A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD
FA 84 of 2011 against C.C. 67/2002, Dist. Forum, Adilabad
Between:
1. Rasi Seeds Company Ltd.
Regd. Office at 273, Kamarajnagar Road
Attur-636 102, Tamilnadu
Marketing Office at :
3-44-144, Beside Plot No. 41
Ishaq Colony, Secunderabad.
Rep. by its General Manager
2. J. K. Agri Genetics Ltd.
Division of J. K. Industries Ltd.
Having Administrative Office
At 1-10-177, 4th Floor,
Varun Towers, Begumpet
Hyderabad.
Rep. by its President *** Appellants/
Ops 2 & 3
And
1) Kunta Narayana Reddy
S/o. Laxma Reddy
Bandal Nagpur Village
Tamsi Mandal
Adilabad Dist. *** Res/Complainant
2. Srinivasa Fertilizers,
M.G.Road, Adilabad,
Rep.by its Proprietor/Manager. *** Res/OP No. 1
3. M/s. N. Bapu Reddy & Co.
Gunj Road, Adilabad. *** Res/Op No. 4
(R2 & R3 are only proforma parties)
FA 85 of 2011 against C.C. 103/2002, Dist. Forum, Adilabad
Between:
1. Rasi Seeds Company Ltd.
Regd. Office at 273, Kamarajnagar Road
Attur-636 102, Tamilnadu
Marketing Office at :
3-44-144, Beside Plot No. 41
Ishaq Colony, Secunderabad.
Rep. by its General Manager
2. J. K. Agri Genetics Ltd.
Division of J. K. Industries Ltd.
Having Administrative Office
At 1-10-177, 4th Floor,
Varun Towers, Begumpet
Hyderabad.
Rep. by its President *** Appellants/
Ops 2 & 3
And
1) Kunta Deva Reddy
S/o. Ram Reddy
Bandal Nagpur Village
Tamsi Mandal
Adilabad Dist. *** Res/Complainant
2. Srinivasa Fertilizers,
M.G.Road, Adilabad,
Rep.by its Proprietor/Manager. *** Res/OP No. 1
(R2 is only a proforma party)
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. K. R. Koteswara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
****
1) These appeals are preferred by the manufacturer of cotton seeds against the order of the Dist. Forum awarding compensation for deficiency in seeds.
2) Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints filed by the farmers, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in these matters.
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that they are agriculturists, purchased JK2 variety of cotton seeds from the dealer manufactured by Rasi Seeds Ltd. on the assurance that the cotton seeds manufactured by them were of pure quality and would yield 10-12 quintals per acre. Lured by its publicity they purchased cotton seeds after payment of the amounts under different bills. They had sown the seeds in their lands in different extents. They had taken all measures, mixed the manure, maintained requisite distance between the row to row and plant to plant adhering to the advise and instructions given by the opposite parties. They had irrigation facilities. They had also applied pesticides and fertilizers periodically. They had sown the seeds in the month of June, 2000 and the crop was expected in December, 2000 as per its duration. However, they noticed that though they had grown healthy but there was no boll formation. There was flowering to some extent, however started falling in the bud stage itself. Despite taking measures it did not stop falling, due to which they had sustained huge loss. The concerned agricultural officers inspected their lands and assessed the damage. They opined that the loss was due to defective seed supplied to them. In fact in the previous year they have got 12 quintals of cotton per acre when they raised the very same variety of cotton by following the very same procedure. They claimed various amounts towards compensation for the loss sustained by them together with damages and costs as shown in the tabular statement.
S.No. | F.A. No. | C.D. No. | Comp. + | Award |
| | | | | Incident. chargs | damages | Damages + Costs |
1 | 84/2011 | | 67/2001 | | 1,80,000/- | 20,000/- | Pay compensation of Rs.48,000/- with |
| | | | | | | interest @ 9% p.a. |
| | | | | | | from 18.4.2002 and costs. |
2 | 85/2011 | | 103/2002 | | 3,33,000/- | 20,000/- | Pay compensation of Rs 65,280/-with interest @ 9% p.a from 20.4.2002 and costs. |
4) Op1 dealer resisted the case. He alleged that he was a dealer doing business under proper license to sell the seeds supplied by Ops 2 & 3 manufacturer and distributor respectively. He had no concern with the quality of seeds. He was not liable to pay any compensation, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) Ops 2 manufacturer equally resisted the case. However, it admitted that it was developing and distributing cotton hybrid varieties and Bajra seed varieties. The Government of A.P. notified RCH-2 cotton variety for further multiplication and distribution vide Gazette No. 233 Dt. 3.4.2000. It was entrusted to Op3 for distribution. Since introduction of the seed no complaint whatsoever was received though they had been distributing from the year 1994 onwards. The complainants had to prove that they had purchased the seeds from a bonafide source of supply and obtained bills. Further they have to prove that agricultural practices like applying fertilizers, pesticides etc. were adopted. Evidently there was no problem of germination. The crop condition i.e., performance and yield depend on several factors like soil type, sowing time, favourable climatic conditions, crop management, application of recommended fertilizer doses, adoption of proper plant protection measures etc. The most important factor which adversely affect the crop would be heavy rains during the months of July and August and thereafter prolonged dry spells at the time of flowering and boll formation. It was also affected by attack of pests and diseases more particularly with Heliothis (bollworms). They were not aware that the local Agricultural Officers had visited the lands and noted that there was deficiency in seeds. The report of the Seed Inspector under 23-A of Seed Rules is mandatory. Had such a report been obtained it would have been a clinching evidence. In the absence of technical evaluation report as prescribed under Rule 23A of Seed Rules the poor quality of seed or defective seed cannot be imputed to them. The complainants had to prove by filing necessary documents as to the expenditure and also the loss sustained by them. The average yield of cotton crop in Adilabad district during the year 2000-2001 was 102.73 Kgs per acre as against the claim of yield loss of 10 quintals per acre. There was no cause of action as they did not suffer from any deficiency in seeds supplied by them. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs.
