A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 416/2012 against CC 170/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy.
Between :
Mangali Shankaraiah
s/o Late Mangali Ramaiah
aged 60 years, Occ :Agriculture,
R/o H. No. 4-44, Kallakal Village
Toopran Mandal, Medak District .. Appellant/complainant
And
1. Pragathi Seeds Centre,
Dealers in Quality seeds
Pesticides, Fertilizers & Oil Cakes
Main road, N.H.7
Medchal, Ranga Reddy District – 501 401.. Respondent NO.1/OP No.1
2. Namdari Seeds Pvt. Ltd
Uragahalli Bidadi Post
Ramanagaram Taluk
Bangalore – 502109,
Karnataka .. Respondent No.2/OP no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. S. Suman & K. Venkateswarlu.
Counsel for the Respondents : R1- served
Mr. K. Yadagiri Reddy for R-2.
Coram ;
Smt. M.Shreesha .. Hon’ble Incharge President
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Thursday, the Twelfth Day of September
Two Thousand Thirteen
Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
1.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 28.11.2011 in CC 170/2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2.The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant who is an agriculturist had purchased 5 packets of hybrid Tomato NS-566 Namdhari seeds lot no. RO 704-46-01, DOT 16/09-2008 DOP 18/12/2008 valid up to 15.06.2009 from OP. 1 dealer, manufactured by OP. 2 by paying Rs.1,200/-. He showed the said seeds in his land situated in Kallakal village within the stipulated time as shown in the bill. After germination, he got plucked up the young plants and transplanted 9,600 plants maintaining the distance in the said land in an extent of half acre out of one acre situated in the limits of the said village. He used required fertilizers , manures, pesticides to ensure the proper growth of the plants and expected to harvest a crop worth of Rs.one lakh but could not get the same on account of defect in the seeds supplied by the opposite parties. The minimum returns expected by the complainant was Rs.80,000/- but did not get the same. The plants grew to a height of four feet without any produce of tomatoes and they lay in horizontal position on the ground. He reported about failure of the said crop to the first opposite party who in turn reported to second opposite party. Both parties inspected the site and saw the barren plans and the ops requested the complainant to wait for 15 days more to get the crop but invain. The opposite parties did not assure saying that they would make good the loss. He submitted a reported dt. 13.7.2009 under regidstered post with acknowledgement due on 23.,7.2009 to the Agricultural officer, Toopran Mandal, Medak District complaining about the defective supply of the said Tomato seeds purchased from OP.1 but the Agricultural officer did not visit the site and enquire into the grievance of the complainant. in spite of several visits made by the complainant to the concerned office. The said acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and hence the complaint to direct the Ops to pay Rs.80,000/- compensation for failure of the said tomato crop raised by him together with costs.
3..Depsite service of notice the OP. 1 remained exparte whereas second Opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint however admitting that it is the producer of hybrid tomato NS 566 Namdhari seeds lot No. R0704-46-01 which was purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party. The brief facts of the said counter are as under :
The complainant filed the complaint with false, baseless and imaginary figures and dates. He mentioned in the complaint that he sowed the seeds in the ground on 3.2.2009 but in his letter dated 13.7.2009 stated that the sowed the seeds on 5.2.2009. The said fact reveals falsity of the complaint. He did not file Pahani copy or pattadar pass book to show that he had sowed the said seeds in his land bearing Sy. No. 289. OP 2 had no knowledge whether the complainant cultivated the above referred variety tomato seeds or not. So also, whether he applied pesticides and fertilizers to protect the plants from insects and also for the proper growth of the crop. OP. 2 did not promise or inform the complainant that the yield would get 20 tons for half acre and he would get Rs. One lakh in half acre land cultivation,. Under proper crop management, the said variety tomato crop would give 5 to 6 tons for half acre. The seeds supplied to the complainant were within the allowable standard. The photographs filed by the complainant indicate that the management of crop being poor with lot of weeds, looks like fodder crop and dense and by seeing the photos it is not possible to assess the plant crop position variety , age of the crop, so also crop management in the entire field. On account of developed technology, one can get the photos beyond the real facts to mislead and to get unlawful gains. Therefore, no importance needs to be given for such photos. The complainant did not invest Rs.15,000/- for the alleged cultivation and he did not inform Ops 1 and 2 about the alleged poor yielding or crop loss. OP. 2 is unaware of the alleged representation 13.7.2009 to the Agricultural officer. After showing the seeds into ground, the transplantation has commenced in between 23 to 25 days and from the day of transplantation the flowering starts from 35 days onwards and the fruits will be from 60 to 65 days, peak yield is from 75 to 95 days. The complainant did not mention anywhere as to when the transplantation had taken place so also age of the nursery plants etc. So also, the dosage etc the alleged pesticides and fertilizers. Only after harvesting the crop, and the crop season the complainant hatched a plan and filed a frivolous complaint. The seeds variety referred to in the complaint is free from all defects and having genetic purity and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Getting of good yield of crop depends not only on good seeds but also on other agricultural operations and management such as nature of land, proper preparation of land, fertilization, pests and diseases control, proper irrigation, climate etc. The said variety seeds was tested on 16.8.2009 in the laboratory of Op. 2 which is ACCREDITED LAB OF ISTA. After receipt of notice, from the Forum, second opposite party had sent seeds of tomato hybrid NS 566 samples of above referred lot to seed testing laboratory department of horticulture, Govt. of Karnataka for testing the germination and got the seed testing report dt. 19.1.2010 wherein it was stated that the seeds was having germination percentage of 96. The second opposite party sold the above variety tomato seeds to various farmers but did not receive any complaint from any of the farmer of poor yielding etc. the complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the tomato seeds and raised the same to sell the crop in the market which is far from the commercial purpose and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. PW.1 complainant filed evidence affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the complaint, further PW. 2. Govinda Reddy and PW 3 Narsinga Gowd filed third party affidavits supporting the case of the complaint. The said PW.3 was cross examined by the contesting opposite party. One B. Srinivas and one Rajender field affidavits and additional affidavits in support of the complainant. and Ex. A-1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B 5 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint disbelieving the case of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complaint filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the complainant in many occasions made an objection that the seeds does not belong to the same lot and that there is difference in DOT and DOP in variety of seeds and that the seeds send to the laboratory is of different of variety therefore report of the laboratory is not valid but the District Forum held that there is no dispute about the lot and validity of the seeds. And that OP 1 and 2 intentionally sold the defective seeds to him and therefore they are answerable to the consumers for selling the defective seeds on account of it and hence the complainant has suffered great loss ands that the complainant could not save sample seeds and the absence of sample seeds purchased by him from OP.1 the Forum ought to have followed the procedure U/s. 13 ( c) to (g )of C P Act and ought to have invoke section 13(IV ) (iii) of C P Act to consider the complainant’s case and thus prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently to allow the complaint as prayed for.
