BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
FA 322/2016 against CC 40/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165,166,
4th floor, Amsari Faust, S.D. Road,
Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower,
Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) T. Salanna,
S/o. Chinna Samanna,
R/o. H.No. 3-56, Mandlam Village,
Jupadu Bangalow,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
2) M/s. Sainath Seeds,
Rep. by its Proprietor M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue,
Atmakur Road, Nandikotkur,
Kurnool – 518 401.
3) M/s. Sri Pallavi Hybrid Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor P. Nageswara Reddy,
Shop No. 12-80(5), Ananta Complex
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District - 518 401. *** Respondents/
Opposite Party No. 2 & 3
FA 323/2016 against C.C. No. 41/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) Nageswaraiah,
S/o. Siva Lingamaiah,
Aged about 25 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-138, Mandlam Village,
Jupadu Bangalow,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
2) M/s Sainath Seeds,
Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No.12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 324/2016 against C.C. No. 42/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
- T. Mallaiah @ Yelukuru,
S/o. Chinna Samanna,
Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 1-30, Mandlam Village,
Jupadu Bangalow,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
- M/s Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 325/2016 against C.C. No. 43/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) Pedda Thirupalu,
S/o. Pedda Venkata Subbanna,
Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, H.No. 5-49/B, Mandlem Village,
Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Sri Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 326/2016 against C.C. No. 44/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) T. Sudhakar,
S/o. Sundaram,
Aged about 33 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, H.No. 2-406, Mandlem Village,
Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Sri Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 327/2016 against C.C. No. 45/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) Nageswaraiah,
S/o. Siva Lingamaiah,
Aged about 25 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-138, Mandlem Village,
Jupadu Bangalow,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
2) Sri Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 328/2016 against C.C. No. 46/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) M. Eswarappa @ Bujji,
S/o. Pedda Venkateswarulu,
Aged about 35 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 5-102,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Bangalow Mandal,
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Sri Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 329/2016 against C.C. No. 47/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) Guru Ankanna,
S/o. Ranganna,
Aged about 45 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 5-3,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Bangalow Mandal,
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Sri Sainath Seeds,
Rep by its Proprietor Sri M. Venkatesulu,
Shop No. 12/121, Patel Statue, Atmakur Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 330/2016 against C.C. No. 48/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Prakasam,
S/o. Masenna,
Aged about 58 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 5-41,
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 412. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor, Ranga Reddy
Shop No. 15/5, Opp. Midthur Road,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru,
Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 331/2016 against C.C. No. 49/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) P. Gopal Reddy,
S/o. P. Subba Reddy,
Aged about 61 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 2-67,
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor, Ranga Reddy
Shop No. 15/5, Opp. Midthur Road,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru,
Kurnool – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 332/2016 against C.C. No. 50/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1) Naganna,S/o. Tirupalu,
Aged about 61 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 5-16,
Mandlem Village Jupadu Bangalow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
2)Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor, Ranga Reddy
Shop No. 15/5, Opp. Midthur Road,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 333/2016 against C.C. No. 51/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Y. Pakeeraiah @ Chinna Pakeeraiah,
S/o. Naganna,
Aged about 40 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 5-101,
Mandlem Village Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor Ranga Reddy
Shop No. 12/5, Opp. Midthur Road,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkur,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 334/2016 against C.C. No. 52/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)M. Sudhakar, S/o. Bushanna
Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 8-105,
Mandlem Village Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Sai Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri Subbarayudu
Shop No. 12/122, Patel Statue,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 335/2016 against C.C. No. 53/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Abdul Raheman
S/o. Mohammed Hussain
Aged about 20 years, Agriculturist,
Muslim, R/o. H.No. 3-675,
Mandlam Village Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Sai Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri Subbarayudu
Shop No. 12/122, Patel Statue,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 336/2016 against C.C. No. 54/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)M. Mahanandi, S/o. Bushanna,
Aged about 32 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 8-105