6) Op3 distributor also filed separate counter, however it was verbatim re-production of counter of Op2 manufacturer.
7) At this juncture it is useful to note that the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 bills, Ex. A4 pahani for the 2000-2001 of Tamsi village and Ex. A5 report of Assistant Director of Agriculture along with report of Senior Scientist (Cotton Breeder) of Agricultural Research Station, Adilabad . The opposite parties did not file any documents.
8) Earlier the Dist. Forum by its order dt. 10.9.2004 after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants failed to prove that they purchased the cotton seeds from Op1 and sustained loss because of defective seeds manufactured by the appellants.
9) Aggrieved by the said order the complainants preferred appeals to this Commission in F.A. 377/2005 and batch and this Commission by order dt. 31.7.2006 allowed the appeals setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum and directed the appellants to pay compensation together with costs of Rs. 300/- while dismissing the complaint against Op1.
10) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred revision in R.P. Nos. 3568/2006 and batch. The National Commission by its order dt. 10.10.2007 set-aside the impugned order observing:
“ The finding and reliance by the Sate Commission on letter dt. 24.3.2004 being an expert report after visiting the fields, shall not stand the scrutiny for the simple reason that the crop year was of 2000-2001 and the letter dt. 24.3.2004 cannot be said to be an ‘expert report after visiting the fields’, by any standard. In any case, this letter again losses significance, as admittedly the fields visited by the two teams did not belong to any of the respondents/complainants before us.
Since the report (letter dt. 24.3.2004) relied upon by the State Commission in allowing the complaint is neither a valid report of an expert nor it relates to the respondents/complainants, and in the absence of any evidence to prove their case, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, which is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Dist. Forum to allow the parties to lead the evidence in respect of their respective contentions, including the expert evidence, so as to enable the Dist. Forum to pass the order as per law.”
11) Pursuant to the said remand order the matters have been taken up by the Dist. Forum. Unfortunately, neither the complainants nor the opposite parties had adduced any fresh evidence. However, a letter dt. 24.3.2004 given by Assistant Director of Agriculture is assigned as Ex. A5 and no separate evidence was adduced by any of the parties.
12) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants could establish that they had sustained loss of Rs. 8,000/- per acre and therefore directed to pay the same with interest @ @9% p.a.,
13) Aggrieved by the said order the appellants Ops 2 & 3 manufacturer as well as distributor preferred these appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that report of the above team of senior scientists made it clear that there was no defect in the seeds supplied to the farmers and that there was no physiological diseases noticed confirmed by Ex. A5 report of Asst. Director of Agriculture. Apart from it, the National Commission had already considered the evidence and opined that the field inspection reports did not pertain to the complainants and those reports that were filed by the Agricultural Officer cannot help for assessing loss of crops that were raised by the complainants. No evidence whatsoever was filed as directed by the National Commission. The complainants ought to have been dismissed holding that the complainants could not prove that the seeds that were supplied were deficient and that they were not entitled to compensation.
14) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
15) It is an undisputed fact that the appellants were manufacturers and distributors of cotton seeds RCH2 variety. The complainants had purchased seeds from its dealer Op1 evidenced under Ex. A1 to A3 bills. The complainants filed pahanis to show that they are the owners of agricultural lands wherein they have sowed the cotton seeds in their fields. They complain that they could not get the expected yield as bolls were not formed and on that they informed the agricultural authorities who inspected the fields and opined that the crop was failed due to deficiency in seeds. Admittedly they are the owners of the lands evidenced under pahanis marked as Ex. A4. They raised cotton crop in the fields by sowing seeds purchased from OP1 manufactured by appellants. The crop pertains to the year 2000-2001. The National Commission by its order has already appreciated these documents viz., report which was filed by the complainants in order to show that seeds were deficient and they did not give adequate yield. The reports that were filed were marked as Ex. A5. The National Commission in its order has categorically mentioned:
“ As per material on record, we see that there are two expert reports – one report is prepared by the Senior Scientist (Cotton Breeder), Agricultural Research Station, Adilabad, after inspection of fields of 9 complainants on 21.1.2001. The other report is also prepared by Sr. Scientists, viz., Dr. M. Gopinath and Dr. Subramani Reddy, after getting instructions from Director of Research (A&G) RGAV, Hyderabad on 3.4.2001 in which the fields of 7 farmers were visited by this team.
