BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 17th day of January, 2007
C.C. No.49/2006
M.Sreenivasulu, S/o. Naganna, Aged 40 years, Agriculturist,
Nallakalva Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, Western Agri Seeds Private Limited,
D.No.802/11, Western House G.I.D.C., (Engg.), Estate Sector No.28, Gandhi Nagar-382 028. Gujarat.
2. The Managing Director, Omkar Agri Tech, Magna Chambers,
Room No.8, IV Floor, Lenin Estate, Abids, Hyderabad.
3. The Managing Partner, Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation,
51-16, Prakash Complex, Shop No.2, Near New Busstand,
Kurnool.
…Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G. Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri. P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Hon’ble President
1. This case of the complainant is for a decree against the opposite parties for Rs.1,66,228/- towards the cost of the sealed, fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of this case alleging deficient conduct of service of the opposite parties in selling western-44 variety ground nut seed, which on cultivation of it in his land of in Sy.No. 89/1, 208/2 of Nallakaluva Village, yielded 7 to 8 pods to each plant and thereby a poor yield of one quintal per acre as against promised of 16 qt per acre and the opposite parties did not care to visit inspite of complaint and the said loss of yield was obviously on account of defect in said sealed supplied by the opposite parties.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused there appearance through their counsel and denying their liability and requiring the strict proof of complaint averments contested the case filing written version of opposite party No.1 and its adoption by the other opposite parties.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on Ex.A1 to A7 besides to its sworn affidavit and replies of the opposite parties to its interrogatories, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 besides to its sworn affidavit and the replies to the interrogatories caused.
4. Hence, the point for the consideration is whether the complainant has made out any defect in the seed resulting in loss of yield and thereby any liability of the opposite parties to the claim of the complainant.
5. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill No.8 Dt:10-11-2005 said to have been issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. It envisages sale of 8 packets of western ground nut seed each of 20kgs weight of lot No.1 at a rate of Rs.1300/- per packet to a sum of Rs.10,400/- on 10-11-05 to the complainant. Nothing to rebut the bonafidies of the said cash bill comes fourth from the opposite parties side, the said purchase of seed under it by the complainant remains established conclusively.
6. The Ex.A2 is a bunch of 5 bills for sale of chemical fertilizers and pesticides mentioned therein on 17-11-2005, 12-11-2005, 15-12-2005, 01-12-2005 and 10-12-05 those bills dated:17-11-2005. 12-11-2005, 15-12-2005, and 01-12-2005, are standing in the name of the complainant, envisage purchase of chemical fertilizers all worth Rs. 18,392/-. The bill No.300 dt:10-12-2005 is standing in the name of the complainant envisages the purchase of pesticides all worth Rs.1700/- by the complainant, while the complaint does not specify the value of pesticides and fertilizers used by the complainant as it gives out the vague figure of Rs.40,528/-, Including therein the value of pesticides, expenditure incurred towards fertilizers agriculture, coolies also without giving their split up figures specifically. Hence there appears any bonafidies in the said claim of Rs.40,528/- by the complainant towards pesticides and fertilizers and agriculture coolies for want of any cogent material in substantiation of the same.
7. The complaint doesn’t provide specifically the expenditure incurred by him for fertilizers and pesticides but the bills dt:17-11-2005,12-11-2005,15-12-2005 and 01-12-2005 of Ex.A2 envisage the purchase of chemical fertilizers all worth Rs.18,392/-.the figure of expenditure of Rs.40,528/- is not agreeing with the figure of mentioned in the Ex.A2 bunch of bills alleged by the complaint towards the cost of fertilizers, for want of split up figures, there appears any bonafidies as to the entitleness of the complainant for the claimed figure at the liability of the opposite parties.
8. The Ex.A3 is said to be the office copy of application dt:01-03-2006 of complainant addressed to M.A.O., Atmakur seeking inspection of his land of A.c.3.50 cents in Sy.No.89/1,208/208/2 of nallakaluva where he cultivated western-44 variety ground nut seed purchased on 10-11-2005 from the opposite party No.3 and sustained loss of yield. The Ex.A4 is the office copy of covering letter dt:04-03-2006 addressed by M.A.O. to joint Director Agricultural Kurnool, for transmission of his detailed inspection report. But any such report of Mandal Agriculture Officer, which was said to have been transmitted under said in Ex.A4 is filed in this case for its appreciation.
