A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 1184/ against CC 7/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
Between :
1. Ankur Seds Pvt. Ltd, rep. by its Regional Manager,
P. W. Swamy, S/o Venkat Narsaiah, 30 years,
D. No. 3-5-874/A 203, 2nd Floor, Vipanchi Estates,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad.
2. Ankur Seeds Pvat. Ltd. Rep. by its M. D. and Authorized
Representative New Cotton Market Layout,
..
And
1. Mallempally Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Veeraiah, age 36 years,
Occ: Agril, R/o Jasthipally village, Kamepally Mandal,
Khammam District Respondent/complainant
2. Rama Agro Agencies, rep. by Mohan Rao,
R/o 2-5-48/49
P. S. Road, Khammam Town and
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. M. Srinivasa for R1
R2 served.
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Monday, the Twelfth Day of March
Two Thousand Twelve
Oral Order : per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the as against orders 30.09.2010 dated in CC 7/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Khammam. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under :
The complainant is a farmer and having the land in Sy.No.388 to an extent of AC.3½.00 gts., he attracted by wide publicity of opposite party No.3, on 14-08-2009and purchased 10 bags of Ankur Prabha seeds ( Red gram ) from the opposite party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1000/- vide cash bill bearing No. 53, dated 14-08-2009. The opposite party No.3 published the mixture of seeds i.e., Germination (Min) 75%, Genetic Purity (Min) 98%, Physical purity (Min) 98%, Inter matter (Max) 2%, other crop seeds (Max) 10/Kg, Weed seeds (Max) 10/Kg. The opposite party No.2 further labeled on the Seeds Packet that the seeds in this packet are conditioned to maintain good germination. After purchasing the seeds, the complainant sowed the in his land by taking precautions and on the instructions of Village Agricultural Officer and opposite party No.1 by investing huge amounts. Even after the completion of 6 months, the crop was not grown, the same was informed to the opposite party No.1 and Agricultural Officer, but they did not respond to come observe the crop in his land. It was published by the opposite party No.2 that the crop will grow within 5 to 6 months and will give yield for 8 quintals per acre. The market value at that time of red gram was 6,000/- per quintal, the complainant would have got at about Rs.1 The complainant invested Rs.1,000/- for purchase of seeds, 4 bags of DAP, 4 bags of 20:20 & 3 bags of potash for Rs.19,000/- for 3½ acres and spent Rs.10,000/- for purchase of pesticides and other charges like coolies and other expenses Rs.30,000/-. In total he spent an amount of 60,000/-. Even after spending of such huge amount he could not get the expected crop and all the said lapses on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint claiming an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards expenses incurred by him and also Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and sufferance.
3. 2 filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations admitting that the complainants purchased seeds from OP 1 made in the complaint and disputing the claim wheras OP s 1 and 3 filed a memo adopting the same counter and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
the complainant had not produced any expert opinion, to prove that the seed supplied was defective and also submitted that the actual time sowing red gram is June, but the complainant sowed the same in the middle of August, 2009. The complainant failed to state the following details that,
1) 1) The percentage of intensity
2) 2) Method of cultivation
3) 3) Germination percentage of the plants
4) 4) The method used in the fertilizers
5) 5) Present and past environmental condition.
6) 6) Total rainfall in the region
7) 7) Temperature condition at the time of sowing the seed.
