Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 13th day of October, 2004
C.D.No.38/2003
D.Rameswara Reddy,
S/o D.Kesava Reddy
R/o Salkapuram Village,
Kallur Mandal,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainants represented by their counsel
Sri.C.Prabhakara Reddy.
-Vs-
- The Area Manager,
National Seeds Corporation Limited,
Kallur Estate,
Kunool.
- The Regional Manager,
National Seeds Corporation Limited,
Regional Office,
Lalaguda,
Secunderabad.
- The Managing Director,
National Seeds Corporation Limited,
Beej Bhavan,
Pusa,
New Delhi. . . Opposite parties represented by their counsel
Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.34,245/- to the complainant i.e., Rs.180/- towards the cost of the 2 bags of the Hybrid Jowar Seed, Rs.2,000/- towards the incurred costs for two lorries dung manure, Rs.1,245/- towards the incurred cost for three bags G.20X20 and one bag of NOP Rs.820/- towards fertilizers and Rs.820/- for the incurred expenditure of the pesticides and Rs.30,000/- as crop loss occasioned due to defective seed.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant as an experienced agriculturist of Salkapuram Village purchased from the opposite party No.1 on 26-09-2002 and 21-10-2002 two bags of Hybrid Jowar Seed of Kind “Sorgnum” Variety C.S.H.5 of lot No.Feb.2002 01/03-45237 at a rate of Rs.90/- per each bag consisting of 3 Kgs of seed and sowed them on 25-10-2002 in an extent of Ac.2.00 irrigated land under submergible pump-set in Sy.No.55/2 of Salkapuram Village, Kallur Mandal and in bout 10 days thereafter found germination in an extent of 75% and by raising to the height of 10 to 15 Cms in after 70 days and about 15 days to then no seed setting in Jowar Plant Corns. On complaint to the opposite party its representative visited the complainant field and observed total loss of crop. Consequent to the failure of compromise talks with the opposite party and no action from the opposite parties, representation was made to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kallur and on it there was an inspection on the complainant’s field and in total failure of the crop was observed as the total yield if any will not cross 20 Kgs in all in all the extent of Ac.2.00. At the time of the purchase of the said seed it was said the yield at the rate of 30 Quintals per acre. Due to the substandarness in the seed and defectness of the seed furnished to the complainant the complainant suffered loss of expected yield of 30 Quintals per acre promised by the opposite parties. As the complainant incurred huge expenditure in the said cultivation and the opposite party No.1 who has sold the said seed, the opposite party No.2 Regional Office of the said seed and the opposite party No.3 who is the head of the Office of the said seed has failed to reimburse the loss, the complainant resorted to the Forum, for the reimbursement of the loss as the jointly and several liability of the opposite parties.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3made their appearance in to the case through their counsels by filing written version of the opposite party No.1 and its adoption memos by the opposite parties 2 and 3 denying of their liability for the claim of the complainant.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case and the bonafidies of the complaint averments requiring its strict proof alleging no defect in the seed supplied as the said seed supplied to the complainant was tested on 25-02-2002 by the seed testing laboratory of Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency as of 85% germination and as of 88% vide quality control lab report dated 05-06-2002 of the opposite party. It denies of nay substandarness in the seed supplied to the complainant as the germination of the seed was 75% alleged by the complainant was the minimum required to that quality and the non setting of the seed if any cannot be merely attributable to the defect in the seed as such a contingency may occur on account of bad field and crop management or hostile climatic conditions. It denies the allegation of its observation of loss of crop to the complainant and of any compromise talks in that regard and alleges the observations of the complainants low yield crop by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kallur as a fabrication and any of its promise as tot prospective yield of 30 Quintals per acre of the said variety to the complainant as the maximum yield of the said variety will not be more than 14 to 15 quintals per ace and questions the entitleness of the complainant for the alleged expenditure for want of its material substantiation.
5. While the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case, the opposite parties side has made reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his cause of action as to defect in the seed and of his entitleness for the claim made.
7. The Ex.A7 consists of two cash memos Nos.6659 dated 26-09-2002, 8994 dated 21-10-2002 envisaging purchase of 3 Kgs of Sorgnum C.S.H-5 C/S Variety under each bill by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 at the rate of Rs.30/- per Kg. The said purchase being not denied by the opposite parties the material in Ex.A1 is remaining conclusively proved as to the said purchase by the complainant.
8. The said bills in Ex.A1 do not envisage of its lot Nos. even though takes mention of its kind/variety. The Ex.A4 is the Mandal Agricultural Officer Report and the Ex.A5 is the bunch of two tags takes mention of the lot number of the said seed which the complainant cultivated as “February, 2002-9-03-45237” but none of the Ex.B1 (Seed Analysist Certificate dated 22-05-2002) and the Ex.B3 revalidation report dated 09-06-2003 takes any reference of the lot number of the seed which is concerned therein hence they find little relevancy and any adverse bearing on the merits of the complainant’s case as to the seed in question that too when Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are of the period of May and the June, 2002 sufficiently to the earlier to the sale of the seed in Ex.A1 and the Ex.B3 by its dated 09-06-2003 appears to be of a sufficiently later period to the cultivation period of the complainant that too for the revalidated variety.
