BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 26th day of May, 2006
C.D. No.34/2005
T. Nageswara Reddy, S/o. T. Venkatarami Reddy, Aged about 48 years,
Penchikalapadu (V), Gudur (M), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation,
51-1G, Prakash Complex, S.No.2, Opp. to State Ware House Godowns, Dealers in Monsanto Seeds etc, Kurnool.
2. Sri Krishna Fertilizers,
Seeds Business, 40-301-13, Upstairs, Bellary Road, Kurnool.
3. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd,
221-224, Sahar Plaza, M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the Presence of Sri M. Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri P.V. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and No.3 and Sri B. Narasimhulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking order against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,96,000/-towards loss of crops and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with future interest and any other reliefs with the circumstances of the case demand alleging the purchase of 3+1 units of MECH-12 BT hybrid cotton seed, marketed by the opposite party No.3 and sold by opposite party No.1& 2, paying to the later Rs.4,560/-& Rs.1,600/- @ Rs.1,520/-& Rs.1,600/- for unit under bill No.95, 95 dated 22-5-2004, 5-6-2004 and sowing them in his land of 4.0 acres in survey No.203/B/2 of Penchikalapadu village of Kallur mandal on 8-6-2004 and the due compliance of instructions given as to the cultivation and elderly advises of experienced farmers. He was attracted to this variety as safe for cultivation under the bore wells and no pesticides are required to this type of crop. Inspite of good environmental conditions and proper field and crop management investing Rs.65,000/- the crop failed totally in the said extent of 4.0 acres yielding only 3 quintals of poor quality of cotton against the 20 quintals expected yield per acre and ensured irreparable loss and mental agony and the said seed was learnt through mass media of the papers as a failure one and the opposite party fail to respond to the notice of the complainant. The said poor quality of 3 quintals of cotton did not fetch any value than Rs.4,000/-.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filing their written versions denying the complaint averments and any of their concern and there by any of their liability to the complainant’s claim.
3. In substantiation of the contentions, while the complainant side relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A12 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and replies exchanged to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and replies exchanged to the interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any defect in seed which ensured loss of yield and there by any liability of the opposite parties to the complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill issued by Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation, Kurnool (opposite party No.1) on 22-5-2004 envisaging sale of 3 bags of BT cotton seed of MECH-12 variety in favour of T.Nageswar Reddy (complainant) for a sum of Rs.4,560/- and the delivery of said seed to complainant.
6. The Ex.A2 is the cash bill issued by Sri Krishna Fertilizers, Kurnool (opposite party No.2) on 5-6-2004 envisaging sale of 1 bag of BT cotton seed of MECH-12 variety in fvaour of T.Nageswar Reddy (complainant) for a sum of Rs.1,600/- and the delivery of said seed to complainant.
7. The Ex.A7 is the certified copy of the adangal of the year 2004-2005 (1414 F) pertaining to the entries of survey No.203-B2 of Penchikalapadu village. Its entries envisages the extent of said survey number and a cultivation of cotton crop on an extent of 4.0 acres in Kharif and nature of said land as irrigated under bore well.
8. The sworn affidavit of the complainant confirm the said purchase of seed envisaged in Ex.A1 and A2 and cultivation of cotton in the field of the complainant as envisaged in Ex.A7.
9. Nothing much to discredit them comes forth in the interrogatories caused to them and replies obtained.
10. The Ex.B1 is the invoice dated 21-5-2004 standing in the name of Sri. Krishna Fertilizers, Kurnool (opposite party No.2) for 100 packets of cotton MECH-12 BT 450 variety supplied by opposite party No.3. The Ex.B2 is the discharge note issued by opposite party No.3 in favour of opposite party No.2 as to goods mentioned in Ex.B1 along with two other commodities. These two documents were filed by the opposite party No.2 to say the seed supplied by the opposite party No.3 to it was supplied by it to the farmers in the same condition as was received by it from the opposite party No.3. The liability of the opposite party No.2 for the said seed being arising on the reason that the said did not yield properly and not on any reason, and hence for the defect in said seed which must have ensured loss of yield the liability of the opposite parties whether he is manufacturer or provider to the farmer remains same especially when the opposite party No.2 has not endeavoured to get some sample of said seed it received under Ex.B1 and B2 tested by any laboratory to feel that the said seed it received from the opposite party No.3 itself was defective. Therefore, the mere existence of Ex.B1 and B2 is not going to have any of its effect on the liability of the opposite parties for the loss of the crop ensured on account of said seed and therefore the relevancy of Ex.B1 and B2 to the case remains little in favouring the opposite party.
