BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the 31st day of July, 2007
CC.NO.129/2006
Sala Nagendrudu, S /o S. Subbaiah, Cultivation,
R/o. Jutur Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. A.P
... COMPLAINANT
Verses
1). The Manager, A.P. Seeds Development
Corporation , Industrial Estate, Kurnool.
2) The Managing Director,
A.P.Seeds Development Corporation, Hyderabad.
3) Proprietor, M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds
D.No. 12.-107-2, K.V.R.Complex, K.G.Road, Nandikotkur. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. T. Nagabushana Naidu, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party 1and 2 and Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party 3 and after persuing the material papers on record , the Forum made the following :-
ORDER
( As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President)
C.C.No. 129-2006
1. This case of the complainant is filed Under Section 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, seeking an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,52,267/- to the complainant towards loss arising out of crop failure , Rs.10,000 towards mental agony , besides to future interest and cost alleging sale of 5 packets of defective block gram seed on 24.6.2006 by opposite parties to him and the said seed was sowed in his land of A.c.5 in sy.No.793 and 872/1 of Jutur Village and inspite of best field and crop management the said crop failed and on inspection of said failed crop the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Pamulapadu, observed the seeds supplied to the Complainant were spurious and adulterated.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the Complainant , the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filing written version denying any of their liability alleging non maintainability of the complainant's case firstly, in the absence of complainant placing for analysis a sample of said seed and the proof that the said seed alone was sowed in the field of Complainant, secondly the failure of crop may be due to various reasons which need not necessarily due to defect in seed only and so requiring elaborate evidence the case is to be adjudicated by Civil Court, thirdly as there is agreement with M/S. Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds and opposite party No.1 under which the liability quality of seed lies with said seed company and so the case is bad for non - grinder of said seed company and the seed certificate agency ,which certified the quality and purity of seed , fourthly the purpose of seed being commercial purpose , the case of the Complainant is not within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, fifthly the bills for incurred expenditure as fertilizers and pesticides were concocted for the case, sixthly there being any assurance as to the prospective crop from any of the opposite parties, seventhly the crops are failing since last two years due to plaucity of rains , eighthly the claim is exorbitant , ninthly, the lot No. of seed purchased by the Complainant is that not produced by the Opposite Party No.3 , tenthly joining of opposite party No.3 to the case is a mis joinder and eleventhly the disputes in between the opposite parties as settled by the arbitrator and twelthly the inspection of Mandal Agriculture Officer is without notice to the opposite parties .
3. In substantiation of the above contentions while the Complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A8 and the evidence of B.Sreenivasa Murthy (PW1) besides to the sworn affidavit of himself and that of two third parties i.e., T. Ramudu and G..Siva Goud, and the replies to the interrogatories exchanged , the opposite party side has placed reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.3 and the replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. Hence point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out deficiency of the opposite parties and there by the liability of the opposite parties for the complainant's claim .
5. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 24.6.2006. It indicates the purchase of 5 packets of block gram of T.9 variety and 4 kgs of green gram M.L 267 variety there under by Complainant for a total of Rs.1,201/- on 24.6.2006 from the Opposite Party. This being not rebutted by the opposite parties the purchase of seed mentioned there in by Complainant remains established .
6. The Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Adangal of the year 2006 relating to the land in Sy.No.815 , 793 , 872/1 and 875/2 of Jutur Village of Pamulapadu Mandal of Kurnool District. The entries there in envisages cultivation of black gram in kharif season by the Complainant on an extent of 73 and 14 cents in Sy.No.872/1 and 875/2 of Jutur Village and also 3.09 and 1acres extent in Sy.No.793 and 815 of said village which is standing on the name of M. Venkatarami Reddy. As a Complainant alleges cultivation of black gram in an extent of A.c 4-09 cents in Sy.No.s 815 and793 taking said land on lease from M. Venkatarami Reddy, the entries pertaing to the said extent of 4 A.cs9cents of Sy.No.793 and 815 of Jutur Village only or remaining relevant for consideration.While the Ex.A5 is agreement envisaging taking of said land on lease by the Complainant from said M.Venkatarami Reddy, the entries in column No.s15 and 31 of said Adangal in Ex.A2 envisage by wording " Kowlu" "Guttha" there in that the said land was on lease to the Complainant . There being any material from the opposite party side contradicting or rebutting the same , the alliged taking of land by the Complainant on lease for cultivation is remaining believable .
