds, Sy. No. 824, 825 & 829,
Nutankal Village, Medchal Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District – 501 401, (A.P)
2. Sri Annapurna Agro Agencies, Rep. by its Distributor,
M. Murali Mohan Reddy, D.No. 13/464, Vengalreddypeta,
Proddatur, Kadapa District. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 23-06-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for O.P.1 and O.P. 2 called absent and set exparte on 06-2-2014 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay the assured sum of Rs. 46,000/- as compensation to the complainant and
(b) Grant Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony.
(c) To pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having agricultural land an extent of Ac. 3.00 and doing cultivation and he purchased Sunflowers seeds from O.P.2, who is the dealer of O.P.1 for raising the crop an extent of Ac. 3.00.
3. The complainant further stated that he purchased Sunflower seeds 2 kgs. of four bags at the rate of Rs. 2,240/- for raising sunflower crop during Kharif – 2011 season. He ploughed the land and sowed the sunflower seeds and there is no expected yield as he got only 15.5% crop yield due to low rate of growth, as a result the crop become very block and flowers are very small and that the yield was only 1.5 quintals, whereas the expected yield would be 8 quintals per acre. As there was low rate of yield the complainant and other farmers complained to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa, who visited the fields and submitted the report that the plant height was not uniform and flower head size also not uniform the plant sowing differential maturity and also seeds setting was very poor. The Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Tirupati was also visited along with Joint Director of Agriculture.
4. The complainant also state that the J.D. Agriculture, Utukur Kadapa also issued a showcase notice on 15-5-2012 to O.P.2 bringing to the notice of grievance of the complainant and others calling upon him to showcase, as to why dealership shall not be cancelled on account of supplying defective seeds. The complainant suffered 23 ½ quintals of low yield of production which cost would be around Rs. 46,000/- for which he got issued legal notice on 10-7-2012 to both O.P’s but did not responded. The complainant sustained loss of crop to the tune of Rs. 46,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
5. After registering the case notices were issued to the O.P.1 and 2 and the same was served. The O.P.1 filed counter and O.P.2 called absent and set exparte on 6-2-2014.
6. The O.P.1 filed counter and admitted that the complainant was an agriculturist by profession and having lands an extent of Ac. 3.00 and doling cultivation, for raising sunflower crop an extent of Ac. 3.00 and seeds purchased from O.P.2, who is the authorized dealer supplied by O.P.1 are false and also stated that the complainant purchased seeds of 2 Kgs. of four bags @ Rs. 2,240/- and he ploughed the lands and sowed the sunflower seeds during Kharif -2011 season and that there is no expected yield as he got only 15.5% due to low rate of growth, as a result of crop become very block and flowers are very small and the yield was only 1.15 quintals and also stated that nobody complaint to this O.P company about the non-germination much less the complainant.
7. The O.P.1 further stated that the complainant and other famers complained to the J.D of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa and then he visited the fields and submitted the reports regarding the plants height, flowers head size, differential maturity and seed setting and the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station, Tirupati also visited along with J.D. of Agriculture are not known within his knowledge and he is no way concerned. The said officers did not comment anything about the quality of seeds or reasons for not uniform height and flower head size and differential maturity and poor seed setting. But they noted that the seed setting was in 60 – 65% and impressed that the complainant in C.C. No. 52/2013 will get an yield of 60 – 65% of normal yield.
8. O.P. 1 also stated that for getting good quality of yield / crop, seeds is not the only factor other biotic and abiotic and factors like organic practices, whether conditions, soil, pest diseases and timely supply of water also play major roll for a good quality yield/crop also stated that company produced high quality and genuine seeds only after conducting germination tests and quality only the seeds will be released into the market.
