Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/2011

Chakali Chinna Nagaiah S/o Sailu - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud,

19 Jan 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

      Thursday, the 19^th day of January, 2012 

                                                     Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

      C.C.NO. 11   Of   2011

Between:-

Chakali Chinna Nagaiah S/o Sailu, aged 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.3-71, Uppununthala village and mandal, Mahabubnagar district.                                                                                                                                                                                … Complainant

And

1. The Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Hacca Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2. The Agricultural Officer, Uppununthala mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3. The Manager, M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers, D.No.1/116, Vadegapally, Goruntla mandal, Ananthapur District.

(The opposite party No.3 is impleaded as per order of the Hon’ble Court vide I.A.No.90/2011, dated 20-06-2011)

                                                                                                                                                                              … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 11-01-2012 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri CH. Shyam Sunder Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP.No.1, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, Hyderabad for OP.No.3 and OP.No.2 in person and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:                                              

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop in Ac.1-20Gts,  Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and for adopting unfair trade practice, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are that:-  The complainant is an agriculturist by profession having well experience in agriculture. He is having agricultural landed property in Sy.Nos.571/A & 362/A situated at Uppununthala village and mandal. The OP-1 is the A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, the OP-2 is the concerned Agricultural Officer of Uppununthala mandal while the OP-3 is the supplier of Castrol Seeds to OPs.1 and 2. The OPs.1 and 2 after purchasing the Castrol seeds from OP-3 used to sell the same in packets each weighing about 4 Kgs., to a total cost of Rs.82/- to the needy agriculturists in the village convincing and made them to believe that the Castrol seeds are of best quality and will give high yield. While so, the complainant believing the opposite parties purchased one packet of Castrol seeds at a total cost of Rs.82/- from OP-2 on 18-6-2010 for cultivation in his agricultural land.  Two or three days after its purchase, the complainant sowed the seeds in his land to an extent of Ac.1-20Gts., by taking all precautions and care for germination and growth of plants by applying necessary fertilizers like D.A.P., Urea etc., by spending huge amounts. Even after sowing the seeds subsequently he had taken every care without any compromise by duly taking suggestion of local Agricultural Officer and adopted all management practices like weeding of crop by duly engaging labour etc. Though the crop grown up, but even after four months also there was no yielding and there are also no fertile flowers and buds. Thereupon, when the complainant approached the OPs.1 and 2 and brought the same to their notice, they visited the fields and assured the complainant that they will send the Scientist for necessary crop testing. Later inspite of his approach for several times but the opposite parties have not sent any Scientist and not taken any steps against the seeds company.  In fact, the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,000/- per acre towards the costs of fertilizers, pesticides and labour charges. If the opposite parties would have sold the good quality of seeds he would have got fertile yielding of Castrol @ 10 to 15 quintals per acre and would have get higher price @ Rs.50,000/- per acre.  Due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre due to non fertile and yielding of the crop. Due to the loss of crop with the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties he suffered lot of mental agony apart from financial problem. Such acts on the part of the opposite parties by selling defective seeds amounts to unfair trade practice. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief. 

3. It is necessary to mention here that originally the present complaint is filed against OPs.1 and 2. During the pendency of the case and basing on the counter filed by the OP-1 taking a plea that OP-3 is responsible for supply of such defective seeds, the complainant impleaded OP-3 as a party to the present proceedings as per order in I.A.90/2011, dt.20-6-2011.              

4. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that as per the instructions given by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.SC(5)/362/10, dt.29-4-2010 this opposite party has floated tenders in the month of May, 2010 for supply of Caster PCS-4 T/L seed as per the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards prescribed by the Central Seed Certification Board, that in pursuance of it M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers (OP-3 herein) have quoted lowest rate and entered into two separate agreements for supplying the required quantities and thereupon the successful tenderer i.e., M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers (OP-3 herein) actually produced and supplied the Caster seeds and therefore the role of this opposite party is nothing but a distributor for the seed supplied by the OP-3 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement. It is further stated that as per clause 3 and 2 of the said agreement M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers (OP-3) have to supply the seed having genetic purity as prescribed by the Central Seed Certification Board, that as per clause 9 & 8 the supplier i.e., M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers (OP-3) shall be solely responsible for the quality of the seeds supplied and any complaint with regard to quality aspects such as germination, purity (physical), moisture and genetic purity, and that as per clause 10 & 9 in the event of any complaint on quality of seeds at field level i.e., germination, crop failure due to any of the factors, the supplier shall pay compensation as decided by the MOU Committee/team of officials constituted for the purpose by Department of Agriculture.  It is also further stated that this opposite party served a legal notice dated 15-12-2010 on M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers  (OP-3) on knowing the crop failure to make good the loss sustained by the farmers as per agreement and thus this opposite party is only the distributor and not a producer of the seeds and not liable for the loss incurred by the complainant and so M/s Ganesh Seed Suppliers (OP-3) is solely liable for the loss, if any, incurred by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs against this opposite party.   

