BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

 FA 891 of 2010 against C.C. 209/2008,  Dist. Forum, Vijayawada

Between:

1. Medepudi Ravi Kumar,

S/o Koteswara Rao.

2. Medepudi Koteswara Rao,

S/o Venkata Ramaiah,

3. Khaza Venkata Krishna Rao,

S/o  Venkatappaiah,

4. Sureddy Sambasiva Rao,

S/o Venkata Narayana,

All are R/o China Agiripalli,

Krishna  District.                                         ***                          Appellants/

                                                                                                  Complainants.

                                                                   Vs.

1. A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.

Rep., by its Managing Director,

D.o.5-10-193, Haka Bhavan,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

2. A.P.  State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.

Rep., by its District  Manager,

Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rural.

3. National Agricultural Co-operative

Marketing Federation of India Ltd.,

Rep., by its   Authorized Signatory,

Siddartha Enclave, Ashram Chowk,

Ring Road, New Delhi – 14.

4. Bharatiya Beej Nigam Ltd.,

338, Avas Vikas, Udrapur,

Uddamsingh Nagar,  Uttarakhand,

Rep., by its Managing Director,

5. The Mandal Agricultural Officer,

Agiripalli – Post and Mandal,

Krishna District.                                         ***                         Respondents/Ops

Counsel for the Appellants:               M/s.  V. Gourishankara Rao            

Counsel for the Respondent:             M/s. Ch.  Shyam Sunder Rao (R1& R2)

                                                          M/s.  P. Siva Ramam (R3)

                                                          M/s. K.R.L. Sarma (R4)

                                                          Govt. Pleader  (R5)

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

    &

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                 Appellants are unsuccessful complainants.

2)                The parties are described as arrayed  in the complaint for felcity of expression and obviate confusion. 

3)                The case of the complainants in brief is that  they are agriculturists  owned agricultural lands in  China Agiripalli  village  of  Krishna  District purchased  black gram seed  under different bills  procured and markted by  Ops 1 & 2  through Op5.    They have sown  these seeds in an extent of  Ac. 17.50 cents  in their respective  lands, applied fertilizers, water etc.,  however, they found that there was no flowering  even.  Immediately  they informed about it  to the  agricultural officers.  The officials of Op3   inspected the fields and satisfied that they had sustained loss due to defective seed supplied to them, and assured compensation.  A certificate was also given by the  V.R.O.  to that effect.    They have sustained loss of  @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre  to an extent of  Ac. 17.50 cents which would come to Rs. 2,62,500/-.    Therefore they claimed the said amount  together with costs.    

4)                Op2 resisted the case  by filing counter adopted by Op1 denying the allegations  made in the complaint.  They alleged that  8 Kgs of  black gram seed  is required  per acre.  They have supplied  black gram T-9 seed  which in turn packed and supplied by Op3 in as it is condition.   Their role was limited.   They acted like  carry forward agent.    Op3 is a federation  constituted by the Govt. of India.  All of them acted bonafidely  in the interests  farming community.   They sold the seed at  33.33%  subsidy.    In fact some  farmers   had  mis-used  the seed purchased by them under the scheme  by selling it to other farmers by  mixing poor  and unknown quality of seeds with good quality of seeds and as such there was no flowering even.   In fact  1,437 complaints have been received  from the farmers.  On that  a team of officials of NAFEB, officers of Ops 1 & 2, department of agriculture and the revenue department have made  local enquiry  into the matter  and prepared a list  of 679 eligible farmers to whom they have decided to pay Rs. 3,400/- per acre subject to purchase of 8 Kgs of  seed  per acre.   There were some bogus complaints.   They did neither cultivate the lands nor sustain loss.   As per the decision  of the said team  Ops  2 & 3 have contributed  at 1/3 & 2/3  share respectively while paying compensation.   The claim was bogus and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

5)                 Op3 equally resisted the case.   It alleged that  it was not a necessary party nor liable to pay compensation.   It had already compensated its share  to the farmers  who had sustained loss as per  the directions of  Govt. of A.P.   The funds for  disbursement for  true affected farmers  were kept with Op5.    Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

6)                 Op4 also filed counter stating that there was no direct contractual relation  with the complainants with it, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

7)                 Op5 did not choose to contest the matter.