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Bangalow Mandal
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ganesh Sai Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri Subbarayudu
Shop No. 12/122, Patel Statue,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 337/2016 against C.C. No. 55/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Boya Bichanna, S/o. Bakkanna,
Aged about 65 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 4-8
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 412. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sai Agro Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor D. Srinivasula Reddy
Shop No. G. 11, Balaji Shopping Complex,
Opp. Andhra Bank, K.G. Road, Nandikotkur
Presently doing business at:
Chanikaya Hotel Complex
Opp. R.T.C. Bus Stand, Nandyala
Kurnool District.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 338/2016 against C.C. No. 56/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Mangali Subbamma,W/o. Subbanna,
Agriculturist, R/o. H. No. 3-164,
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 412. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sai Agro Agencies,
Rep by its Proprietor D. Srinivasula Reddy
Shop No. G. 11, Balaji Shopping Complex,
Opp. Andhra Bank, K.G. Road, Nandikotkur
Presently doing business at:
Chanikaya Hotel Complex
Opp. R.T.C. Bus Stand, Nandyala -518 501,
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 339/2016 against C.C. No. 58/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Chinna Venkateswarulu
S/o. Dubba Naganna,
Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 5-24
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Bangalow Mandal
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Annapurna Seeds and Pesticides
Rep by its Proprietor Sri B. Venu Gopal Reddy
Shop No. 12/11, Patel Statue
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 340/2016 against C.C. No. 59/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Chandra Sekhar,S/o. Tirupalu,
Aged about 46 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 2-268,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Annapurna Seeds and Pesticides
Rep by its Proprietor Sri B. Venu Gopal Reddy
Shop No. 12/11, Patel Statue
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru,
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 341/2016 against C.C. No. 60/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Y. Srinivasulu, S/o. Seshanna,
Aged about 20 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-56,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Srinivasulu
Shop No. 12/138 B, Nandyala Road Turning
Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 342/2016 against C.C. No. 61/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)M. Nagaseshalu, S/o. Naganna,
Aged about 60 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 2-380,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Srinivasulu
Shop No. 12/138 B, Nandyala Road Turning
Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 343/2016 against C.C. No. 62/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Boya Nagendrudu, S/o. Naga Bushi,
Aged about 35 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-153
Pagidyala Village & Mandal
Kurnool District – 518 412. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ranga Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Pullanna
Shop No. 13/11, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 344/2016 against C.C. No. 63/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Nagaraju, S/o. Manandhi
Aged about 25 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-55,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ranga Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. Pullanna
Shop No. 13/11B, Patel Statue,
K.G. Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 345/2016 against C.C. No. 64/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)Chinna Sunkanna, S/o. Pullanna,
Aged about 45 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 2-374,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sri Pallavi Hybrid Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. P. Nageswara Reddy
Shop No.12-80(5), Ananta Complex,
K.G.Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 346/2016 against C.C. No. 65/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)P. Anand. S/o.Pedda Venkata Subbaiah,
Aged about 40 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 5-49/C,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) M/s. Sri Pallavi Hybrid Seeds
Rep by its Proprietor Sri. P. Nageswara Reddy
Shop No.12-80(5), Ananta Complex,
K.G.Road, Nandikotkuru
Kurnool District – 518 401. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 347/2016 against C.C. No. 66/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)P.Nagaraju. S/o.Pedda Naganna,
Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist,
Christian, R/o. H.No. 5-15,
Mandlam Village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 401 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sai Agro Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor D. Sreenivasa Reddy
S/o. Kesava Reddy, Chankiya Lodge Complex
Opp R.T.C. Bus Stand, Nandyal
Kurnool District – 518 501.
*** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 552/2016 against C.C. No. 57/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1Boya Venkateswarulu, S/o.Venkata Ramudu,
Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No. 3-155,
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 412 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2)M/s. Sai Agro Agencies
Rep by its Proprietor D. Sreenivasula Reddy
Shop No. G11, Balaji Shopping Complex,
Opp. Andhra Bank, K.G. Road,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
Presently doing Business at:
Chanikaya Hotel Complex,
Opp. RTC Bus Stand, Nandyal – 518 501,
Kurnool District. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
FA 553/2016 against C.C. No. 67/2013 Dist. Forum, Kurnool.