9. O.P.1 further stated that the J.D. Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa has also issued a showcase notice on 15-5-2012 to the O.P.2 bringing to the notice of the grievance of the complainant and others calling upon him, as to why dealership shall not be cancelled and also stated that unless the seeds is tested in authorized laboratory nobody is entitled to comment about the quality of seeds. In this case there is no report from the seed testing laboratory. It is the duty also burden of proof lies on the complainant. No notice is served to this O.P. during the alleged crop season and the alleged legal notice dt. 10-7-2012 to this O.P. is false. There is no complaint from anybody about the said lot No. 03BDJ00002 this O.P. company during that season. This O.P. did not supply of seeds to the complainant. This O.P. has no defective quality seeds. Hence, dismiss the complaint with costs.
10. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A6 and on behalf of the O.P.1 filed counter and document got marked as Ex. B1.
11. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of their opposite parties?
- To what relief?
12. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The contention of the complainant is that he is having agriculture land an extent of 3.00 and doing cultivation for raising sunflower crop purchased seeds of 2 Kgs of 4 bags from the O.P.2, who is the dealer of O.P.1 during Kharif season – 2011. After ploughed the lands and sowed the complainant got only 15.5% yield due to low rate of growth, as a result the crop become very block and flowers are very small and that the yield was only 1.5 quintals. They expected yield would be 8 quintals per acre. The complainant and other farmers complained to the J.D of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa and then they visited the fields and submitted the report that the plants height was not uniformed and flower head size was also not uniform and the seed setting very poor. The Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Station, Tirupati was also visited along with J.D. of Agriculture.
13. The further contention of the complainant is that J.D. of Agriculture, Kadapa has also issued a showcase notice on 15-5-2012 and further grievance of the complainant is that to cancel the dealer ship On account of supplying defective seed. The complainant suffered 23 ½ quintals of low yield of production which cost would be around Rs. 46,000/-
14. The contention of the O.P.1 the sunflower seeds supplied by him and sowed through the complainant are false and further false to say that there is no expected yield as the complainant got only 15.5% of crop yield. Due to low rate of growth as a result of crop become very block and flowers are very small and that the yield was only 1.5 quintals is false and invented for purpose of filling the complaint.
15. Further contention of the O.P.1 the complainant and other farmers complained to J.D of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa and he visited the fields and submitted the report regarding the plant height, flower head size and differential maturity, seed setting and the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Tirupati was also visited along with J.D. of Agriculture, Kadapa he is no way concern the said officers did not comment anything about the quality of the seeds as he has got no knowledge about the inspection of the crop but they noted that the seed setting was good in 60 – 65 % of normal yield.
16. Further contention of the O.P.1 is that for getting good quality of yield crop seeds is not only the factor but other biotic and abiotic factors like organic practices, whether conditions, soil, pest diseases and timely supply of water and also play major roll for good quality of yield / crop and his company produced high quality and genuine seeds only and J.D. of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa has also issued a showcase notice on 15-5-2012 to the O.P.2 bringing the notice of grievance of the complainant and other calling upon him, as to why dealership shall not be cancelled is no way concerned to this O.P. The O.P 1 also contended that regarding defectiveness of seeds to is to be decided only on conducting test in authorized laboratory. Without there is being any authorized laboratory report is untenable under the law to come to conclusion the seeds are defective one. In this aspect the burden of proof lies on the complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
17. We have gone through the complaint, affidavit and counter filed by O.P.1 and documents filed by both parties. Ex. A1 clearly shows that the pattadar Pass book bearing No. 388110 issued in favour of the complainant an extent of Ac. 3.00. Ex. A2 clearly shows that the complainant purchased Sunflower seeds of 2 Kgs. of four bags vide bill No. 1942/- for a sum of Rs. 2,240/- from O.P.2. it is also shows that O.P.2 dealer of the O.P.1, for raising sunflower crop during Kharif – 2011 season and the complainant ploughed the land and sowed the said sunflower seed and there is no expected yield as the complainant got only 15.5% due to low rate of growth, as a result crop become very block and flowers are very small and that the yield was only 1.5 quintals the expected yield would be 8 quintals per acre.
