Date of filing : 17-05-2011
Date of Disposal: 18-07-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Sri Kum. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 18th day of July, 2012
C.C.NO. 103/2011
Between:
Shaik Subahan
S/o Shaik Abdul Gaffur Sab
Agriculturist, Chinthakayamanda Village
Yellanur Mandal, Anantapur District. … Complainant
Vs.
- Avani Seeds & Pesticides rep. by
Managing Partner, T.C.Narasimhulu,
D.No.13-708-D1, Nandi Residency Complex,
Near RTC Bus Stand,
Anantapur.
- Syngenta India Ltd., Seeds Division,
Rep. by authorized signatory,
‘ Seeds House’, 1170/27,
Revenue Colony, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune – 411 005. …Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Sreekanth, advocate for the complainant and Sri M.Sudheednra, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party remained exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kumari M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.6,360/- towards cost of the seeds, Rs.18,000/- towards cost of the manure, Rs.9,365/- towards cost of the fertilizers, Rs.1,62,000/- towards cross loss (Rs.18,000/- x 9 Acres), Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony in total Rs.2,05,725/- and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is permanent resident of Chinthakayamanda Village of Yellanur Mandal of Anantapur District and he is an agriculturist and completely depending on the agriculture. It is submitted that the 1st opposite party is retailer of seeds situated at Anantapur and selling the various seeds including the seeds produced by the opposite party No.2 . The 2nd opposite party is the produced of the seed NK ARMONI (NX-00997) Hybrid Sunflower Seed alongwith other products and distributing the same to the various retailers including the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had canvassed in the Villages about the NK ARMONI (NX-00997) Hybrid Sunflower Seed stating that the said seed will give high yield more than 8 quintals per acre. It is submitted that believing the words of the 1st opposite party the complainant purchased 9 packets of 2 Kgs. Each of NK ARMONI (NX-00997) Hybrid Sunflower Seeds on 03-02-2011 and 23-02-2011 from the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party issued bills to that effect. The complainant purchased 6 packets with Batch No.10078260 for Rs.4,200/- and 3 packets with Batch No.10078260 for Rs.2,160/- and a total amount of Rs.6,360/- was spent to purchase the seed and the bill copies are filed alongwith complaint. It is submitted that after purchase of the seed, the complainant has raised the crop in Ac.5.50 cents in Sy.Nos.136-2 and 136-3 and Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.176-A belongs to Kummara Bramhaiah by taking it for lease at Rs.2,000/- per acre. The complainant after making necessary pre-agricultural operations and following the instructions of the 1st opposite party sowed the seed on 04-03-2011. The complainant also applied 24 carts of manure to the field which costs about Rs.18,000/- and applied fertilizers and pesticides worth Rs.9,365/- . The purchase bill pertaining to the Fertilizers filed alongwith complaint. Surprisingly though the germination of the seed is good, when the crop flowered and at the time of seed setting it was observed that the grain was not setting. The same was complained to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur on 02-05-2011 by this complainant. The Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the fields and observed the crop loss incurred by this complainant at 6-7 quintals per acre and incurred a loss of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre and submitted his report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur. The complainant incurred a loss of Rs.1,95,725/- as the seed is in defective in nature. The complainant was expecting yield of 55 to 65 quintals and marketing price of Rs.1,35,000/- to Rs.160,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant and his family members spent huge labour and suffered mental agony due to the failure of the crop and due to the supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence the complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in supplying the seeds and both opposite parties jointly and severally liable to be pay the compensation amount with interest to the complainant.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter. The allegations in para 2 of the complaint that the 2nd opposite party manufacturing the seeds is no doubt true but it is denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The allegation that this opposite party canvassed about the product in the Villages is denied by this opposite party. The allegation that this opposite party canvassed and lured the ryots about these hybrid seeds and made the farmers to purchase the same also denied by this opposite party and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the yield of the crop depends upon the application of manure, fertilizers, water source, controlling of pests and diseases to the crop and over all these nature of the soil and one can not assure the yield of the crop. It is submitted that though this opposite party sold the product to this complainant and issued bills to the complainant but this opposite party is not the manufacturer of the said product and more-over it is a sealed pack and not a tampered one. Hence whatever the defect came out from the product for the said defect, this opposite party is not responsible and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The 1st respondent has nothing to do with field work and he is only retailer. It is submitted that this complainant never sowed the said seed alleged to have been purchased from these respondents in the said survey number. The allegation in para 5 of the complaint that the complainant applied manure as per the instructions of the 1st respondent and spent Rs.18,000/- and he had spent Rs.9,365/- for the said fertilizers are also false and the complaint is put to strict proof of the same. The said land is not with sufficient water and it is further submitted that the lease amount mentioned in para 5 also exaggerated unbelievable and out of all proportions. Hence the claim of Rs.5,000/- is not entitled by the complainant. The amount claimed under mental agony of Rs.10,000/- is also not entitled by the complainant. The allegations mentioned in para 6 of the complaint that the agriculture officer visited the field and certified that the seed supplied by the opposite parties are defective is wrong, baseless and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant suppressed most of the facts before this Forum and filed this complaint to get undue advantage by filing delayed complaint before this Forum. It is submitted that this complainant had no prima-facie case. The opposite parties reserve their right to file additional counter in future if any further information collected. It is further submitted that the 2nd opposite party is a licensed manufacturer of seeds having its own quality control division and this opposite party is having licence to carry out his business in Andhra Pradesh. In fact during the field visit by the Advocate-Commissioner it is clearly observed that the crop was covered with some weed. It is further submitted that even if so assumed for a moment that the seed was inferior in quality that should reflect on germination itself but not on yield. The crop duration of sunflower is 70 days from the date of sowing and the crop would have been completed by 14-05-2011 but this complaint was filed on 17-05-2011 which clearly shows the intention of the complainant to take advantage of the situation. The complainant had not quantified and assessed his claim for Rs.2,05,725/-. There are no merits in the complaint. Hence, prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party remained exparte.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2
by supplying defective seeds ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled the compensation?