11. The opposite party side except denying everything baldly did not place any such cogent material to discredit the Ex.A1, A2 and A7 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant filed in its substantiation of the Ex.A1, A2 and A7 and relevant complaint averments. Hence the material envisaged under the Ex.A1, A2 and A7 and sworn affidavits of the complainant are conclusively establishing the alleged purchase of said variety of cotton seed and its sowing and cultivation in the said land of the complainant in the year 2004-2005 (1414 F).
12. The Ex.A4 is the application of the complainant addressed to grievances cell, District Collectorate, Kurnool seeking the payment of compensation for loss of crop from MICHO Seeds Company. In the said application, which was said to have been received by the grievances cell, Collectorate, Kurnool on 13-12-2004 vide Ex.A5, the complainant alleges cultivation of BT-12 cotton seed variety in his land of 4.0 acres investing and incurring an expenditure of Rs.60,000/- and the total yield it yielded as 3.25 quintals only and inspection of his land by scientist assuring him to get compensation from seed company for the crop loss. In the absence of any contra material to it from the opposite party side discrediting its worth, in the light of the sworn affidavit averments of the complainant and Ex.A1, A2 and A7 the cultivation of said BT-12 variety cotton seed in complainant’s land and his sustaining from poor yield is remaining established conclusively.
13. The sworn affidavit of the complainant alleges the case of the complainant as alleged in the complaint and claims an incurred expenditure of Rs.65,000/- and loss of expected crop of 20 quintals per acre in the cultivated land of 4.0 acres @ Rs.2,500/- per quintal alleging it as the prevailing market rate. The opposite parties did not respond to the same by any reply discrediting them nor it placed any such material during enquiry of this case as to mean any exorbitancy in the alleged quantum of loss of yield and its alleged prevailing market rate. In the absence of any such denial material from the opposite parties side there remains any prima facia obligations on the part of the complainant to take them to the strict proof by any other cogent evidence on mere bald denial of complaint averments of the opposite party.
14. Even though either the complaint averments or the consequential material placed on the complainant side allege any specific defect in the seed supplied by the opposite parties which must have lead to the loss of the expected yield to the complainant, in the absence of any endeavour on the part of the opposite parties to establish the genuineness of their alleged seed by taking to laboratory test as contemplated under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act, as it is valuable rate of a consumer to get defect free goods from its producers and provider. Further on the other hand when the news paper cutting in Ex.A8 to A12 are envisaging the block listing of the said BT seed of the opposite parties due to its failure to yield properly was not discredited by the opposite parties side to the effect that they are short of truth and there by unfit for reliance.
15. When there is a materiel to believe the said seed is a failure one and block listed on account of its ensual of loss of crop to the farmers, who availed them, and there by implying the inherent defect in said seed it doesn’t require any further proof from the complainant’s side. Non the less of any laboratory test as contemplated under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act as the compliance of said procedure is mandatory as per the said section when the defect in said goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. Thus when there is some material to believe that the said seed as a failure one and there by to imply of its inherent defect, the decision of Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, reported in 2002 (2) CPJ page 343, which upholds the dismissal of the complaint in the absence of substantiating proof as to the poor quality of the seed is having no applicability for the facts and circumstances of this case.
16. If there is any falsity in the reasons for block listing of said seed and in fact the said seed is a perfect one and free of any defect, the said seeds company would not have kept silent from proceeding against the said block listing. The silent conduct on the part of the said seed company on its genuineness and falsity in the reason for its block listing openly even by news mass media itself is establishing the existence of defect clearly in said seed and not by any inference and so the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission reported in 2005 (2) CPJ –24, which warrants a clear finding as to defect or the quality of the seed or its substandardness to draw inference as to deficiency, doesn’t appear to be relevant for its application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case, especially when the Ex.A4 application made to grievance cell, District Collectorate, Kurnool seeking redressal of compensation for loss of yield also takes the loss of yield or improper yield, and there by lends some circumstance to doubt as to the genuineness of the said seed.