As per the material on record when the complainants were pending before the Dist. Forum, it requested the department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh to give a report in respect of 290 farmers who had taken up cotton production using this seed variety RCH-2 and Upaja-184. In response to this direction, the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Adilabad vide a letter Dt. 24.3.2004 informed to the President, Dist. Forum, Adilabad in following terms:
“The Hon’ble Dist. Forum, Adilabad through the reference cited has directed this office to submit the field inspection reports in respect of 290 farmers. In this regard it is to submit that at this juncture it may not be possible to submit field inspection reports of all 290 farmers as it was not recorded by the then team consisting of Scientist and Departmental Officer during Kharif 2000 season.”
“When we see these two reports after a visit to the field on 21.1.2001 and 3.4.2001, we find that in all the fields of 16 farmers (9 farmers in the inspection report of 21.1.2001 and 7 farmers in the inspection report of 3.4.2001) were carried out. Learned counsel for the complainants stated before us that none of the 16 farmers whose fields were inspected by two team experts on two different dates are the respondents/complainants in revision petition before us. In view of this inference is quite clear, that there is no material with regard to the type of seed sown, the out put from the seed sown, the field conditions, agricultural practices adopted by the farmers, effect of drought, if any, use of fertilizer, pesticides etc. by way of any expert opinion”.
16) We may state that Ex. A5 report of Senior Scientist (Cotton Breeder), Agricultural Research Station, Adilabad said to have visited the fields of the following farmers six in number of Tamsi village.
1. S. Santhosh Reddy 8 acres
2. T. Raja Reddy 3-1/2 acres
3. Ch. Sambi Reddy 20 acres
4. Ch. Asha Reddy 5 acres
5. S. Pota Reddy 20 acres
6. M. Pandarinath 6 acres.
In the said report Ex. A5 list of team visited was made a mention.
1. Dr. K. V. Krishna Rao, Senior Scientist ©, ARS, Adilabad
2. Sri N. V. Sharma, ADA (R), Adilabad
3. Sri C. Narsingu, A.O., Adilabad
4. Sri V. Veeraiah, A.O, Tamsi
5. Sri K. Umakanth, AEO, Adilabad.
However, Scientists are of the categorical opinion:
“The plants have more number of squares and flowers. The flowers size is small. The anthers were observed and there is no pollen shedding. This is due to male sterility of flowers. Under these conditions flowers ill formed but there will not be fertilization. Only fertilized flowers will form bolls. As this defect is noted it is concluded that the reasons for failure of crop is due to male sterility. There is very spare shedding of pollen ( up to 5%) in flowers and as a result of given bolls which are either shed in a week after formation. The ill filled bolls naturally drop as they do not have seed development. All these complications arise due to the use of Gms and CGms systems in production by the concerned companies. It is a fact that the farmers have not got any yield from the cotton crop raised with this variety. It is due to the seed fault and not for climate and management practices.”
He appended the list of 12 agriculturists. The complainants now intend that the very same yard stick that was applied to them be applied by holding they also could not get the requisite yield due to seed fault.
17) When the complainants knew well that the Agricultural Officers and the Scientists visited their village, they could have got their names also included in the list or requested them to visit their fields also. Simply because they took some representative samples from some of the farmers fields, it would be unjust to extend the same, stating that the complainants had also failure of crop due to seed fault. It is not the case of the complaints that these Scientists had visited their lands and noted the loss of crop. Obviously neither the complainants nor the opposite parties could have invoked Section 13© of the Consumer Protection Act to send the seeds for analysis. The seeds that were produced in 2000-2001 could not have been kept till 2012. It is not known as to its shell life. The complaints ought to have taken certificate from the Village Administrative Officer to show that crops were failed in their lands also. Pahanis Ex. A4 do not show that there was loss of crop. Except their self-serving affidavit evidence no document was filed in order to prove that they had sustained loss of crop due to defect in the seed. The said fact was controverted by the appellants.
18) At the cost of repetition, we may state that simply because crop in some of the fields of farmers in their village were failed due to defect in seeds, it cannot be said that crops in the lands of the complainants were also failed without any proof in that regard. Without any data whatsoever simply because Scientists have found that the crops were failed in the fields pertaining to 12 farmers it would not automatically prove that their crops were also failed and that their crops failed due to defect in the seeds. No doubt the complainants are agriculturists may not be conversant with these technicalities, however, when it comes to proof there cannot be different yard stick in proving a particular fact.
19) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainants were unable to prove that the seeds that were sown by them were defective and they did not get the requisite yield by filing any document whatsoever. Therefore we have no other go than to say that the complainants were unable to prove the case set up by them. There is no proof that the seeds supplied by the appellants were defective and consequently the complainants had sustained loss.
20) In the result the appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaints are dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
26/07/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
