This complaint is coming before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri. A. Raghu Ramaiah, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri. P. Padmavathi, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 & 4; and of Sri. A. Sarath Chander, Advocate for Opposite party No.2, and of Sri. K. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Opposite party No.3; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, resident of Bylu Thanda, Relakayalapalli village, Khammam District, having land in an extent of Ac-8.20 gts out of Survey No.107. The complainant used to raise cotton crop in his agricultural land. Having attracted the vide publicity of opposite parties, purchased 3 varieties of Bollgard-II BT Cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1 vide bill dt.17-06-2010, consisted 4 packets of each variety, vide 4 packets of MRC-7383, 4 packets of US-Obama and 4 packets of Dhrona Gold BG-II. The complainant had paid Rs.8,680/- to the opposite party No.1 towards purchasing of seeds. Thereafter, sowed the seeds by providing water and other requirements for good yielding. Surprisingly, there was no growth and no yielding in the crop due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties. Apart from huge loss, he spent Rs.10,000/- towards purchase of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, ploughing charges and engaging of coolies etc,. The complainant alleges that due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre, upon which, the complainant had approached the Mandal Agricultural Officer and informed the loss, sustained by him. The M.A.O, who visited the crop opined that the crop has no yielding due to defective seeds, supplied by the opposite parties. Thereafter, approached the opposite party No.1 and informed the crop loss and as there was no response, constrained to file the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,25,000/- towards damages and costs.
3. In support of his case, the complainant filed Affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5.
4. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed separate counters by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
5. In its written version, the opposite party No.2 submitted that all the averments, leveled in the complaint are false and baseless, raised only for grabbing illegal compensation. Further it is also submitted that the present complaint was filed after harvesting of entire crop. The maturity period of MRC-7383 variety is 170 to 180 days but this complaint was filed after more than 235 days from the date of sowing. They did not receive any complaint from the complainant during crop season. The Agricultural Officer visited the field after completion of maturity period / crop harvesting. The complainant addressed letter dated 23-12-2010 to the A.O. after completion of maturity period regarding the less germination. The opposite party No.2 also submitted that if there was any germination problem, he should have informed the opposite parties within 10 days when he noticed less germination but the complainant did not do so. After receiving of good yield, filed the present case for wrongful gain. The complainant failed to mention how much yield he had received from each 3 variety of seeds, purchased from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 further stated that according to its marketing staff and research scientist, the performance of crop of 3 varieties are the same because of poor crop management practices. They have observed good germination and also observed lot of weed in the field, grown about 4 feet height. The complainant had sown Red Gram as inter crop in the field, which was not recommended by the opposite party No.2. The complainant informed the representatives of opposite party No.2 that he was stopped cultivation practices. And the alleged problem was arose due to heavy rain fall and poor agricultural practices, adopted by the complainant. The other farmers, who sowed the same seeds, received good yielding. Therefore, there is no defect in the seeds, supplied by the opposite party No.2, further it is also submitted that after testing quality and standards as per seeds Act, supply the seeds into the open market for sale. So, the allegation regarding supply of defective seeds does not arise. The letter addressed by the A.O. to the Joint Director of Agriculture does not mention the quality of seeds. The observation of A.O. regarding the yielding @ 15 to 20 bolls per plant was after maturity period. The reason for damage of 10 bolls is not due to quality of seeds, the crop may be effected due to climatic change, poor crop management practices, adopted by the complainant. The complainant did not file the particulars of usage of fertilizers and pesticides as per recommendations of opposite party No.2. The letter addressed by the Agricultural Officer to the Joint Director of Agriculture cannot be considered as expert evidence as she requested the Joint Director Agriculturre to send the scientists for inspection of crop situation. The said letter did not specify the date of sowing, yield particulars, seed particulars, irrigation facility, climatic conditions, fertility of soil, usage of fertilizers and pesticides, age of crop, following of other plant protection methods and quality of seeds. The opposite party No.2 also stated that there was heavy rain fall during the year 2010 in the said area, which effected the crop. The complainant did not follow the agricultural practices and intercultural operations as per directions / instructions contained in the broacher. The yield may be depends upon various factors as stated supra. In support of its averments, quoted the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Haryana Seeds development corporation ltd. Vs. Sadhu & Anr. CPJ 2005 (II) page 13. Variation in condition of crop may be due to other factors including water facility, long dry spell, salt accumulation on surface layer, soil condition, sowing methodology, moisture content at the time of sowing. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there was no deficiency of service on its part. Further it is also stated that the complainant was not sent the sample of seeds for laboratory testing under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act., without proper analysis, the defect cannot be determined. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. After conducting several tests in its quality control laboratory, released BT Cotton seeds according to parameters specified by Ministry of science and technology, central government of India and its laboratory also having recognition and accreditation of International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). As per its own laboratory report dt. 15-05-2010, the percentage of germination is at 85% and purity of seed is at 99.90%, which is more than the prescribed standards under seeds Act. The genetic purity of said lot is 99.90%, which meet the prescribed minimum genetic purity under seeds Act. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 contended that the onus is lies on the complainant to prove the defect but the complainant did not file any expert report to prove the defect in the seeds and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
In support of it’s case, the opposite party No.2 filed exhibits B1 to B4.
