BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.836/2011 against C.C.No.86/2010 , Dist. Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
Aadhaar Seeds Private Limited,
Represented by its Manager-
Authorised Signatory N.Raja Sekhara Praveen,
D.No.1-5-12/2/2, New Maruthi Nagar,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. ….Appellant/
Opp.party no.2
And
1.G.Purushotham Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy,
Age:36 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Ayyavaripally ( Komsanpally) Village,
Farooq Nagar Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District. …. Respondent/
Complainant
2. The General Manager,
A.P.State Seeds Development
Corporation Limited, H.No.5-10-193,
Haca Bhavan,
Hyderabad – 500 004. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
(Respondent no.2 is made only as
proforma respondent)
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.K. Venkatesh Guptha
Counsel for the respondent : Mr.E.Padma Reddy –R1
F.A.No.77/2012 against C.C.No.86/2010 , Dist. Forum, Mahabubnagar.
Between:
The General Manager,
A.P.State Seeds Development
Corporation Limited, H.No.5-10-193,
Haca Bhavan,
Hyderabad – 500 004. …Appellant/
Opp.party no.1
And
1.G.Purushotham Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy,
Age:36 years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o.Ayyavaripally ( Komsanpally) Village,
Farooq Nagar Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District. … Respondent /
Complainant
2. Aadhaar Seeds Private Limited,
Represented by its Manager
Authorised Signatory N.Raja Sekhara Praveen,
D.No.1-5-12/2/2, New Maruthi Nagar,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.CH.Shyam Sundar Rao
Counsel for the respondent : Mr.E.Padma Reddy –R1
M/s. K.Venkatesh Guptha –R2
QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN .
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
These two appeals arose out of one and the same order dt.29.7.2011 of the District Forum, Mahabubnagar Dist. made in C.C.No.86/2010.
F.A.No.836/2011 is preferred by Aadhaar Seeds Pvt.Ltd., opp.party no.2 and F.A.No.77/2012 is preferred by the General Manager, A.P.State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., opp.party no.1.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as they are arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the complainant is an agriculturist having land admeasuring two acres, covered by Survey Nos.417 & 418 situated within the limits of Ayyavaripally (Komsanpally) Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. The opposite party no.1 has supplied ‘Aadhaar Hybrid Sunflower Seed’ and opposite party no.2 is preparing and marketing the seeds in the name and style of Aadhaar Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the opposite party no.1 has sold the seeds to the farmers in Farooqnagar Mandal and accordingly the complainant has approached the opposite party no.1, on the advise of Agriculture Officer, Farooqnagar on 16.12.2009 and purchased two bags (4 kgs ) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sunflower seeds from opposite party no.1 by bill No.121104 paying Rs.860/- vide Ex.A1. At that time , the complainant was assured that the seeds are of good quality and give 8 to 10 quintals yield per acre. On such assurance, the complainant purchased Aadhaar Hybrid Sunflower Seeds from opposite party no.1.
The complainant has sowed the seeds in his fields in the last week of December,2009. The said crop time is 95 to 105 days. The complainant has taken necessary plant protection and well care to the crop. The complainant has taken all kinds of precautions and provided required fertilizers, pesticides etc. But the seeds not germinated and the complainant intimated the same to the Agriculture Officer concerned within stipulated time. The Agriculture Officer visited the fields and has given report as ‘seeds not germinated properly’ and the copy of it is also sent to the complainant.
The further case of the complainant is that the opp.parties have not supplied good quality of sun flower seeds on receipt of the amount. The supplied seeds are of inferior quality and defective one. Due to supplying of defective seeds, the complainant subjected to mental agony and also put to heavy loss. The acts of the opp.parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint.
The opposite party no.1 filed counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the seed is produced by Aadhaar Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (O.P.No.2) and this opposite party is only a purchaser and distributor to the farmers. Therefore, this opposite party is not responsible for any loss or damage as alleged by the complainant. This opposite party further contended that the complainant’s land’s soil is not fit for cultivation of sun-flower crop and he has not taken required care and seeds are having germination, purity, that the complainant has not shown proper proof for spending the amount for crop management and loss or damage as alleged in the complaint. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Dist. Collector without any jurisdiction, but only to get sympathy and also get amount by filing false complaint on the ground that the seed was defective one.