Between:
Syngenta India Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Plot No. 9-1-164/A, 165, 166, 4th floor,
Amsari Faust, S.D. Road, Beside Hotel Basera,
Near Clock Tower, Opp: Sigma Hospital,
Secunderabad – 500 025
*** Appellant/
Opposite Party No. 1
AND
1)M. Sharnkar Goud,
S/o.Chinna Naganna,
Aged about 40 years, Agriculturist,
Hindu, R/o. H.No.5-2945,
Pagidyala Village & Mandal,
Kurnool District – 518 412 *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited
Rep by its Agricultural Director,
Office at: 4-10-193, HACA Bhavan
Hyderabad – 500 004. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party No. 2
Counsel for the appellant : S. Sri Ram
Counsel for the Respondents : A. Jayasankara Reddy (R1)
R2 & R3 - Served (absent)
M. Srinivasa Rao (R2)
(FA 553/2016)
CORAM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI, PRESIDENT
Oral Order: 27/02/2017
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali, President)
***
1. This batch of 28 appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Dist. Forum, Kurnool awarding compensation to the aggrieved farmers on account of the loss of crop suffered by them due to the defective seeds manufactured by the appellant herein.
2. All the appeals basically raise identical issues of law and facts except minor differences regarding the extent of land held by the complainants and the crop years in which the crops had been raised. Therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order. This order shall cover all the cases in the batch on the substantive issues, except that each is separately discussed on the computation of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience FA No. 322/2016 is taken as the lead case.
4. The Respondent is a farmer. He cultivated land admeasuring Ac 2.40 cents situated in Survey No. 908 of Mandlam village, Jupadu Banglow Mandal, Kurnool with Sunbred 275 variety of sunflower seeds produced by the appellant- Company. Though the crop had grown to a considerable height, grain filling did not take place. Other farmers who had grown the crop with the same seed suffered similar fate.
5. On a representation of the farmers dated 24-01-2011 the Mandal Agricultural Officer inspected the fields of the farmers of Mandlem village including the field of the complainant. He submitted his report marked as Ex.A3 to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, R Nandikotkur and Joint Director of Agriculture observing that the crop was very poor due to poor seed setting though the plant growth was satisfactory with an average height of 140-165 cms. He requested the Director of Agriculture, R Nandikotkur and Joint Director of Agriculture to depute scientists connected with Sunflower cultivation for inspection.
6. As per the request, a team of scientists drawn from Acharya N.G. Ranga, Agricultural University headed by Dr. S. Neelima inspected the fields of some of the farmers of Pagidyala and Lakshmapuram villages on 29-09-2011. The team observed that though the growth of crop and pollen
production of the high-breed were satisfactory, grain filling percentage was as low as 20-30% despite agronomic and pest management practices were followed. They further observed that in other high-breeds like Kargil, Harmony and JK Pooja variety seeds sown during the same time in the adjacent fields the grain filling was satisfactory. The scientists attributed the low grain filling to poor fertility status of the high-breed. They also observed that genetic purity of the high-breed could be assessed through DNA finger printing. The report is marked as Ex. A4.
7. Basing on the reports, the complainant filed the complaint in question before the Forum, claiming compensation for loss of crop alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant and other Opposite Parties.
8. As usual the appellant went into the denial mode and took refuge under the off-beaten track of the farmers of not following proper agricultural practices. The appellant sought to extricate itself on the plea that the burden to prove defectiveness of seeds was on the respondent and the burden was not discharged.
9. The further pleas of the appellant were that original bills, and the sachets of seeds were not filed to prove that the seeds of the Company was purchased; that there was no proof that the same seeds were used for cultivation; that good yield depends not only on seeds but on several other factors such as good agricultural practices, suitable weather conditions, use of fertilizers and pesticides to control fungus and other diseases; that the seeds of
the Company were genetically tested as pure; that the plants had grown well, as such seeds were not defective; the fields were inspected by the Company officials and the crop was found affected with virus; that the Scientists Team conducted inspection without notice; that even the Team is not sure as to the reasons for poor yield; and that physical observation of crop by scientists cannot decide the defectiveness of seeds.