8)                 The complainants in proof of their case filed  affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A12 marked while the  Ops 1 to 4 filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked. 

9)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants could not substantiate that they had sustained loss  of crop and that their names did not find a place  in the list of farmers  who had sustained loss and accordingly dismissed the complaint. 

10)              Aggrieved by the said decision,  the complainants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either   facts  or law in correct perspective.   It ought to have seen that they have purchased the seed from Op5  evidenced under receipts.   The V.R.O verified the fact that they had raised the crop and sustained loss.   Their names were included  in the certificate issued by V.R.O. at S.No.   4 to 7.     Therefore they prayed that the claim made by them be allowed. 

11)               The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

12)               It is an undisputed fact that the complainants have sown the seed  in their respective  lands in an extent of   Ac. 17.50  cents evidenced under  Adangals  Exs. A9 to A12 issued by the  Village Revenue Officer.    It is also not in dispute that the complainants had purchased black gram seed evidenced under bills  Exs. A4 to A7 from Op5.    Ops 1 & 2 themselves admit that  they supplied these seeds to Op5  for sale.  The fact that the complainants had sowed these seeds  is evident from entries  in the Adangals which we have mentioned earlier at coloum No. 21.    In fact the V.R.O  has  issued a certificate  Ex. A1 mentioning in detail  the names of the farmers  who had raised the black gram crop.  The names of the complainants were shown against S.No. 4 to 7.   In the certificate there is a categorical mention “This is to certify that  the following affected farmers  of Chinna Agiripalli  village have grown the black gram  crop during the kharif season  2006 in an area  with survey numbers  shown against their names.”   In all these bills Exs. A4 to A7 it was mentioned that   it relates to T9 variety of black gram seed.    It is not as though the opposite parties  disputed  about the quality of seed supplied by them to the farmers, in the sense they themselves paid compensation when black gram crop was failed.   They contend that the authorities  had prepared a list  of  all the  farmers who had suffered failure of crop vide Ex. B1.  They allege that names of the complainants  did  not find a place.    They filed  proceedings Ex. B2  dt. 11.8..2008 enclosing a Photostat copy of cheque for Rs. 51,10,200/-

13)               When the complainants have come up with a complaint that their names were not included,  though they had suffered loss of crop, the opposite parties for the reasons best known,  did not file  the report that was prepared to show that they had inspected these crops and found to be in good condition. 

They ought to have filed the records to show that  the complainants did not raise the crop  as alleged by them.    Having satisfied that the crops were failed and granted compensation to those farmers,  and  solely on the ground that their names were did not find a place  in Ex. B1,  the complainants could not  be denied, more so, when they could prove by irrefutable documents  viz., receipts  issued  by the dealer that they have purchased the black gram  T9 seed and the Adangals maintained by the VRO to show that they  have sown the seed and raised the crop in their respective fields, necessarily  the opposite parties ought to have extended  the very same benefit  having given to other farmers who had sustained loss. The department  that had paid compensation could have filed affidavit of the concerned  V.A.O.  alleging that the complainants have come up with a false case taking advantage of compensation  that was paid to some other farmers.   In the light of irrefutable documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that the complainants had suffered loss of crop and they are entitled to compensation. 

14)              In para-6 of counter of Op2 it was mentioned that each farmer was paid  Rs. 3,400/- per acre.  Therefore the complainants are equally entitled to compensation  at that rate.  If calculation is made taking extent of  land etc.,  the compensation can be calculated as follows :

The complainants are entitled to above said compensation  to  the extent raised by them  which we have noted above  in all Ac. 17.50 cents.

15)               In the result the appeal is allowed  setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently the complaint is allowed  directing Ops 1 to 3 and 5  to pay Rs. 59,500/- to the complainants  with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of complaint viz., 30.10.2008  till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- each  towards mental agony  and Rs. 2,000/- each  towards costs.   Time for compliance four weeks.   

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                                      12/12/2011

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.