7. The Ex.A3 is an attested Xerox of representation dated 14.8.2006 given to agriculture officer, pamulapadu by Complainant as to cultivation of T.9 variety of black gram land in bearing Sy No.815 , 793 and 872/1 purchasing 5 packets of said seed at a rate of Rs.203/-, from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.6.2006. and the said did not yield flowers and pods inspite of 4o days old after sowing and he incurred in cultivation of said land @ Rs.6,000/- per A.c and so for request for inspection of his field for having just compensation for loss of the crop .There being any rebuttal to it from the opposite party side,the Ex .A3 remains established as representation of complainant to the Agriculture Officer, Pamulapadu as to no yield at its earliest point of time .
8. The Ex.A4 is the covering letter under which Mandal Agriculture Officer, Pamulapadu has sent his inspection report of the complainant's field, to the joint Director Agriculture, Kurnool.. The Ex.A5 is the attested Xerox of said report and it observes plant population at 18 to 20 per square meter and no flowers and parts even after 40 days of its sowing and inspite of taking all agronomical and plant protection measures and no dry spell and the said decreases yield drastically and the neighboring lands holding same variety and other varieties were having possibility of yield of 4 to 5 quintals per acre. Even though the said observation report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, does not assign the reason for said state of affairs to any defect in said seed put to cultivation by Complainant in that land , but in his evidence as P.W.1 alleges the plants were sterile and the characteristics of said plant are not agreeing to the characteristics of T.9 variety of black gram and with the above type of plants no crop will yield . His evidence says the characteristics of T.9 variety as "long leaf " "yellow flowers " and height of plant to 6 to 8 inches by 44 days and these characteristics were not seen to the plants in the field of Complainant. Nothing much to discredit his evidence appears in the cross examination of said witness . Nor any such cogent material is placed by the Opposite Party side to the effect that the characterstics of T.9 variety spoken by the witness shall be otherwise than what he spoken . Hence from the above what follows is that the seed which the Complainant alleges to have purchased from the Opposite Party Under Ex.A1 and that was sown in Complainant field is not only is different variety than of T.9 variety but also the reasons for failure to yield was sterility of the plants. The Ex.A8 is the digital photographs and its corresponding C.D taken by G. Siva Goud, (Third party) at the instance of Complainant. It also discloses the sterility of plants without any flowers and pods .
9. The Ex.B1 is the attested xerox of analysis report issued to the District Manager (seeds) / office incharge A.P.S.S.D.C.Limited, Kurnool as to T.9 black gram variety and other variety of seeds . The entries of said Ex.B1 from Sl.No.63 to 120 concerns to the T.9 variety of black gram seed in lot No.5,001 to 5,049 . Even though they hold the percentage of the purity and germination of seed beyond 98 % and 86% respectively, the Ex.A1 being not disclosing the lot No. of the seed sold to the Complainant there under , the Ex.A6 (the empty seed bags) and the Ex.B1 is remaining with any relevancy for its appreciation in this complainant's case.
10. Hence , in the result of above discussion , what remains is clear that the seed furnish to the complainant under Ex.A1 is not of T.9 variety black gram and the cause for failure of crop was due to sterility of plants contributing to no flowering and poding drastically effecting yield . Therefore the opposite parties are to hold their liability for the loss occur to the complainant on account of supply of such seed.
11. The Complainant's claim an amount of Rs. 1,015/- towards the cost of the seed. The Ex.A1 shows purchase of T.9 variety black gram seed for Rs. 1,015/-from the Opposite Party. Hence the said claim towards seed cost is remaining established at the liability of opposite parties for its reiuembersement .
12. An amount of Rs.16,500/- towards dung manure with composte is claimed by the Complainant . But in the absence of any cogent material justifying the said figure, the said claim remains not established to the liability of the opposite parties.