10. To prove that the seeds conformed to the standards prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966, the appellant filed Ex.B2 and B3 certificates. Ex.B1 is the brochure about the product.
11. None of the pleas was convincing to the Forum, and the Forum taking into consideration Ex.A3 Inspection Report of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and Ex.A4 Report of the Scientists and their oral evidence (PW1 and PW2), allowed the complaint in part by coming to the conclusion that the crop loss was due to defective seeds.
12. Sri Sri Ram, advocate for the appellant and Sri A.Jaya Sankar Reddy for Respondent No. 1 advanced arguments both on points of law and facts.
13. The peripheral side of the first contention of Sri S. Sri Ram is that the complainant did not prove the purchase of Company’s seeds and that there is no proof that the same seed was used for cultivation. This contention is based on the assumption that original purchase bills and the sachets were not filed. But the evidence on record belies the contention. Ex.A1 and A2 are the bills in original. Ex.A1 is the bill dated 10.11.2010 issued by Opposite Party No. 2 – Sri Sainath Seeds towards sale of a 2 kg packet of Sunbred – 275 seed for Rs. 610/- . Ex.A2 is the bill dated 10.11.2010 of Opposite Party No. 3 – M/s. Sri Pallavi Hybrid Seed for sale of another 2kg packet of seed for Rs. 650/. From these bills it is clear that the seeds manufactured by the appellant alone were purchased.
14. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 who sold the seeds did not specifically deny the bills in their versions nor were the bill books produced in evidence to cast a doubt on the bills.
15. It is true that sachets were not filed by the complainant. But it pales into insignificance if the written version of the appellant is noticed. There is a clear admission in the version that the field of the complainant was inspected by its field officials and found the crop affected with virus. This admission signifies two things i) That the seeds of the Company were purchased and ii) that the crop was raised with the same seeds as otherwise there was no need for the officials to visit the fields.
16. The second peripheral contention is that inspection of field by the Scientists Team was made without notice to the appellant as such, the report cannot be relied upon as it is in breach of principles of natural justice.
17. The contention is stated to be rejected. The usual requirement of procedural jurisprudence of notice has no application to this case. As already mentioned the inspection was made by the scientists who were deputed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on a representation of the complainant and other farmers.
18. By nature it was a pro bono publico inspection for finding out the veracity of the allegation of defectiveness of seeds. The Team is a neutral body, having no personal stakes in the outcome of the dispute. The inspection was aimed at public interest as any crop loss will have cascading effect on food production. Hence, at this fact finding stage neither the appellant, nor the complainant has a role in the exercise.
19. In B. Prabhakara Rao Vs Desari Panakala Rao and others (AIR 1976 SC 1803), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any useful information having a bearing on public interest may be collected from any source and, after public exposure of such information at the hearing and reasonable opportunity to meet it, if any one is adversely affected, put it into the crucible of judgment.
20. In that case the appellant was granted a stage carriage permit by the original authority – RTA and the same was upset by the Appellate Authority – State Transport Appellate Tribunal by taking into consideration a fresh ground and supporting evidence against the appellant. The supreme court upheld the order of the Appellate Tribunal, though for the first time fresh material was the basis to upset the grant in favour of the appellant, observing inter alia as follows:-
“1. xxxx
2. xxxx
3. xxxx
4. An active tribunal (RTA, and, in exception case, even the STAT) may even collect useful information bearing on considerations set out in s. 47 and, after public exposure of such information at the hearing and reasonable opportunity to meet it, if anyone is adversely affected, put it into the crucible of judgment.
5. xxxx.”