18. The complainant complained to the J.D of Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa as seen Ex. A5 J.D of Agriculture, visited the fields and inspected along with the Associated Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station, Tirupati and submitted report. The complainant purchased sunflower seeds PAC – 336 from Sri Annapurna Agro Agencies, Proddatur i.e. O.P.2 produced by Advanta India Ltd., i.e. O.P.1 and raised crop in their fields during Rabi 2011 – 12 after sowing they have observed the crop was getting three types of flowers. Certain plant growth very height and flowers was very small, certain plants growth very low height and crop become very block and very small flowers and also informed that the yield was only 1.5 quintals per acre and they requested to contact the Advanta India Ltd., company i.e. O.P.1 and arrange compensation and issued a showcase notice.
19. As per the Ex.A5 J.D of Agriculture informed about the poor germination of the crop to O.P.1. The complainant approached J.D of Agriculture being a responsible and concerned officer for Agriculture grievances of Agriculturists. After that the A.D of Agriculture (R) Kamalapuram has visited the fields of the famers and submitted report requested to depute the Scientist. As per Ex. A6 team of Scientist of Acharaya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University visited fields on 17-3-2012 reported that
a) Crop was near to harvest stage at the time of team visit.
b) Plant height was not uniform and flower head size also not uniform.
c) The crop was showing differential maturity and very poor seed setting in extent of 10 – 15% was observed.
IMPRESSION:- With the above factors farmers will get an yield of 10 – 15 % of normal yield.
20. After perusal of the inspection report of the scientists is observed O.P.2 has sold poor quality of above said seeds produced by O.P.1 to the aforesaid farmers and attract to pay action against the O.P.2 under seed act 1966 and seed (control) order 1983.
21. The contention of the O.P.1 for getting good quality of yield / crop seeds is not only the factor other biotic and abiotic factors like organic practices, whether conditions, soil, pest diseases and timed supply of water also play a major roll for good quality of yield / crop. In this contention the O.P.1 not filed any documentary evidence to prove his contention.
22. The another contention of O.P.1 his company produced high quality and genuine seeds only. After conducting germination test and quality only the seeds will be released into the market. In this connection O.P.1 filed a document i.e. Ex. B1 self-certified certificate about genunity of his seeds. The self-certified certificate is not admissible.
23. The main contention of the O.P.1 unless the seed is tested in authorized laboratory nobody entitled to comment about the quality of the seeds. It is duty and also burden of proof lies on the complainant.
24. The O.P.1 raised the contention that without sending the seed for test analysis U/s (1) (c) of C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant the defect in the seed cannot be attributed. On the other hand, the complainant relied upon the citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported in 2012 (2) SCC 506 wherein it was observed that “the farmer is not expected to preserve certain portion of seeds and therefore cannot produce seeds from somewhere to get them tested to meet the requirements of section 13 (1) (c) of the said Act”, then who estopped the O.P.1 to apply for sending the same for analysis but they have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Hence, the contention of O.P.1 is unsustainable.
25. As has above decision and discussion the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is eligible for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- per acre).
26. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for loss of crop, to pay Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony, to pay Rs. 2,000/- for the cost of the complaint, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th June 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of pass book
Ex. A2 Original cash bill dt. 3-12-2011.
Ex. A3 P/c of legal notice dt. 10-7-2012.
Ex. A4 2 numbers postal receipts dt. 28-8-2012.
Ex. A5 P/c of show cause notice dt. 15-5-2012 issued by the Joint Director of
Agriculture, Utukur, Kadapa.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter dt. 16-4-2012
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 P/c of form-II, dt. 11-10-2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for O.P.1.
- Sri Annapurna Agro Agencies, Rep. by its Distributor,
M. Murali Mohan Reddy, D.No. 13/464, Vengalreddypeta,
Proddatur, Kadapa District
B.V.P.