7. Despite service of notice OP.1 did not participate in the appeal proceedings also. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP. 2 with reference to their respective contentions in detail and both sides filed written arguments.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District
Forum is sustainable ?
9. There is no dispute that the complainant purchased 5 packets of Hybrid Tomato NS-566 Namdhari seeds lot no. RO704-46-01, DOT 16/09-2008 DOP 18/12/2008 valid up to 15.06.2009 from OP. 1 dealer, manufactured by OP. 2 by paying Rs.1,200/-. The grievance of the complainant is that even though he raised tomato crop by following instructions given by Ops 1 and 2 and applied necessary pesticides and manures he did not get expected crop on account of defective seeds supplied to him by Ops 1 and 2 and that even though he informed about failure of crop the Asst. Agricultural Officer concerned he did not take any care and action and that on account of deficient service rendered by Ops 1 and 2 he sustained loss of Rs.80,000/- and hence he was constrained to file the complaint.
10. Whereas, the contesting second opposite party contended that the seeds so supplied by OP. 2 to Op 1 which were purchased by the complainant from OP. 1 is of pure quality and that there was no defect in the seeds and that the complainant did not establish with any convincing material that showed the seeds within the specified time and that he purchased and used fertilizers or pesticides and followed better crop management and that getting of good yield of crop depends not only on good seeds but also on other agricultural operations and management such as nature of land, proper preparation of land, fertilization, pests and diseases control, proper irrigation, climate etc. since the complainant did not manage the crop in a proper manner there was every possibility of getting poor yielding and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. . In a decision reported in I ( 2012) CPJ 1 (SC) between National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another for a contention that complaint about sale or supply of defective seeds can be filed only under Seeds Act and not under consumer Protection Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that seeds Act is totally silent on the issue of payment of compensation for the loss of crop on account of use of defective seeds and that any attempt to exclude farmers from the ambit of Consumer Protection Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination and that it is not possible to take the view that the growers had purchased seeds for resale or for any commercial purpose and they are excluded from definition of the term ‘ consumer ‘ and thus we are satisfied to hold that the agriculturist can file complaint before Consumer Forum for compensation on the ground of defective seeds.
12. It is true that getting of good yield of crop depends not only on good seeds but also on other agricultural operations and management such as nature of land, and its fertility, proper preparation of land for cultivation, use of manures, fertilization, pesticides, diseases control , proper irrigation, climate etc. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant that the land was suitable for raising tomato crop and that there was adequate irrigation facility and that he transplanted the tomato nursery within the stipulated time and that he used required manures, fertilizers , pesticides to control the diseases and that there was proper watch and ward and that he spent Rs.15,000/- towards agricultural expenses and also with regard to actual yielding of the crop and its sale proceeds so as to believe that he had undertaken proper agricultural management for getting expected yield but did not get the same. He even did not file any receipts to show that he purchased fertilizers, manure and pesticides and used the same in his land for the said crop. In such circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contentions of the complainant that even though he had taken all possible steps in managing the crop there was poor yield. On the other hand, all the said lapses on the part of the complainant leads to a conclusion that his contentions in the said context or not true . It appears that the person who filed third party affidavit was pressed into service to depose in his favour and therefore no importance need to be given for it so also the self-serving affidavit of the complainant.
13. By seeing the photographs filed by the complainant it is not possible to assess the plant crop position, variety and age of the crop, so also the crop management of the entire field because a selective parts of the field can be taken for the said purpose for obvious reasons. The cross examination aspect of PW.2 photograph who said to have taken Ex. A6 to A8 discussed by the District Forum in para 14 of the impugned order goes to show that date portion on Ex. A7 and A8 reveal that either they were subsequently stamped or printed in the photographs and thus no weight need to be given for such photographs and evidence of the photographs cannot be relied upon in favour of the complainant to come to a conclusion that the complainant had taken necessary steps for crop management or agricultural management. No clinching evidence that Ex. A6 relates to the land in which the tomato crop was raised by the complainant. There is no evidence on record from any other agriculturists or ryots who used the said variety of seeds that they also sustained loss.
14. In view of the above discussion, the argument of the complainant with regard to discrepancy in the lot numbers of the seeds, date of sowing the seed, not visiting of the Agricultural officer, so also, with regard to the procedure U/s. 13(4) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act are not at all useful for him to decide the matter in his favour. The District Forum discussed the case on hand in correct perspection and arrived at right conclusion in dismissing the complaint. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
I/c PRESIDENT
MEMBER
DATED : 12.09.2013.