3. To what relief.
6. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and no documents have been marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1 - The complainant’s counsel argued that the complainant is an agriculturist and he purchased “ NK ARMONI “ (NX-00997) Hybrid Sunflower Seeds from the 1st opposite party, who is retailer of seeds produced by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party canvassed in the Villages that the Sunflower Seeds will give high yield more than 8 quintals per acre. Believing the words of the 1st opposite party, the complainant purchased 9 packets in total of “ NK AROMNI (NX-00997) “ Hybrid Sunflower Seeds on 03-02-2011 (Ex.A1). He purchased 6 Kgs. Of seeds worth of Rs.4,200/- on 03-02-2011 and on 23-02-2011 3 kgs., worth of Rs.2,160/-The complainant has raised the crop in Acs.5.50 cents in S.Nos.136-2 and 136-3 and Acs.2.50 cents in Sy.No.176-A belongs to one Kummara Brahmaiah on lease by paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- per acre. The complainant showed the seeds on the instructions of the 1st opposite party on 04-03-2011. He also used 24 carts manure to the field , which costs about Rs.18,000/- and Rs.9,365/- for Pesticides and Fertilizers (Ex.A3). Subsequently, though the germination of the seed is good, at the time of seed setting the grain was not setting . The complainant complained about the same to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur on 02-05-2011 (Ex.A4). The Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the field and observed that 6 to 7 quintals of loss per acre and loss estimated as Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as the opposite parties supplied defective seeds and the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,05,725/- under different heads jointly and severally.
9. The counsel for 1st opposite party filed counter and argued that the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of seeds and this opposite party never canvassed in the Villages that to purchase the seeds of the 2nd opposite party. The yield of the crop depends upon the application of manure, fertilizers, water source, pesticides et.c, to the crop. The liability of the opposite party does not arise as he has sold the seeds to the complainant and issued bills , the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Sunflower Seeds and seeds were sealed in packets and not tampered one. The opposite party denied that the complainant incurred a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards manure and a sum of Rs.9,365/- towards Fertilizers at the instructions of the opposite party. The land of the complainant is not having sufficient water and about the visit of the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Yellanur in the field and certified that seeds are defective is not genuine one. The 2nd opposite party is having its own quality control division and the 1st opposite party is having licence to carry business in Andhra Pradesh. Even if seeds inferior in quality, that should reflect on germination itself but not on yield and crop duration is only 70 days from the date of sowing and the crop would have completed y 14-05-2011. But the petition filed on 17-05-2011. Hence, the complainant is not entitled any claim against this opposite party.
10. On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 the complainant purchased 9 kgs., of Hybrid Sunflower Seeds from the opposite party on 03-02-2011 and 23-02-2011 and the cost of the seeds is Rs.6,360/- . The complainant raised the crop in Acs.5.50 cents and Acs.2.50 cents in Sy.No.136-2 and 136-3 and 176-A belongs to Kummara Brahmaiah. On 04-03-2011 by following necessary precautions and also used manure for Rs.18,000/- and Fertilizers and Pesticides worth of Rs.9,365/- (Ex.A3) on 24-03-2011.
11. The complainant not filed any Pamphlet/brochure to show that the 1st opposite party canvassed in the Villages that NK AROMI Hybrid Sunflower Seeds will give high yield more than 8 quintals per acre. The complainant filed to say how much seeds should be used per acre and what are the pre-agricultural operations should be taken and what is the period for growing crop and which time the seeds should be sowed.