21. In the case on hand it is not as if opportunity was denied to the appellant to meet the reports of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Scientists Team. Those reports were filed before the Forum and were marked as Ex.A3 and A4. Not only that, both the officials i.e. Mandal Agriculture Officer and Dr. Neelima who was the head of the Team were examined before the Forum. The appellant availed opportunity and cross examined them. Thus the appellant was given full opportunity to meet the reports before they were taken into consideration. The allegation as to violation of principles of natural justice is therefore unsustainable.
22. The core contention of Sri Sriram is that the Forum has passed the order on surmises without there being any concrete proof as to the quality of seeds. Placing reliance on the provision of Section 13(1) (C) of the Act, he argued that the Forum erred in law in throwing burden on the appellants to prove the quality. His contention is that when there is an allegation as to defects in goods, the Forum is under a legislative mandate to obtain report
from a laboratory and for this purpose it should collect the sample from the complainant. The Forum failed to exercise this power and the same has resulted in the erroneous decision. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court and National Commission in Rangammal Vs Kuppuswami and another (AIR 2011 Sc 2344), Sasi P.K Vs The Director HPJ Infomark, Industrial Estate, H&P Estate Private Limited and Malanad Agencies (2013(3) CPJ 406(NC)) and Nuziveedu Seeds Limited Vs Prakash Rao 2014(4) CPJ 119(NC).
23. Sri A. Jayasankar Reddy, counsel for the complainant argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Forum. He submitted that Ex. A3 and Ex. A4 reports clearly prove that the seeds were defective as such there is no need for a laboratory report.
24. As could be seen from the contentions, the appellants are invoking the provision of Section 13(1)(C) of the Act. The provision is as follows:
Section 13 Procedure on admission of complaint:-
1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,
a) xxxxx
b) xxxxx
c) Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;
d) xxxxx
25. The above provision signifies that it is not an inviolable rule that in each and every case goods should be tested in a laboratory but the necessity would arise only in case the defects cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. It postulates that when sufficient material relevant to the dispute is available, the Forum in its discretion is free to proceed with the matter without a laboratory report.
26. The question is whether the District Forum committed any jurisdictional error in not obtaining a laboratory report under Section 13(1)(c) is set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. National Seeds Corporation Private Limited Vs M. Madhusudhana Reddy and another. In that case an identical question as to the application of Section 13(1)(c) was raised by a seed manufacturing Company in a batch of complaints decided by the Consumer Forums. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that fields were inspected by Commissioners appointed by the District Forums and their reports revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds, and held that the procedure adopted by the District Forums was in no way contrary to Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act. The relevant para is as follows:
“ We shall now deal with the question whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondent without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(C). A reading of the plain language of that section shows that the District Forum can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test. After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding four whether the goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect. In some of these cases, the District Forums had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect the fields of the respondents and submit report about the status of the crops. In one or two cases the Court appointed Advocate Commissioner with liberty to him to avail the services of agricultural experts for ascertaining the true status of the crops. The reports of the agricultural experts produced before the District Forum unmistakable revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds. After examining the reports the
District Forums felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and this is the reason why the complainants were not called upon to provide samples of the seeds for getting the same analyzed/tested in an appropriate laboratory. In our view, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section13(1)(C) of the Consumer Act and the appellant cannot seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by three Consumer Forums on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section13(1)(C) of the Consumer Act had not been followed.”
“The issue deserves to be considered from another angle.
Majority of the farmers in the contrary remain illiterate throughout their life because they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed there under and other legislations, like, Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural Department and Government agencies, like the appellant. Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him which could be tested in a entire quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naove to blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the laboratory.”
27. In these cases, the Forum relied on the reports of the Mandal Agricultural Officer and the Team of Scientists. Hence, in the light of the above judgment the contention of the appellants that the Forum committed a illegality in not obtaining a laboratory report is liable to be rejected.