17. As the complainant not merely and solely rely upon the said news media reports appearing in Ex.A8 to A12 but also on his earlier representation in Ex.A4 besides to asserting the failure of crop on account of the said seed and thus the reliance on Ex.A8 to A12 appears to be taken to lend corroboration to his assertions made in the sworn affidavit and observations in Ex.A4 application, the division bench decision of Hon’ble A.P High Court reported in 2005 ALD (4) page 411, is having any applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court reported in 2003 (1) ALT page 37, in reference to the section 78 (2) of Evidence Act.
18. The complainant claims loss of yield at 20 quintals per acre. The opposite party side except denying the same did not place any such cogent material to feel any exorbitancy in said expected yield. Nor there appears any possibility and probability to the opposite parties to have any knowledge of them as they ever stated to have visited the field of the complainant during relevant times. Nor the Ex.A3 – broucher as to the said seed supplied by its seed company does say anywhere the probable quantum of the yield of said kind of seed yield in normal conditions. Nor does the opposite party side place the existence of any adverse and hostile agro environmental conditions for the failure of the yield or any falsity in the rate claimed for the crop. Hence from the above the cause for the failure of the yield and the probable quantum of the yield and their rate existing at the relevant time remains not discredited by the opposite party side with any cogent material which could cast every amount of doubt on the claim of the complainant and so there by the complainant is remaining entitled to the loss of yield @ 20 quintals per acre at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per quintal.
19. The complainant alleges that he has got 3 quintals of yield only out of his 4.0 acres cultivated and it being of poor quality values to it Rs.4,000/- and excludes from his total yield expected working it out to Rs.1,96,000/- complaint by the opposite party, did not substantiate the same by lending any corroboration to his solitary version. Hence the complainants entitleness for the loss of the yield shall remain as to Rs.1,96,000/- at the then existing rate of Rs.2,500/- per quintal.
20. As a complainant suffered loss of yield at the seed supplied by the opposite parties they are to hold joint and several liability for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties by their indifferent conduct driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his consumer grievances the opposite parties hold a joint and several liability to the complainant to pay the cost of this litigation.
21. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally to the complainant Rs.1,96,000/- @ Rs.2,500/- per quintal as loss of probable yield incurred in his land of 4.0 acres cultivated with the seed furnished by the opposite parties, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this litigation. The supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite parties jointly and severally to the complainant with in a month of the receipt of this order. In default they shall pay jointly and severally the supra stated award amount to the complainant with 12% interest till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 26th day of May, 2006.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Original Cash bill of Royal Seema Seeds Corporation, Kurnool,
Dt 22.5.04 of Rs. 4,560/-.
Ex A.2 Original Cash bill of OP No.2 Svi Krishna Fertilizers, dt 5.6.2004 of
Rs.1,600/-.
Ex A.3 Brochure supplied by opposite party No.3.
Ex A.4 Letter addressed to Dist. Collector, Kurnool by the complainant.
Ex A.5 Acknowledgement by the Grievance Cell Collector’s Office, Kurnool.
Ex A.6 Bollgard card.
Ex A.7 Original Adangal of Penchikala Padu (V), for the year 2004-05, issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gudur.
Ex A.8 Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt 23.4.2005 page No.8.
Ex A.9 Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt 18.5.2005 Page No.8.
Ex A. 10 Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt 24.6.2005.
Ex A. 11 Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt 15.4.2005.
Ex A. 12 Andhra Jyothi News Paper dt 25.6.2005.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex B.1Original Invoice Letter dt 21.5.2004 No. 1111402612 issued by OP No.3.
Ex B.2 Original dispatch notice dt 21.5.2004 issued by OP No.3.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri M. Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri P. V. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3.Sri B. Narasimhulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