This opposite party further contended that the complainant made number of corrections in the purchase bill dt.16.12.2009 and sowed the seed in the last week of December,2009. Naturally, the germination gets affected during the very low temperatures in the last week of December, especially the Sun-Flower seed. It is further contended that the number of farmers have purchased seed from the A.P.S.S.D.C. and sowed the said seed i.e. 28,768 kgs.( 14384 acres) during the year 2009-2010 in Mahabubnagar Dist., but there are no complaints from any farmer, except the present complaint. The complainant has not informed any defect or problem with the said seed to the A.P.S.S.D.C.Ltd. at appropriate time or to the concerned Agriculture Officer. This opposite party is not a seed producer and only seed distributor, therefore, not liable for any compensation as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party.
The opposite party no.2 filed separate counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that during the year 2009-2010, this opposite party has sold 28,768 kgs. of seed through opposite party no.1. The complainant is not a direct consumer of this opposite party and he has paid money to the opposite party no.1. The corrections in the bill itself throw light on the suspicious circumstances, on the case of the complainant. The complaint against this opposite party is not at all sustainable. Not even a single complaint is received from any other farmer, as regards the quality of seeds supplied. There was no kind of assurance either directly or indirectly by this opposite party, that seeds will give such particular yield on harvesting.
This opposite party further contended that the alleged report of the Agriculture Officer that seeds not germinated properly is not a ground to file this complaint. The complainant ought to have brought it to the notice of any one of the opp.parties, about the said problem within 10 to 15 days after showing the seeds for proper inspection and diagnosis within time by concerned Mandal Agricultural Officers as well as the authorities of opposite party no.2. Hence, the present complaint filed at belated stage is of no help to the complainant. This opposite party after thorough test of the seeds for germination and genetic purity, each and every lot will be tested in the lab and by R & D Department before packing. Therefore, there is no scope for improper germination of seeds, unless batch number, lot number which are necessary to trace out the reasons for such complaints, are not forthcoming. In the absence of such particulars, it is not possible to ascertain the allegations to be true or false. The claim of the complainant is highly excessive. There is no evidence to show that the seeds are defective seeds .Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his proof affidavit and also got filed third party affidavit of adjacent land owner, who has purchased different variety of seed from opposite party no.1 on the same day and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 did not choose to file any proof affidavit but got marked Exs.B1 to B4. Opposite party no.2 filed his proof affidavit and got marked Ex.B5 on his behalf.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and allowed the complaint 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.4000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, both the opposite parties preferred the above said appeals questioning the legality and validity of the order of the District Forum on vaious grounds urged in their respective appeal grounds.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is the case of the complainant that on 16.12.2009 he purchased two bags (4 kgs.) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seeds from the opposite party no.1 vide bill no.121104 for Rs.860/- on the assurance of the Agricultural Officer, Farooq Nagar that the seeds are of good quality and give yield of 8 to 10 quintals per acre. The complainant sowed the same seeds in his 2 acres of land covered by Sy. nos. 417 & 418 in the last week of December 2009. Though, he has taken all kinds of precautions and provided required fertilizers, pesticides etc. the seeds not germinated properly. Then, he intimated the same to the concerned agricultural officer within stipulated time and also gave representation to the Dist. Collector, Mahabubnagar. The agricultural officer visited the fields and reported that the seeds supplied by the opp.parties not germinated properly.
In order to prove his above case, the complainant filed Ex.A1 Cash Memo, Ex.A2 original cash bill dt.16.12.2009, Ex.A3 spot inspection report of the agricultural officer, Ex.A4 copy of the representation submitted by him to the Dist. Collector, Mahabubnagar, Ex.A10 photographs, Ex.A11 empty labeled seed bag and Ex.A12 Pattadar Passbook, in addition to his evidence affidavit and the evidence affidavit of neighboring land owner.
The contention of both the opposite parties is that the complainant made number of corrections in Ex. A2 purchase bill of the seeds and that the complainant sowed the seeds in the last week of December, 2009 and naturally germination gets affected during the very low temperature , in the last week of December, especially the Sun Flower seeds. From the contention of both the opposite parties, it is obvious that they are not seriously disputing the purchase of Sun Flower seeds from the opposite party no.1 under Ex.A2 bill. Regarding the allegation that there are number of corrections in the purchase bill, the complainant contended that he has not made any corrections, but the official who issued the bill has made such corrections. The opposite party no.1 has not filed any documents or affidavit evidence in support of his contention. If the corrections in the purchase bill are not made by the official who issued the bill, nothing prevented opposite party no.1 to produce duplicate copy of the bill available with them, in support of their contention. Therefore, simply because there are corrections in the purchase bill, it cannot be held that the purchase bill is not genuine. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the opp.parties that the purchase bill produced by the complainant is not genuine. On the other hand, the evidence affidavit of the complainant proved the said bill.