5. The opposite party No.2 filed counter, admitting the case of the complainant about purchasing the Caster seeds from him, stated that this opposite party is only a mediator between the complainant and OP-1, that on receipt of the complaint from the farmers including the complainant and as a form part of his duty about the Castrol crop, this opposite party informed the same to OP-1 and so also inspected the field of the complainant along with his higher officials i.e., Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar and a Scientist from Palem Agriculture University and observed the Castrol plants raised in the field of the complainant grown tall without having flowers and buds and so also no yielding.  It is further stated that as per his knowledge and opinion the complainant was put into very much loss by cultivating the defective seeds supplied by the OP-1 since he is only a mediator and as per the order of the OP-1 he sold the said seeds to the complainant and therefore this opposite party is not responsible for loss of the crop and not liable to the relief sought for by the complainant, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs against this opposite party.                 

6. The opposite party No.3 filed written version/counter stating that this opposite party after became successful tenderer to the tenders called by the OP-1 for supply of Caster PCS-4 seeds entered into agreements with the OP-1 for supply of the said seeds, that before supply of the seeds this opposite party has processed the seeds with the processing unit at  M/s Jayaram Enterprises, Palasamudram, Goruntla mandal, Ananthapur District, that at the time of the said processing the Seed Officers of OP-1 were very much present and under their supervision, guidance and presence only entire processing was completed and the seeds were dispatched to the respective destinations/godowns on the instructions of OP-1.  It is also further stated that apart from that, after processing the seed the samples were drawn by the Seed Officer of the OP-1 from each lot and they were sent to the OP-1 laboratories situated at Kurnool and as well as at Jeedimetla and the said two laboratories of OP-1 tested the seeds and as per the lab report the said seeds supplied by this opposite party are having standard quality and also having good germination, as such this opposite party is not at all at fault in supplying the seeds and thus this opposite party is not liable to the relief sought for by the complainant. It is also further stated that there is no proof that the OP-1 has sold the same seeds to the complainant purchased from this opposite party and further the bill produced by the complainant is not at all containing the lot number and so also the signature of the issuing authority and furthermore there is no allegation in the complaint against this opposite party, as such this opposite party is not at all liable to pay compensation.  It is also further stated that as a matter of fact various lands were inspected by the Scientists and they opined that there was good monsoon prevailed during the said year, as such there was excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 10 to 12 feet tall, flowering was observed but due to excessive vegetative growth flowering is delayed and so it is clear that the failure of the crop is due to various climatic conditions and natural factors involved which is not due to fault of seeds, and that on receipt of the legal notice got issued by the OP-1 this opposite party got issued a reply notice mentioning all the above said details, and that the same was also acknowledged by the OP-1 who in turn  to the best reasons known to him did not file the same before this Forum and in fact the OP-1 suppressed all the said facts in his counter and hence this opposite party is not at all liable to pay compensation. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party. 

7.  In proof of the claim the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 & A-2. On the other hand, the OP-1 in support of its contentions got filed the affidavit evidence through its General Manager and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4.  The OP-2 having availed sufficient opportunity did not choose to file any affidavit evidence except filing counter and also got no documents marked. The OP-3 in support of its contentions got filed its affidavit evidence through its proprietor and got marked Exs.B-5 to B-18. 

8.  The points for determination now are:

(i) Whether there is any deficiency and unfair trade practice on the  part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him, and if so who are liable to comply the same?

(iii) To what effect?