9. The Ex.A5 is in three papers. The first of them being a copy of letter in R.o.c No.D6/1622/06 dt: .08.2006 addressed by Joint Director Agriculture Kurnool to M.Pedda Subba Reddy, of pamulapadu Village in pursuance of the laters representation dt:07-08-2006 said to be enclosing there with a xerox copy of the scientist report on western-44 ground nut variety and the third of them is said to be inspection report of scientist in that regard while the second of them is a letter in R.o.c.No.26/2006 dt;06-04-2006 addressed Principal Scientist (ground nut) to the Joint Director of Agriculture of Kurnool said to be enclosing there with the Diagnostic field report of Dr.K.S.S.Naik – Senior Scienctist (plant breeding) Agriculture Research Station, Kadiri who visited to have visited Yemmiganur area along with concerned Assistant Director of Agriculture on 23.03.2006. The said Senior Scientist Report says that the team of theirs visited on 23-03-2006 the fields of ground nut variety where western-44 ground nut was grown at Sugur Village and hence, it goes without any further say that the observations if any made by the said team therein pertains to the field of sugur village where said western-44 variety of seed was cultivated. The alleged field of the complainant being in Sy.No.89/1 and 208/2 of Nallakaluva Village the said Senior Scientist Inspection Report Dt:23-03-2006 bears any relevancy for its appreciation in this case to thrash out any grievances of the complainant. Nor said M.A.O. who says to have inspected the field of the complainant and transmitted his detailed inspection report to Joint Director Agriculture is even examined to say of his observations and thereby to make use of them in adjudication of the grievances of the complainant. Nor the complainant filed any Adangal of his land envisaging the cultivation of said field of complainant during relevant period with said western –44 variety of ground nut.
10.Further the said scientist report in Ex.A5 even remains of any help to the case of the complainant even if the taken into consideration for a while, as it no where assigns the alleged failure of crop or loss of yield to any inherent defect in the said seed except giving a comparison to T.M.V-2 variety as yielded 35 quintals per hectare and western –44 variety yield 7.5 quintals per hectare. In the absence of any clear finding in Ex.A5 regarding the quality of seed supplied to the complainant, as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs Baburam reported in (II) 2005 C.P.J.94 (N.C.) no inference can be taken as to quality of seed as non standard quality of seed not proved, the complainant remains failed in establishing his alleged failure of crop or loss of yield due to the defect in seed supplied to him by the opposite parties and thereby of any liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim.
11. The Ex.A6 is show cause notice said to have been issued by Joint Director Agriculture Kurnool, to M/s Sri. Venkateshwara Fertilizers Veldurthi calls for the explanation for distribution of seed which is not having permission from commissioner and Director of Agriculture of A.P. Hyderabad. The Ex.A7 is the explanation given to said show cause notice in Ex.A6. The Ex.A7 says the western variety of seed of M/S. Western Agri Pvt., Ltd., was purchased from laters agent i.e., M/s. Omkar Agri Tech C&F agent Magna Chambers No.8 Ivth floor, Lenaine Estate, Abids Hyderabad and the commissioner Agriculture and Director Hyderabd given required permission for distribution of said seed vide license no.112.M/s dt:17-10-2002. The said fact alleged in Ex.A7 and witnessed in Ex.B1 was not rebutted with any substantiating material and hence any observations in Ex.A6 as to no permission for sale of said variety of seed appear to be without any basis. Apart from the above demerits, the Ex.A6 – show cause notice caused to M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Fertilizers Dr.No.13-60 Veldurthi and Ex.A7 the explanation given to Ex.A6, finds little relevancy in this case as the seed in this case was purchased by the complainant from Rayalaseema Seed Corporation (Opposite party No.3) vide Ex.A1 and not from M/s.Sri.Venkateshwara Fertilizers.
12. The Ex.B1 is the xerox license in form C the original of which was said to have been issued by Additional Director of Agriculture – II, Hyderabad to M/S. western agri seeds (P) Limited, C/o. M/s. Omkar Agri Tech (C & F agent) Magna Chambers No.8, Ivth floor lenaine estate, Abids Hyderabad to carry on its business of sale and storage of said product. Hence the said variety of seed of western Agri Seeds Pvt., Limited was one license for sale also. Hence there appears no much merit and force in the written arguments contentions of the complainant that the said seed was not permitted for sale.
13. In the light of the discussion made in supra paras as there is any material as to any specific defect as to the Quality of the seed which must have contributed the alleged failure of crop or loss of yield and there being any cogent material as to cultivation of the said variety of seed in the alleged field of the complainant and the alleged incurred expenditure being also not consistent to the material on record, there appears any entitleness to the complainant for the claim made in the complaint at the liability of the opposite parties.
14.Consequently, the case of the complainant being without any merit and force the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances each party to the case bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 17th day of January 2007.
MEMBER RRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Parties:Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Seeds bill of complainant Dt:10-01-05 for Rs.10,400/-.
Ex.A2 A bunch of (5) bills for purchase fertilizers.
Ex.A3 Attested xerox office copy of complainant to M.A.O., Dt:01-03-06.
Ex.A4 Attested xerox copy of letter of M.A.O., to Joint Director of Agricultural
dt:04-03-06.
Ex.A5 certified copy of R.o.c.No.D6/1622/06, Dt: .08-2006 letter, of Joint
Director of Agriculture, Kurnool addressed to M.Pedda Subba Reddy,
Pamulapadu (V & M) no.in 3 pages.
Ex.A6 Certified copy of show cause notice Dt:14-03-06 Joint Director of
Agriculture Kurnool, to M/s. Sri.Venkateshwara fertilizers Veldurthi.
Ex.A7 Certified copy of explanation Dt:25-03-06.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 certified copy of license to carry on business in form-c issued by
Additional Director of Agriculture-II, Hyderabad.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