6. The Assistant Manager (Quality Assurance) of opposite party No.2 filed a memo by mentioning the clarification regarding the test reports of MRC-7383 and recognition and accreditation of ISTA to its laboratory.
7. In the counter, the opposite party No.3 denied all the averments of complaint and submitted that it released Obama BG-II Bollguard-2 variety of cotton seeds in the open market after conducting required tests according to the provisions of seeds Act. The yielding may be depends upon various factors like, weather, soil type, plant population NPK and usage of micro nutrients and incidence of pests and diseases and other many surrounding circumstances. The opposite party No.3 also submitted that the report dated 30-12-2010 cannot be construed as a scientific report, it does not contain any whisper regarding poor performance of crop, it is only a crop observation. Mere purchase of seeds and allegation of poor yield did not fasten any liability on the part of opposite party No.3. Further it is also submitted that the allegation of poor yielding is because of other abnormal and unusual climatic conditions at the time of sowing, which leads to lot of impact and effect on the germination and yielding. And also averred that the present case cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure as it has mixed questions of fact and law, which needs detailed enquiry and subject to elaborate evidence and recording of evidence with regard to time of sowing, climatic conditions during crop season, usage of inputs, expenditure incurred by the farmer, expected yield and the alleged loss, caused to the complainant. Further it is also stated that the report of M.A.O., dt. 30-12-2010 is silent regarding quality of seeds, it contains only recording of physical features of crop. Therefore, the opposite party No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation in the absence of any proof regarding quality of seeds as alleged and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
In order to prove it’s case, the opposite party No.3 placed exhibits B5 to B10.
8. The opposite party No.4 filed it’s counter by submitting that there is no specific allegation against it either in the complainant or in the petition filed for impleading the opposite party No.4 as party to the proceedings. Therefore, the present complaint against opposite party No.4 is not maintainable and denied all the other allegations, levelled against it. The opposite party No.4 is the public limited company, produced / developed and marketed the Hybrid seeds by name “Bio Seed”. The opposite party No.4 supplied Dhrona gold BG-II cotton Hybrid Seeds lot No.KZSG-5554, it has ISTA accreditation. At the time of packing, physical purity of Dhrona Gold BG-II is 100%, genetic purity was 98% and the germination percentage is @75%. As per required standards for minimum germination in cotton hybrid seed is 75%, minimum physical purity is 98% and the genetic purity is 95%. Failure of crop may be depending upon tropical and environmental conditions, improper and insufficient irrigation, shortage of rain fall, late / irregular seedling, improper cultivation practice. The opposite party No.4 also submitted that Dhrona Gold BG-II was not only sold in Khammam District but also all over the country during Kharif-2010 season but no complaint was received from anywhere, or from the same region regarding the failure of crop as alleged. The complainant never approached the opposite party No.4 on his grievance, he approached the agricultural officer nearly after six months of sowing. The A.O. did not mention the defectiveness of seeds, supplied by the opposite party No.4, defect of seed cannot be ascertained at belated stage and as such prayed to dismiss the complainant with exemplary costs.
Through a petition vide IA.No.45/2013 the opposite party No.4 filed the opinions / statements of some agriculturists of Khammam district, who raised Dhrona Gold BG-II cotton crop along with the affidavit of Manager, concerned of opposite party No.4.
9. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed a petition for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the crop for assessment of loss. Upon hearing, appointed the Advocate / Commissioner, directed to assess loss of crop if any with the assistance of Agricultural Officer, concerned. The Advocate/Commissioner, who appointed for the said purpose, visited the crop in dispute along with the opposite party No.1, the representatives of opposite party No.2 and the Village Revenue Officer concerned and filed report of Agricultural Officer and photographs of crop in dispute (Nos.9), those were marked as exhibits C2 and C3.
The opposite party No.2 filed objections on the report of Agricultural Officer by stating that the Agricultural Officer did not clarify the particular of yielding specifically from the seeds, supplied by each company.
During the examination of Agricultural Officer, the letter addressed by her to the Joint Director Agriculture dt. 30-12-2010, marked under exhibit C-1.
10. In support of their averments, the complainant and the opposite parties filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments.