9. The undisputed facts in the case are that the OP-1 is the distributor of the Castrol seeds in question on price to the needy agriculturists in the village through OP-2 the Agricultural Officer of the village.  It is an admitted fact that the OP-3 is the producer and supplier of Caster seeds to various customers. It is an admitted fact borne out from the record that after he became successful tenderer to the tenders called by the OP-1 he supplied Caster PCS-4 seeds to the OP-1 for its sale among the needy agriculturists in the village. As per the case of the complainant and the version of OP-2 it is an admitted fact that the complainant being an agriculturist having agricultural landed property purchased the Castor seeds covered under the bill original of Ex.A-1 from OP-2. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant, after purchasing the seeds in question from OP-2, sowed the same in his agricultural land and ultimately though the crop grown up but even after four months also there was no yielding and there was even no fertile flowers and buds. It is also an admitted fact borne out from the record that he brought the crop loss to the notice of OPs.1 and 2 and thereupon OP-2 visited the land of the complainant and observed that there was a crop loss as correctly reported by the complainant and it was happened due to defective seeds. So, ultimately it is an admitted fact that the complainant sustained crop loss in question.   

10. So the question that has to be seen now is at whose instance the complainant sustained such crop loss? 

11. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that two or three days after purchasing the seeds covered under the bill original of Ex.A-1 from OP-2 he sowed the seeds in his agricultural land by taking all precautions and care for germination and growth of plants by applying necessary fertilizers like DAP, Urea etc., that even after sowing the seeds he had subsequently taken every care without any compromise by duly taking suggestion of local Agricultural Officer and adopted all management practices like weeding of crop by duly engaging labour etc., and the same is not disputed by OPs.1 and 2 at anywhere through the material available on record. On this aspect, the contention of OP-3 is that as a matter of fact various lands were inspected by the Scientists and they opined that there was good monsoon prevailed during the said year, as such there was excessive vegetative growth and the plants were 10 to 12 feet tall, flowering was observed but due to excessive vegetative growth flowering is delayed and so it is clear that the failure of the crop is due to various climatic conditions and natural factors involved which is not due to fault of seeds, and that on receipt of the legal notice got issued by the OP-1 as under  Ex.B-5/B-4 this opposite party got issued a reply notice as under Ex.B-6 mentioning all the above said details, and that the same was also acknowledged by the OP-1 as under Ex.B-11. But it is not the contention and defence taken by OPs.1 and 2 on that line. The only defence set up by the OPs.1 and 2 is that the complainant sustained such loss of crop due to defective seeds. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for OP-3 is not tenable and will not help OP-3 in any manner.  As stated above, it is the defence of the OPs.1 and 2 that the complainant sustained such loss of crop only due to defective seeds.  If such is the defence set up by the OPs.1 and 2 the burden lies on the OP-3 to establish that the seeds supplied by him to OP-1 are not defective seeds. If OP-3 establishes the burden lies on him then the burden again shifts on OPs.1 and 2 to rebut the defence set up by the OP-3.  If OPs.1 and 2 fails to rebut the defence set up by OP-3, OP-3 cannot be made liable to comply the relief sought for by the complainant.     

12. So the question that has to be seen now is whether the OP-3 had established the burden lies over him?

13. As per his counter and affidavit evidence it is the contention of OP-3 that after he became successful tenderer for supply of Caster PCS-4 T/L seeds to the OP-1 and before supplying of the same to OP-1 he has processed the seeds in his processing unit at M/s Jayaram Enterprises, Palasamudram, Guruntla mandal, Ananthapur District, that at that time the seed officers of OP-1 were very much present and under their supervision, guidance and presence only entire processing was completed and the seeds were dispatched to the respective destinations/godowns on the instructions of OP-1 and that apart, after processing the seeds the samples were drawn by the seed officer of the OP-1 from each lot and they were sent to the OP-1 laboratories situated at Kurnool as well as at Jeedimetla and as per their reports also the seeds supplied by him are having standard quality and also having good germination. The said fact is not only challenged by the OPs.1 and 2 but also clearly corroborated by Exs.B-7, B-8 and B-9.  It is also the evidence of OP-3 that after receipt of legal notice Ex.B-5/B-4 from OP-1 he suitably replied OP-1 as under Ex.B-6 and the same was acknowledged by OP-1 as under Ex.B-11.  A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-6 reply notice also clearly establishes the defence set up by the OP-3.  If really there is a truth in the defence set up by OPs.1 and 2 that the complainant sustained such loss due to defective seeds, OP-1 having acknowledged the receipt of the reply notice got issued by the OP-3, he ought to have issued a rejoinder over it denying the recitals of the reply notice Ex.B-6.  But the OP-1 to the best reasons known to him suppressed the fact of his receiving the reply notice.  Therefore, it can be said that the non issuance of any such rejoinder to the reply notice got issued by OP-3 amounts to an admission on the part of the OP-1 to come to a conclusion that there is a truth in the defence set up by the OP-3.  In other words, for the reasons stated above, it can clearly be said that OP-3 had discharged his burden lies over him establishing that the seeds supplied by him are having standard quality and also having good germination.  As rightly contended by the learned counsel for OP-3, that there is also no proof produced by the OPs.1 and 2 that they have sold the same seeds supplied by OP-3 to the complainant. Further, there is also no allegation leveled against OP-3 by the complainant claiming compensation from OP-3 also. Under the said circumstances the OP-3 cannot be made liable to the crop loss sustained by the complainant. Hence for the reasons stated above, we find that OP-3 is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and the complaint to the extent of OP-3 can safely be dismissed.   