9. A mere recital in written version of the opposite party No.1 that it is depositing there with the seed of the same lot for the purpose of the sending the same to the Analyst by the Forum, without making any such deposit in actuality is casting any amount of doubt not only on the correctness of the said seed, but also on the bonafide conduct of the opposite parties.
10. The Ex.A2 is the copy of the Adungal for the falsely year 1412 equal to year 2003 regarding to the lands in Sy.No.55/2 of the Salkapuram Village of Kallur Mandal of Kurnool District. It envisages the cultivation of the Jowar during the said period by the complainant in an extent of Ac.2.00 out of 5.24 cents in the land in Sy.No.55/2 of the Salkapuram. The said fact was not rebutted by the opposite parties side and hence the material in Ex.A2 as to the cultivation of the Jowar crop in the alleged extent of the land of the complainant is remaining conclusively established.
11. The Ex.A4 attested observation report dated 06-03-2003 of MAO, Kallur relating to its inspection of the complainant’s field on 02-03-2003 wherein Jowar of C.S.H.J. Variety and lot No.Feb.2002-9-0-45237 certified was said to have been cultivated finds non filling of the heads (seed setting nil) at harvest stage and existence of 12 plants per square meter with nil filling of the heads. The photographs in Ex.A3 with their corresponding negatives also display the said fact observed by the Mandal Agricultural Officer (PW1) in Ex.A4 inspection report. This material in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 was not rebutted by the opposite parties side. The opposite parties side except alleging the said contingency of the non setting of the said seed to several reasons such as bad field and crop management and hostile climatic conditions did not place any such cogent material in substantiation of the same to feel the said defect was on account of other factors and not on account of any inherent defect with the seed supplied to the complainant. Hence the said plea appears to be a plea for plea sake without any substance worthy of consideration. As the material in Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 being not rebutted by the opposite parties side they are remaining conclusively established and thereby said non setting of the seed and there by the said non setting of the seed as was on account of the defect in the seed supplied to the complainant cannot be ruled out.
12. There appears any wise ness on the part of the complainant in purchase of the pesticides mentioned in Ex.A6 dated 05-11-2002 for being used to the crop in the said field especially when there is neither any observation as to infestation of the said crop with any pest nor any recommendation for the use of the said pesticides mentioned in Ex.A6 in the Ex.A4 report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer. Hence there being every doubt on the bonafidies of the said Ex.A6 the claim made there under is rejected.
13. The Ex.A7 dated 26-09-2002 envisages the purchase of 3 bags of G.20.20 and one bag of M.O.P. for Rs.1,035/- and Rs.210/- respectively totaling to Rs.1,245/-. As the Ex.A1 envisage the purchase of questioned seed on the same dated of 26-09-2002 its purchase for its probable use for cultivating the crop of the said seed cannot be ruled out especially when the said seed was found cultivated from the supra stated un rebutted material on record. Hence the amount covered in the said Ex.A7 is allowed as genuine.
14. Rule 13 of the Seeds Rules, 1968 obligates the Seller of the Seeds to keep over for a period of 3 Years a complete record of each lot of the seed sold besides to sample of the seed of such each lot for one year after its sale and the said sample of the seed kept as part of the complete record shall be as large as the size notified in the Official Gazette and the sample if require shall be tested only for determining the purity of the seeds. The complainant and the evidence of the PW1 M.A.O., Kallur alleges the loss of the crop on account of the non setting of the seed was due to the defect in the seed supplied by the opposite parties. When the opposite parties disputes any such defect in the seed sold as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in M/S Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Limited -Vs- Alvalapati Chandra Reddy and others reported in 1988 (3) CPJ Page 8 (SC) the opposite parties are to apply to the District Forum to send the samples of the seed from the said batch for the Analysis by an appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties herein have not chosen to file in any such application in that line nor deposited any such seed which it should have preserved under Rule 13 (3) Seed Rules 1968 making an application for such purpose, while the complainant is not in a position to send any seed for Analysis having sown all the seed purchased by him.
15. The Honourable Mahastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, at Mumbai in its decision in the National Forum for the consumer Education and others -Vs- Sanjay Krushi Seva Kendra and other reported in 1999 (1) CPJ Page 451 also holds the burden of the proving the fact of standard of the seed on the seller of the seed in reference to the legal position Under Section 104 Evidence Act, 1872 as the part with the special knowledge of the said facts.
16. Hence, the opposite parties are not remaining discharged of the onus of the burden of the proof shifted on to them in the circumstances of the Ex.A4 is the M.A.O. Report. That being the position of the parties to the proceeding in discharge of their onus in concerned the Honourable A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad in its decision in the Managing Director, A.P. Seeds Development Corporation Limited -Vs- Seelam Ram Mohan and another reported in 1996 (III) CPJ Page 435 holds the maintainability of the complainant’s case as to the defective seeds even when the complainant has not taken any steps to send the seeds for Analysis and further in its decision in Cheethirala Pullaiah and sons and another -Vs- Alvalapati Chandra Reddy and another reported in 1993 (3) CPR Page 36 further holds, that the compensation awarded suffers no illegality for not sending any sample of the defect in the seed for the Analysis.
