BEFORE THE AP. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD
F.A.No.507/2012 against C.C.No.19/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.T.Ramulu,W/o.Pedda
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
F.A.No.508/2012 against C.C.No.20/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd.,
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.Bathula Venkatamma, W/o.late Mallaiah,
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
F.A.No.509/2012 against C.C.No.21/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd.,
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.B.Buchaiah,S/o.Mallaiah,
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
F.A.No.510/2012 against C.C.No.56/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd.,
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.Bathula Yellaiah, S/o.Chinna Lingaiah,
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
F.A.No.511/2012 against C.C.No.57/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.Aloori Devaiah, S/o.Ankulu,
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
F.A.No.512/2012 against C.C.No.63/2011, District Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The Gen. Manager,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd.,
5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan,
Hyderabad.
1.Thandra Shivaiah, S/o.T.Mallaiah,
2. The Manager,
3. The Agricultural Officer,
Counsel
Counsel for the Respondents
(in all appeals)
CORAM
AND
THURSDAY, THE
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order : ( per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)
These appeals are directed against the
F.A.No.507/2012:
The complainant @
Central Seed Certification Board. M/s. Ganesh Seeds Suppliers, opp.party no.3
sold the seeds to the complainant.
It is the case of the opposite party no.1 that the complainant
as prescribed by seed supplied
It is therefore established that the opposite party no.3, who is the producer of the seed :
accompanied by a jt. Director of Agriculture, R.R.District., Joint Director of Agriculture (Seeds) of Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P. Asst.
1).There is abnormal growth of castor plants. 70-80% maleness.
2)Low number of capsules were present in all the plants.
3) In about 5 to 8% of plants there is
4). About 50%
state that the seeds are of good quality and also
sent for analysis
Ex.B15 is another scientist’s report dt.14.10.2010 tall”
The contention of opposite party no.1 is that being a manufacturer and producer of the seed, opposite party no.3 supplying
“In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per
acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:
“Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the
Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is
It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.” (emphasis supplied)
38.Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v.Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13,E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed:
“There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to
The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement.”
In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alavapati Chandra Reddy, the through the District Forum, the report of the scientists
deficiency
F.A.Nos.508 to 512/2012:
are modified
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
Pm*