14. The next question that has to be seen now is as to how far the OPs.1 and 2 are responsible for the crop loss sustained by the complainant?

15. As stated in the earlier paragraphs of the order, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the seeds in question from OP-2. As per his counter it is the contention of OP-2 that OP-1 supplied the said seeds to him for sale and as such he is only a mediator between the complainant and  OP-1.  As per OP-2 himself the complainant sustained such crop loss due to defective seeds. If such is the case, the burden casts upon OP-2 to establish that he sold the same seeds supplied by OP-1 to the complainant. But there is no such proof produced by OP-2. Further, a perusal of the recitals of the bill original of Ex.A-1 clearly goes to show that OP-2 had issued such bill without even mentioning the lot and batch number of the seeds which are most essential. That apart the O.P-2, except filing his counter with the above said contentions, did not choose to file any affidavit evidence in support of his contentions inspite of availing sufficient opportunity.  Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that OP-2 cannot escape from his liability and cannot say that he is only a mediator between the complainant and OP-1. Therefore, we find that the defence set up by OP-2 that he sold the seeds supplied by OP-1 to the complainant, as such he is only a mediator between the complainant and OP-1 is only a cock and bull story invented by him in order to escape from his liability. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that OP-2 is also simultaneously responsible and liable along with OP-1 to the crop loss of the complainant.

16. The next question that has to be seen now is as to how far OP-1 is responsible and liable to the crop loss sustained by the complainant?

17. As stated above in the preceding paragraphs of the order, it is the contention of OP-1 that the complainant sustained such crop loss due to defective seeds. It is the further contention of OP-1 that the Caster seed was actually produced and supplied by OP-3.  In the case on hand, OP-3 had clearly established that before supply of the seeds to OP-1, the seeds were duly tested not only by his processing unit under the supervision, guidance and presence of Seed Officers of OP-1 but also got tested the samples of seeds from each lot by the Seed Officers of OP-1 through the laboratories of OP-1 situated at Kurnool and as well as at Jeedimetla and as per the laboratory reports the seeds supplied by him to OP-1 are having standard quality and also having good germination. So, it is a fact borne out from the record that at the time of supply of the seeds by OP-3 to OP-1 they are of standard quality and also having good germination.  It is not the case of  OP-1 that he had not satisfied with the reports of the testing laboratories, as such he has rejected the seeds supplied by OP-3. So, it can easily be presumed that OP-1 having satisfied with the standard quality of the seeds received the same from OP-3 for its sale among the needy agriculturists in different villages. Therefore, OP-1 having satisfied with the reports of the testing laboratories with regard to the standard quality of the seeds and having received the seeds from OP-3 now at this stage it cannot go back and say that the complainant sustained such crop loss due to defective seeds supplied by OP-3.  The contention of OP-1 is that it got issued a legal notice as under Ex.B-4/B-5 to OP-3 on knowing the crop failure to make good the loss sustained by the farmers as per agreement, as such it shall not be held responsible for the seed not produced by it.  If such is the situation, it is for the OP-1 to establish that the same seeds that were supplied by OP-3 were distributed for sale through OP-2 to the agriculturists like the complainant and OP-2 sold the same seeds to the complainant. But absolutely there is no such proof produced by OP-1 except taking a vague plea that the complainant sustained crop loss due to defective seeds by simply throwing blame on OP-3.  Even the bill original of Ex.A-1 also does not disclose the lot and batch number of the seeds sold to the complainant to verify whether the same seeds that were supplied by OP-3 were sold to the complainant.  In the absence of any such material it cannot be said that the same seeds that were supplied by OP-3 were sold by OP-1 through OP-2 to the complainant.  As stated above, the OP-1 when once having satisfied with the reports of the laboratories as under Exs.B-7 to B-9 with regard to the standard quality of the seeds and having received the same from OP-3 now at this stage it cannot go back and say that the complainant sustained such crop loss due to defective seeds supplied by OP-3. Therefore, we find that the contention raised by OP-1 is not tenable and acceptable. In other words, it can clearly be said that OP-1 is responsible and liable to the complainant sustaining crop loss due to the seeds purchased by him through OP-2. So for the reasons stated above, both the OPs.1 and 2 are responsible and liable to the complainant sustaining such loss as alleged. Such acts on the part of OPs.1 and 2 in selling such seeds and issuing a vague bill without even mentioning its batch and lot number resulting the complainant sustaining crop loss amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant clearly established the claim against OPs.1 and 2 and failed to establish the same against OP-3, and thus OPs.1 and 2 are only jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and costs of the complaint reasonably to the complainant.