28. One of the shades of the arguments is that the Forum has wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellants. The contention is that burden of proof is always on the person who asserts a fact and who desires a court to give judgment in his favour on the basis of facts asserted by him. The appellants have cited Rangammal’s case (supra) to prove the proposition. There cannot be any controversy with regard to the general principle mentioned in the case. However the judgment has no relevance on the proposition as to the means and manner in which the burden should be discharged. In these
cases the complainants could prima facie prove their case on the basis of the reports of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Scientists Team. Hence as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same case, the burden shifted to the appellants to prove their case. Apart from that there is a clear proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhusudhan Reddy’s case (supra) that a duty is cast under Rule 13 (3) on every seller or supplier to preserve the seeds and a complete record of each lot of seed for 3 years except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The relevant paragraph in the judgments is as follows:-
”It may also be mentioned that there was object failure on the appellant’s part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on ever person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of sees sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of.
The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/ or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondent that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective.”
29. The appellants, except harping upon the laboratory test, did not offer samples from their side and went on insisting upon the Forum to call for a report. There is absolutely no explanation from the appellants why they did not volunteer to petition the Forum on their behalf. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhusudan Reddy’s case (supra) the omission on their part lend support to the plea of the complainants that the seeds sold to them were defective.
30. The judgments cited on behalf of the appellants have no relevance to the facts of the case on hand. In Director H &J Infomark case (supra) rubber plantation dried up because of the application of a product called Well Coat. The complainant had some quantity of the product with him but still did not choose to sent it for test. Hence the Hon’ble National Commission was not inclined to accept the allegation in the absence of a laboratory report. In Nuziveedu Seeds Limited there was no material to prove defectiveness of seeds.
On the contrary there were reports by the District Seed Grievances Redressal Committee and Cotton Research Institute, Nagpur which suggested that the seed was not defective. Hence, the Hon’ble National Commission was not inclined to accept the allegation in the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Limited. In M/s. Bagri Bheej Bhandar inspection of crop was not made by a Committee of experts as per the Government instructions. Hence the Hon’ble National Commission was not inclined to accept the report of an individual officer of Agricultural Department in the absence of any scientific or other evidence.
31. Now the question is whether there was sufficient relevant material before the Forum to decide about the quality of seeds and whether it committed any error or not obtaining a report from a laboratory. As already mentioned there are two reports on record Ex.A3 and A4 of the Mandal Agricultural Officer and the team of scientists headed by Dr. S. Neelima. The reports are as follows:-
Ex. A3 :-
From To
M.Changalrayudu, B.Sc Ag, The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kurnool.
J.Bunglow.
Sir,
Sub:- Field inspection of Sunbred-275- Syngenta Company in
Mandlem Village of J.Bunglow Mandal on 24.01.2011- Field
Inspection Report – Submission – Reg.
Ref:- Farmers representation on 24.01.2011 at Office of M.A.O,
J.Banglow.
***
In the above reference cited, the farmers who are cultivating Sunbred-275 Sunflower variety which pertaining to Syngenta Company Limited, in Mandlem Village of J.Bunglow mandal during Rabi-2010-2011. I visited to Mandlem village on 24.01.2011 inspected Sunbred-275- Sunflower fields of concerned complaint farmers. The Sunbred-275-Sunflower seeds purchased from in various licensed seed shops in Nandikotkur mandal in different dates. The farmers particulars and field inspection report furnished below:
Name:- T. Salanna, S/o. Chinna Somanna
Village:- Mandlem Village
Bill No and Date:- 126/10.11.2010
Lot: 10119104
Quantity purchased on kgs:- 2 kgs
Area grown per acres:- 1 .0 Ac
Field Observations:- Pollination stage to seed setting stage.
In the above Sunflower Sunbred-275 fields, I have observed harvesting stage of the Sunbred-275 Sunflower crop is very poor seed setting and remaining of the Sunbred-275 fields are flowering to pollination stage. Plant growth is satisfactory and an average height of the plant 140-165 cms.
Hence, I request that kindly may be deputed to Sunflower Scientist for inspection of the above Sunbred-275 Sunflower fields at an early date.