8) 8) Total expected yield and reasons for expectation
9) 9) Total yield harvested
The advocate commissioner without giving proper notice visited the field and the opposite parties have no opportunity to represent their case at the time of execution of warrant. In the absence of any conclusive findings as regard to the quality of seeds, the liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of false and illegal allegations. In the absence of technical report it cannot be proved that seeds are defective. Unless and until the that there was negligence or deficiency in service, opposite parties are in no way responsible for any compensation. The burden lies on the complainant but he did not that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Ankur Seeds Pvt. LtdIndia. The complainant has not produced record of rights of his land, the opposite parties never assured about yield and the same depends upon other technical factors. No substantial evidence is produced by the that he invested Rs.60,000/- for cultivation of Red Gram crop. In this year, the dealer sold 8 tones of Red gram seed in the district, but no complaint is raised from any farmer except this complaint. complainant is not a consumer as he cultivated the red gram for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. is a report of Agricultural Officer that there was a less crop but he did not state the reason for it and that without taking expert opinion, A.O gave a report therefore is not a valid one and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant his evidence affidavit reiterating her case as set out in the complaint and Ex. A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of complainant and no documents are marked on behalf of OP. Both sides filed written arguments.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint in part directing the OP to pay Rs.1,42,000/- to the complainant together with interest 9% pa from the date of complaint till the date of deposit, so also Rs.3000/- towards costs of litigation.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful OPs 2 and 3 filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that orders of the District Forum are not sustainable either in law or on facts and that Mandal Agricultural officer visited the field along with the complainant behind the back of the Ops 2 and 3 and that the said Agricultural officer not even examined and the District Forum erred in considering the report of the Ad report it is not mentioned that the seeds supplied by the Ops are defective or substandard and that formation of pods and yield depends upon various factors such as availability of water, moisture, proper use of fertilizers and pesticides etc. the Agricultural Officer did not give scientific opinion and therefore the order of the District Forum are not sustainable and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is
There is no dispute that the complainant purchased 10 bags of Ankhur Prabha red gram seeds from OP 1 on 14.8.2009 by paying Rs.1000/-. According to the complainant he sowed the said seed in his land and in spite of completion of six months crop did not grow properly and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 in the said context and hence the complaint and that the District Forum correctly awarded the compensation recording the deficiency in service on the part of OP. where as, the contention of OPs 2 and 3 who filed the appeal is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and that there is no dependable evidence on record that seeds supplied by the Ops were of defective quality and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the complainant is claiming compensation against the OPs alleging deficiency in service in selling the said seeds it is his responsibility to prove his case with legal and dependable evidence. The complainant reiterated his case set out in the complaint in his evidence affidavit alleging deficiency in service against Ops 1 to 3 and certainly it is a self serving statement. Normally the farmer would sow all the seeds which purchased by him and will not retain any part of it therefore question of his sending seeds for testing to the laboratory for obtaining expert opinion does not arise and in the said context we cannot find fault with the complainant. In a decision reported in 1 (3) CPJ 241 NC between National Seeds corporation Limited VS N. Nagireddy supports the said view. Still it is the duty of the complainant to establish his case with other believable evidence on material. It is true that as per orders in IA 10/2007 Mr. Y. Ramesh, an Advocate commissioner was appointed to note down the meets and bounds of the land of the complainant in which the said Red gram seed was sowed by making local inspection and also to note down the stage and nature of the crop and he was permitted to take the help of concerned Agricultural officer and V R. O. Having appointed as Commissioner, the Commissioner issued notices to indicated 30.10.2010 as date of inspection. The said notices were sent through FDC couriers and on 30.01.2010 and receipts found in the record which are enclosed to the Commissioner’s report. Therefore contention of the OPs that behind their back commissioner visited to field on 4.2.2010 at 4.00 PM could not be appreciated. Now, the Commissioner’s report and the Agricultural officer report are essential to come to a conclusion whether the OPs sold defective seeds to the complainant and no where in the Commissioner’s report or MAO report they clarified that seeds supplied by the Ops are defective one or of inferior quality. They did not assign any reasons to less formation of pod and in such circumstances it is difficult to say that less formation of pod is only attributable to the quality of seeds. The formation of pods and yield depends upon various factors such as availability of water levels in the soil, moisture , proper use of fertilizers and pesticides etc and the complainant did not establish with any convincing material that the availability water level in the soil was suitable for the crop so raised so also the moisture at the relevant time ie pod formation stage and that he used fertilizers and pesticides required and that there were proper management of the crop in agricultural and other aspects. And when Agricultural officer did not give his scientific opinion and also did not alleged in his report that there was in the seeds. Poor yield of the crop if any cannot be attributed to the opposite parties. There is no to come to a conclusion that the less yield was only due to defects in seeds so also that the market value of the crop at the relevant time was Rs.600/- per quintal. Had the seeds were of substandard or defective there was no possibility of proper growth of the same and Commissioner’s report discloses that the crop was found normal in growth whereas pod formation is less. In the Commissioner’s report it is mentioned that market value of the said crop was Rs.5000/- for which also there is no basis and in such circumstances, awarding compensation of Rs.1 so also Rs.3000/- towards costs is not sustainable either in law or on facts and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. Accordingly the point is answered in favor of the appellants/Ops.
- In the result, the appeal is setting aside the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
12.03.2012.