18. As far as the compensation claimed by the complainant is concerned, the complainant, except his self styled testimony that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,000/- per acre towards the costs of fertilizers, pesticides and other labour charges including the costs of seeds for raising the Caster crop and so also the crop loss at Rs.50,000/- per acre on account of the unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.1 and 2, did not produce any oral or documentary proof in that regard and so also about his getting fertile yielding of Caster @ 10 to 15 quintals per acre and its market value per quintal in those days. Therefore, the ends of justice will be met with if it is assessed the fertile yielding of Caster @ 5 quintals per acre and its market rate in those days at Rs.2,000/- per quintal since it is a commercial crop. According to the complainant he raised the said Caster crop in his land to an extent of Ac.1-20Gts.  So, taking into consideration of the extent of the land, nature of the crop and the assessed loss of Caster sustained by the complainant, we are of the view that awarding of some reasonable amount of Rs.15,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against OPs.1 and 2 since the complaint to the extent of OP-3 is liable to be dismissed.      

19. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the OPs.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order. The complaint to the extent of  OP-3 is hereby dismissed without costs.    

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of January, 2012.    

 

    I agree                                                                                 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT                       

                                                                                               Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Cash bill, dt.18-06-2010.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Pattadar Pass Book.

On behalf of OP-1:                  

Ex.B-1: Lr.No.SC(5)/362/2010, dt.29-4-2010 of Commr. & Dir. Of Agr., Hyd.

Ex.B-2: Agreement, dt.12-5-2010. 

Ex.B-3: Agreement, dt.11-6-2010. 

Ex.B-4: Legal Notice, dt.15-12-2010. 

On behalf of OP-3:

Ex.B-5: Legal Notice, dt.15-12-2010.

Ex.B-6: Reply Notice, dt.24-1-2011.

Ex.B-7: Analyses Report, dt.17-9-2010.

Ex.B-8: Analyses Report, dt.6-8-2010.

Ex.B-9: Analyses Report, dt.19-8-2010.

Ex.B-10: Postal Receipt.

Ex.B-11: Speed post receipts.

Ex.B-12: Lr.No.35702, dt.28-10-2010 of ANGRAU. 

Ex.B-13: Report, dt.12-10-2010.

Ex.B-14: Lr.No.35704, dt.28-10-2010 of ANGRAU.

Ex.B-15: Report, dt.14-10-2010.

Ex.B-16: Certificate, dt.31-1-2011.

Ex.B-17: Rain fall report 2009-2010, dt.19-7-2011.

Ex.B-18: Letter, dt.13-7-2011 of OP-2 addressed to JDA, Mahabubnagar.      

 

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT    

Copy to:-                                                                                       

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri CH.Shyam Sunder Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP.No.1.

3. Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, Hyderabad for OP.No.3.

4. The Agricultural Officer, Uppununthala mandal, Mahabubnagar District.