Yours faithfully,
Signed by Rayudu,
Mandal Agricultural Officer,
J.Bunglow.
Ex.A4:-
“1. The plant stand and crop growth in the field was satisfactory.
2. All the agronomic and pest management practices were followed.
3. The crop was sown during October last week to November 1st week under irrigated conditions.
Keeping in view the above points, the ill filing nature of grains in the sunflower Hybrid Sunbred 275 in the inspected fields may be attributed to Poor fertility status of the hybrid.
Dr. S.Neelima Sri K.Ashok Kumar Dr. A. Sitha Rama Sarma”
Scientist(Br) Scientist(Agro) Scientist(Ento)
RARS,Nandyal RARS, Nandyal RARS,Nandyal
32. From the above reports it is very clear that the seed was poor in fertility status which clearly means that grain filling did not happen because of the defective quality. The persons who submitted Ex. A4 report are Scientists having expertise in the field, hence the credibility of the report cannot be doubted.
33. The final core contention of Sri S. Sri Ram is that the award of compensation is excessive and arbitrary. The contention is that the complainants did not produce any evidence to prove the probable quantum of yield and the Forum committed a serious error in accepting ipse dixit statement of the complainants that the yield would be 10-12 quintals per acre. Similarly the Forum committed an error in fixing the rate at Rs. 3,000/- per quintal on the basis of the certificate (Ex.A5) of the Agriculture Mark Committee, Kurnool.
34. It should be borne in mind that in matters relating to compensation, guess work should be avoided as far as possible and assessment should be made on a pragmatic approach. It is a matter of prudence besides a fair legal principle that a bare ipse dixit statement however strong it might be, cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. In the case on hand the Forum has fixed the yield at 10 quintals per acre on the basis of the mere statement of the complainants without any material and on that basis fixed the loss of crop at 7 Quintals per acre by deducting 30% good crop. Hence the finding of the Forum on this aspect is not sustainable.
35. Both the counsel have assisted this commission by producing the statistical data on the subject from the portal of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. There cannot be any dispute that this data has been prepared on the basis of scientific study under taken by the authorities and the same is in public domain. Therefore, this Commission is inclined to fix the yield basing on the said data. As per the data the yield is 8.11 quintals per Hectare. At that rate it would be 3.28 quintals per acre. Taking into consideration the good growth of the plant upto the stage of seed formation it would be appropriate to fix the yield at 4 quintals per acre.
36. As regards the price the Forum has fixed Rs. 3,000/- per quintal on the basis of the certificate (Ex.A5) of the Agricultural Market Committee, Kurnool. The certificate shows Rs. 2,616/-, Rs.3,276/- and Rs. 3,170/- for the low, high and medium quality seed. This Commission finds that said price appears to be prevailing on a single day i.e. 14.02.2011. It is to be noted that the price will not remain static always. The price will be fluctuating from time to time depending upon the demand and supply. Hence the price shown by the Market Committee cannot be taken as the basis to fix the price to the case on hand. This Commission is inclined to take the Minimum Support Price (MSP) fixed by the Govt. of India as the standard price. The Government of India has fixed the price for each crop year separately. The MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal for the crop year 2010-11 in which season the complainant had raised the crop. Hence this Commission is inclined to fix Rs.2,600/- per quintal. The complainant raised the crop in an extent of Ac. 2.40 as such the loss is estimated at Rs. 17,472/- ( Ac 2.40 cents x 4 quintals x Rs.2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 17,472/- ). Accordingly it is held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 17,472/- towards crop loss.
37. This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded by the Forum towards seed cost, compensation and litigation expenses have been properly awarded and the same do not require any interference.
38. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 17,472/- from Rs. 50,400/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 323/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.2 in the crop year 2011-2012 when the MSP was Rs. 2,800/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 17,248/- ( Ac 2.20 x 4 quintals x Rs.2,800/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 17,248/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 17,248/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 17,248/- from Rs. 46,200/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 324/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.16 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 23,005/- ( Ac 3.16 x 4 quintals x Rs.2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 23,005/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 23,005/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 23,005/- from Rs. 66,360/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 325/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.56 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 25,917/- ( Ac 3.56 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 25,917/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 25,917/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 25,917/- from Rs. 74,760/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 326/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.34 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 31,595/- ( Ac 4.34 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 31,595/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 31,595/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 31,595/- from Rs. 91,140/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 327/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.62 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 33,634/- ( Ac 4.62 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 33,634/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 33,634/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 33,634/- from Rs. 97,020/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 328/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 5.16 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 37,565/- (Ac 5.16 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 37,565/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 37,565/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 37,565/- from Rs. 1,08,360/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 329/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 1.40 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 10,192/- (Ac 1.40 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 10,192/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 10,192/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 10,192/- from Rs. 29,400/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 330/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.27 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 23,806/- (Ac 3.27 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 23,806/- ). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 23,806/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 23,806/- from Rs. 68,670/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 331/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 5.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 36,400/- (Ac 5.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 36,400/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 36,400/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 36,400/- from Rs. 1,05,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 332/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 21,840/- (Ac 3.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 21,840/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 21,840/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 21,840/- from Rs. 63,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 333/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.18 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 23,150/- (Ac 3.18 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 23,150/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 23,150/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 23,150/- from Rs. 66,780/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 334/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,560/- (Ac 2.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 14,560/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 14,560/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 14,560/- from Rs. 42,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 335/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.02 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,706/- (Ac 2.02 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 14,706/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 14,706/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 14,706/- from Rs. 42,420/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 336/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,560/- (Ac 2.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 14,560/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 14,560/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 14,560/- from Rs. 42,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 337/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 29,120/- (Ac 4.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 29,120/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 29,120/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 29,120/- from Rs. 84,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 338/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.20 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 16,016/- (Ac 2.2 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 16,016/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 16,016/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 16,016/- from Rs. 46,200/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 339/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.95 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 36,036/- (Ac 4.95 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 36,036/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 36,036/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 36,036/- from Rs. 1,03,950/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 340/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.6 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 33,488/- (Ac 4.6 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 33,488/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 33,488/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 33,488/- from Rs. 96,600/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 341/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 4.24 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 30,867/- (Ac 4.24 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 30,867/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 30,867/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 30,867/- from Rs. 89,040/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 342/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.2 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 16,016/- (Ac 2.2 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 16,016/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 16,016/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 16,016/- from Rs. 46,200/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 343/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.50 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 25,480/- (Ac 3.50 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 25,480/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 25,480/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 25,480/- from Rs. 73,500/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 344/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.40 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 17,472/- (Ac 2.40 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 17,472/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 17,472/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 17,472/- from Rs. 51,950/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 345/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,560/- (Ac 2.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 14,560/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 14,560/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 14,560/- from Rs. 42,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 346/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 14,560/- (Ac 2.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 14,560/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 14,560/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 14,560/- from Rs. 42,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 347/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 1.48 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 10,774/- (Ac 1.48 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 10,774/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 10,774/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 10,774/- from Rs. 31,080/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 552/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 3.0 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 21,840/- (Ac 3.0 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 21,840/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 21,840/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 21,840/- from Rs. 63,000/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
FA 553/2016
In this case the complainant raised crop in an extent of Ac. 2.50 in the crop year 2010-2011 when the MSP was Rs. 2,600/- per quintal. As such the loss is estimated at Rs. 18,200/- (Ac 2.50 x 4 quintals x Rs. 2,600/- (-) 30% good crop = Rs. 18,200/-). It is accordingly held that the complainant is entitled for Rs. 18,200/- towards crop loss.
This Commission finds that the other amounts awarded towards seed cost, compensation and litigation cost have been properly awarded and the same do not require any modification.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Forum is modified reducing the amounts towards loss of crop to Rs. 18,200/- from Rs. 52,500/-. The order shall stand confirmed in other respects. No costs.
SD/-
PRESIDENT
*mvk