It is the case of the complainant that he sowed the seeds that were purchased by him, from opposite party no.1 and produced by opposite party no.2, in his lands and the seeds have not grown properly, then he intimated the same to the Agriculture Officer, who in turn inspected the fields and gave Ex.A3 report, stating that the seeds sowed are not germinated properly. The opposite party no.1 did not dispute the contents of Ex.A3 report. However, the opposite party no.2 contended that Ex.A3 report submitted by the Agriculture Officer is obtained behind their back and no notice was given to them to be present at the time of alleged inspection and that Ex.A3 report, except stating that germination is 10% in the field, did not express any opinion as to the quality of the seeds.
The case of the complainant is that he presented the original of Ex.A4 representation to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar regarding the poor germination of the seeds that were purchased by him from opposite party no.1 . As seen from Ex.A4 , the copy of it was communicated to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar and that the District Collector directed the ADA (R), Shadnagar, to enquire into the matter and submit report within seven days . As per the directions of his higher officials , the Agriculture Officer, Farooq Nagar Mandal inspected the field on 23.1.2010 and submitted Ex.A3 report to his immediate higher officer the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Shadnagar. The Agriculture Officer is a government official and we do not find any reason as to why he should give false report against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant. Even the documents Exs.B1 to B5 filed by the opp.parties do not disprove the contents of Ex.A3 report. On the other hand, they strengthen Ex.A3 report.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the similar circumstances in M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy reported in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) upheld the report of the agricultural officer when the officer has given the report that the seeds were defective and observed as follows:
“In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the Opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum, to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. 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 not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.”
For the above discussed facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the opposite party no.2 that Ex.A3 report is not genuine and is not binding on him.
The opposite party no.2 filed Ex.B5, the copy of the report of Quality Control Lab of opposite party no.2 to prove that the seeds produced and sold to opposite party no.1 are of good quality. As rightly observed by the District Forum, that Ex.B5 report is of no help to opposite party no.2 for the reason that when the complainant could not prove that he has purchased the seeds manufactured by opposite party no.2 and when the Agriculture Officer has categorically opined that the seeds do not have characteristics of notified variety. It is for the opposite parties to prove that the seeds which were released in the market were actually certified by the competent certifying agency .
It is true that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.2 that the germination of seeds depends upon various factors including temperature, moisture contents and nature of the soil, availability of water level in the soil, use of fertilisers and pesticides etc. but not solely on the quality of the seeds. In this case, the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence, to show that because of any of the above said conditions, though the seeds are of good quality, the germination is poor. The complainant filed Ex.A10 five colour photos taken for showing the crop stage after 15 days. The complainant sowed Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seed in his land and one G.Gopal Reddy sowed Swarna Hybrid Sun Flower seed in his land and there is good germination of seed in his field. The complainant filed Seed Sale Bill issued by opposite party no.1 and also filed the affidavit of the said Gopal Reddy. The complainant filed the empty seed bag containing all the details i.e. batch number, lot number of the seeds, which is marked as Ex.A11 and copy of Pattadar Pass Book is also filed and marked as Ex.A12. Therefore, the contention of opposite party no.2 that the complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding batch number, lot number of the seeds etc. cannot be accepted.
Further, Ex.B5 would not prove that the report relates to the very same seeds that were sold by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 in turn sold the same seeds to the complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Ex.A3 clinchingly established that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are of not good quality and defective and as such, the complainant sustained loss, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
It is an admitted fact that opposite party no.2 prepared and sold the seed to opposite party no.1 , who in turn sold the seeds to the farmers . It is established that the seeds that were produced and sold to opposite party no.1, who in turn sold the same to the complainant, proved to be defective. Therefore, opposite party no.1 cannot escape his liability by contending that he is a distributor of the seeds supplied by opposite party no.2 only and opposite party no.2 cannot escape from his liability by contending that he simply sold the seeds to opposite party no.1 and the complainant purchased the said seeds and paid the amount to opposite party no.1. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum rightly held that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant
For all the afore said facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the well reasoned order of the District Forum, to interfere with it. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is sustainable under law. Hence, the appeals fail .
In the result, both the appeals F.A.No.836/2011 and F.A.No.77/2012 are dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Pm* Dt.21.10.2013