13. An amount of Rs.7,586/- is claimed by the Complainant towards the fertilizers and pesticides. The Ex.A7 is the bunch of four bills filed by the Complainant towards the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides . Among the said bills while the bills dated 2.7.2006 , 15.7.2006 and 31.7.2006 envisage the purchase of pesicides mention there in by the complainant for a total amount of Rs.2,635 (i.e)( Rs. 600/- + Rs. 865/-+ Rs . 1,170/- ,) the bill dated 18.7.2006 envisages a purchase of ten bags of 26:26 at the rate of Rs.434/- for a sum of Rs. 4,340/-. These four bills covering purchase of pesticides of fertilisers totals to Rs.6,975/- (i.e)( Rs.2,635/- + Rs.4,340 ). Hence the claim under this head being remaining justifiable to the tune ofRs.6,975/- only , the claim under this head is allowed to the tune of Rs. 6,975 /- only ,in favour of the Complainant at the liability of opposite parties.
14. An amount of Rs.4,666/- is claimed in the Complainant towards labour charges . For want of their detailed particulars and substantiation with cogent material it does not stand to the liability to the opposite parties.
15. An amount of Rs.1,22,500/- was claimed in complaint towards the loss of expected yield at the rate of 7 quintals per acre at a rate of Rs.3,500/- per quintal. While any cogent material is placed by the Complainant either as to be possibility for having such a quantity of yield per acre or as to the existence of such a rate to said yield at that particular point of time and the evidence of P.w.1 and his inspection report in Ex.A5 observes a probable yield of 4 to 5 quintals per acre in the neighboring fileds in which T.9 variety was grown, there appears any justifiability to the said claim of Complainant for Rs.1,22,500/- towards the loss of expected yield ,that too when he has sowed in Ac. 4-09 cents and claims for 5 acres. Therefore the entitleness of the Complainant for the loss of expected yield remains at the maximum to a quantity of 5 quintals per acre as observed in Ex.A5 report as the yield expected to neighbouring lands wherein T.9 variety was grown and that too at the then previling rate for that kind of black gram yield.
16 .The Opposite Party No.1 being a seller of the seed and the opposite parties 3 and 2 being producer and marketer of said seed all of them are equally liable to make good of the justifiable loss of the Complainant occasioned on account of the seed furnish to him on some cost .
17. Therefore ,in the result of above discussion , the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 ,2,and 3 jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant Rs. 1.015/- towards the cost of seed purchased under Ex.A1, Rs.6,975/- towards the cost of pesticides and fertilizers purchased under Ex.A.7 and the cost of expected yield at 5 quintal per acres in proportion to the extent of cultivation of Ac.s 4 .09 cents, at the then prevailing market rate for that kind . The opposite parties by their conduct has caused mental agony and driven the Complainant to the Forum for redressal , the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally also to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case. Time given to the opposite parties for compliance of the Supra Stated Award with joint and several liability, is one month from the receipt of this order . In default the opposite parties shall pay the supra stated award with interest 9 % per annum from the date of default till satisfactory realization of the award.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 31st day of July, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant : For the Opposite Parties: NIL
PW1: Deposition of PW1 dated 20-2-2007 (B. Srinivasa Murthy)
List of exhibits marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash bill , dated 24.6.2006 for purchase of seed for
Rs.1201/-
Ex.A2. Adangal pertaining for the year 2006 of complainants lands.
Ex.A3. Office copy representation dated 14.8.2006 of complainant Addressed to Mandal Agriculture Officer, Pamulapadu.
Ex.A4. Report, dated 17.8.2006 of Mandal Agriculture Officer,
Pamulapadu , Jutur (village) Pamulapadu (Mandal), Joint
Director of Agriculture,along With field inspection report.
Ex.A5. Report un-registered, unstamped lease deed , dated 21.5.2005 infavour of complainant.
Ex.A6. Four (4) empty bags.
Ex.A7 Bills (4) pertaining as to the purchase by pesticides and
Fertilizers.
Ex.A8 . One digital photograph and its corresponding C.D.
List of exhibits marked for the Opposite Parties : Nil
Ex.B1 Attested xerox of Analysis Report, dated 1.7.2006. in (five papers)
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.T. Nagabushana Naidu,Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