12. The complainant narrated that he used the manure worth of Rs.18,000/- per acre and Pesticides worth of Rs.9,365/- (Ex.A3). As per Ex.A3 the complainant purchased seeds on 24-01-0211 and prior to purchase of seeds, no documents filed for the usage of manure. The complainant stated that the germination is good, the grain was not setting then he reported to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur (Ex.A4). In Ex.A4 representation to Mandal Agricultural Officer, he stated that he purchased 18 kgs. Of seeds from the 1st oppose party on 03-02-2011 and sowed all the seeds in his own land i.e. acs.9.00, but in complaint and evidence he is owning acs.5.50 cents and he has taken lease Acs.2.50 from one Kummara Brahmaiah. It gives doubt which one has to be considered either it is Ex.A4 or complaint. Further the complainant stated the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur gave a report that the yield loss is 6 to 7 quintals per acre and loss is Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre (Ex.A6). The report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur not disclosed the date when he visited the filed and which S.No. the seeds were sowed and how much the etent was used for sowing the seeds. He just mentioned the same points which were mentioned in the representation. The Mandal Agricultural Officer nowhere mentioned that crop is loss due to defective seeds. More over he requested the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to send the seeds to the expert team of Scientist may also be deputed for field inspection. The 1st opposite party categorically stated that if the seeds were inferior quality that should reflect on germination itself but not on yield. The agricultural expert has not stated anything about the age of crop in his report. The complainant filed the petition to appoint Advocate-Commissioner in I.A.No. /11 and the Forum has appointed the Advocate-Commissioner and he visited the field on 20-05-2011 alongwith Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur. As per the Commissioner’s report the complainant sowed the seed on 04-03-2011 and water source is there in the lands. He observed that the crop is with multi-flowering and the Mandal Agricultural Officer assessed that multi-flowering is about 60 to 75% and the multi-flowering is caused due o the mutation (seed defect). Due to it multi-flowers will appear over the plant and the crop loss is 70 to 80% and the harvesting expenditure will become additional loss.
13. The Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur, who assisted the Advocate-Commissioner in execution of the warrant has not filed any separate report before the Forum. The person who is expert in assessing the defects if any in the seeds not filed any report to show that the seeds supplied by the 2nd opposite party is defective and the 1st opposite party stated that the seeds were in sealed cover and no possibility to tamper it and the 2nd opposite party is having its own quality control division and if the sunflower seeds is in inferior quality that should reflect on germination itself and not on yield. The complainant not reported about the defects in seeds to the 2nd opposite party, who is manufacturer and no laboratory test was conducted. We are relying on a decision reported by the NG News in 2011 (3) CPJ 99 (NC) Myco Seeds Ltd., Vs. G.Venkatasubba Rayudu. Basing on the decision we concluded that no defects in seeds was identified as no laboratory test was conducted. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
14. POINT NO.2 - The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,05,725/- under different heads. The counsel argued that as the 1st opposite party is being retailer of 2nd opposite party, eh supplied Sunflower Seeds of AROMNI to the complainant and that seeds became defective and the complainanthas taken all precautions till harvesting and the complainant used pesticides and manures as per the instructions of the 1st opposite party but the grain was not setting due to the complainant incurred loss at 6 to 7 quintals and its cost is Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per acre.
15. The 1st opposite party argued that nothing to do with field work and he is only retailer and the 2nd opposite party is manufacturer of the seeds and the complainant is not entitled any claim as there was no defect in the seeds and the crop duration is 70 days from the date of sowing and crop would have completed by 14-05-2011 but the petition was filed on 17-05-2011 shows the conduct of the complainant.
16. The documents i.e. Ex.A6 Pattadar Pass Books not tallied with the name of the complainant and Ex.A1 and A2 purchase of seeds bills shows the name of the complainant in Ex.A5 i.e. representation to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur, the complainant mentioned that he purchased 18 kgs. of Sunflower seeds from 2nd opposite party on 03-02-2011 by giving lot No. as 78260. Whereas in Ex.A1 dt.03-02-2011 bill he purchased six packets lot No.as 78260. There is discrepancy in the documents and to the complainant.
17. As per National Commission decision we could not come to a conclusion that through Visvas inspections as there is no laboratory test to the seeds and the complainant did not inform the 2nd opposite party about the failure of crop and loss though the 2nd opposite party is manufacturing company and having its own quality control division. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
18. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 18th day of July, 2012.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Carbon copy of bill dt.03-02-2011 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A2 – Carbon copy of bill dt.23-02-2011 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
Complainant.
Ex.A3 - Letter issued by Kummara Bramhaiah to the complainant.
Ex.A4 - Bill dt. 24-09-2011 issued by Sriganti Subramanyaswara Fertilizers &
Seeds, Anantapur.
Ex.A5 - Photo copy of letter dt.-02-05-2011 submitted by the complainant to the
Mandal Agricultural Officer, Yellanur.
Ex.A6 - Letter issued by M.A.O., Yellanur to Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur.
Ex.A7 - Photo copy of Pattadar Pass Book relating to Y.Abdul Gafoor Sab.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
- NIL -
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
Typed by JPNN