17. Hence, in the circumstances stated above the burden of proof of the seeds supplied to the complainant as were free from any defect as has not been discharged by the opposite parties and on the other hand the material on the complainant’s side in the light of the evidence of the PW1 and Ex.a4 holds the loss of the crop to the complainant being on account of the defect in the seed supplied to him remains compensate able from the source responsible for it.
18. Even though the Ex.A1 does not say of the lot number of the seeds supplied to the complainant, but as the documentary record in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 and the evidence of the PW1 identifies the lot number of the said seed as one alleged by the complainant and the loss of crop could be result of non setting of the seeds to the heads and from the evidence of the PW1 (M.A.O., Kallur) it could be due to substandard seed supplied to the complainant and there being any material contradictory to it, the loss of the crop in all its probability is remaining on account of substandardness or defect in the said seed. Hence, the opposite parties cannot escape their liability to compensate the loss ensure to the complainant on such account.
19. The Ex.A4 report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer as PW1 observes no seed setting to the plant head in the field of the complainant and attributes the said contingency to the substandardness of the seed supplied for showing in the said field. No cogent material is there on record as to believe the said contingency of the non setting of the seeds in the head ensuing to the loss of the crop of the complainant was on account of any bad field and crop management or hostile climatic conditions.
20. The complainant claims loss of crop at 30quintals per acre and values it for Rs.30,000/- for the loss of the yield in his Ac.2.00 of cultivation. The complainant not placed any such material which may envisage the expected yield of said variety was at the rate either in fact or as per broachers of the said variety issued by its Manufacturer or by practice of the other cultivators. Hence, there appears no justification for the claim of Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of yield on account of such failure of the crop due to defect or substandarness in the seed supplied. Bu the written version of the opposite party in reference to Vyavasaya Panchangam of the Agricultural University, Hyderabad alleges the expected yield of the said variety as 14 to 16 Quintals per acre. In this set of circumstances it is safe to hold the probable yield of the said variety as 14 to 16 Quintals per acre and consequently, the complainant would have entitled to a probable yield of about 15 Quintals per acre if the loss of yield did not ensue to the complainant on account of the substandardness in the seed supplied to him.
21. As the complainant values the loss of yield of his Ac.2.00 at Rs.30,000/- in his claim at the rate of 30 Quintals of yield per acre the said value of Rs.30,000/- appears to be the value of 60 Quintals of the probable yield of said two acres cultivated by him. When such is so the rate of the said crop works out to Rs.500/- per quintals i.e., Rs.30,000/- (-) 60 Quintals. There is no material from the opposite parties side to feel any exagiration or exorbitancy in the said rate as if there is any exorbitancy in the said rate the opposite parties would not have kept quite in placing any such material which may establish any exorbitancy in the said rate. Hence there appears every justifiability in accepting the said rate of Rs.500/- per Quintals as the then existing rate for the said crop and adopting the said rate to work out the compensation for the loss of the probable yield at the rate of 15 Quintals per acre, which may workout toRs.15,000/- i.e, 15 Quintals X Ac.2.00 X Rs.500/-.
22. As the opposite parties has driven the complainant to the Forum for the redressal of his grievances on supply of the substandard seed ensuing loss of yield to him and the opposite parties failed to reimburse the loss of crop sustained by the complainant the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this litigation.
23. Therefore, in conclusion of the above discussion as the opposite parties are liable jointly and severally to make good of the loss of the complainant ensued on account of the defective seed supplied to him and driven the complainant to the Forum for his redressal the complaint is allowed for Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of the probable yield Rs.1,245/- towards incurred expenditure under Ex.A7, Es.180/- as costs of the purchase of the seed under Ex.A1 cash memos and interest at 12% on the above said amounts from the date of the complaint till realization along with Rs.1,000/- as costs of this litigation granting one month time to the opposite parties for compliance from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 13th day of October, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bunch of two seed bills issued by opposite parties in favour of the
complainant.
Ex.A2 Adangal for the Year 2003 regarding to the lands of the complainant issued by the Panchayat Secretary Salkapuram.
Ex.A3 Bunch of three photographs along with Negatives of the complainants fields.
Ex.A4 Attested copy of Mandal Agricultural Officer Receipt.
Ex.A5 Bunch of two tags.
Ex.A6 Pesticides bill dated 05-11-2002 issued by Sree Ganesh Agro Enterprises, Kurnool in favour of the complainant for Rs.820/-.
Ex.A7 Fertilizers bill dated 26-09-2002 issued by Vasundara Fertilizers and Pesticides, Kurnool.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Seed Analysis Certificate dated 22-05-2002 issued by A.P. State Seed Certification Agency.
Ex.B2 Seed Analysis Report dated 05-06-2002 issued by Manager NSC Limited Quality Central Laboratory.
Ex.B3 Revalidation Report dated 09-06-2003 given by A.P. State Seed Certification Agency.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