While pendency of proceedings, the complainant placed the particulars regarding the minimum support price of cotton, decided by the Government of India and the price list as on the date of 01-01-2011 for the cotton, issued by Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Yellandu, which were marked as exhibits A-4 and A-5 (through a petition vide IA.No.28/2013).
11. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Point:-
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant was purchased 3 varieties of BT Cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1 on 17-06-2010 for Kharif-2010 season. The seeds, so purchased, consisted 4 packets of MRC-7383, purchased for Rs.2,920/-, 4 packets of US Obama BG-II for Rs.2,880/- and also purchased 4 packets of Dhrona Gold BG-II for Rs.2,880/-, in total he had paid Rs.8,680/- towards purchase of 3 variety of seeds, produced and marketed by opposite parties No.2 to 4. Thereafter, sowed the seeds in his field by taking all precautions as required but there was no yielding despite following all procedures. The complainant approached the Agricultural Development Officer through a written application, dt. 23-12-2010 and sent the copies of the same to the District Assistant Director of Agriculture and Joint Director of Agriculture, evidenced under exhibit A-2 by praying to inspect the crop and seeking to issue directions for payment of compensation towards loss of crop. After receipt of written representation from the complainant, the M.A.O. Singareni visited the field, after observing the crop situation, wrote a letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture by asking tosend the scientists to justify the crop situation, evidenced under exhibit C-1, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that according to her observation, she was noticed 15 to 20 bolls per plant, out of which, in an average - 10 bolls yield was taken and 10 bolls were damaged. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and informed the crop situation but to no effect, constrained to file the present complaint along with a petition to appoint the advocate / commissioner for assessment of loss in the crop. The advocate / commissioner, who appointed for the said purpose, inspected the crop on 12-03-2011 along with the M.A.O. and V.A.O and filed his report, marked under exhibit C-4. After observing the crop situation, the M.A.O. issued a report, evidenced under exhibit C-2, as per exhibit C-2 at the time of inspection of crop i.e. on 12-03-2011 the complainant, the opposite party No.1 and the representatives of opposite party No.2 were also present along with her and V.R.O. concerned. After observing the crop, she specifically mentioned that the farmer had taken 1.5 quintals of cotton from 15-20 live lockutes i.e. 15-20 number of bolls. In an average, 50-60 bolls will arise depending upon seeds, weather conditions and crop management practices. In exhibit C-2 she, specifically mentioned that after receipt of written representation from the complainant, she visited the crop on 30-12-2010 and observed that 10 bolls yielding was taken from on an average of 15-20 bolls and she sent the report to the Joint Director of Agriculture with said observations by requesting to send the scientists to observation of field. According to Exibit C-2 Dr. Gopinadh from R.A.R.S, Warangal and Dr. Hemanth Kumar, Scientists visited the field on 10-02-2011. And the A.O. also mentioned that the report of said scientists yet to be submit to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam, it seems that the scientists from R.A.R.S. Warangal visited the field on 10-02-2011 but there was no response in submission of report to the complainant till the date of complaint and even after issuance of summons to the M.A.O. Singareni for adducing evidence before this Forum regarding the clarification on submission of scientist’s report. And it was not clarified even after examining the M.A.O. as PW-1, it seems that an adverse inference can be drawn that there was deficiency in seeds supplied by the opposite parties. However, the complainant had taken proper / possible steps to prove his allegations, being a farmer. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the yield was low not because of defective seeds supplied by them but because of failure on the part of the complainant to follow proper management of crop. To disprove the averments of complaint, the opposite parties 2 and 3 filed accreditation of ISTA and recognition of Government of India to the seeds, supplied by them and test reports of their own Laboratories, evidenced under exhibits B-1 to B-5. Exhibits B-6 to B-10, marked on behalf of opposite party No.3 clarifies the morphological characters of cotton swch – 2 BG-II (Obama), according to which, the average boll weight is 5.5 gms but as per broacher published in general, marked under exhibit B-11 the boll weight is @ 6.00 gms, the crop season is 160-165 days. Apart from that the opposite parties did not file proper documentary evidence to prove that the seeds were not of defective in quality. The opposite party No.3 filed opinions of some farmers, obtained good yielding from its seeds, but they failed to file statements from the farmers of the same Area / Mandal, where the crop in dispute was situated, they only filed the statements of farmers of other Mandals that too without filing of their affidavits, therefore, we cannot consider the same as it is not fair and proper. Now, the only question is whether the loss of crop is attributable to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties or not?. In view of written complaint made by the complainant to the Agricultural Officer by seeking compensation for low germination, no flowering and fruits due to defective seeds and submission of report of Agricultural Officer by assessing loss is considered to be sufficient for attributing defective seeds, supplied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to prove their averments regarding the poor management practices, adverse climatic conditions, lack of water facility, fertility of soil, and other precautions and procedures by placing sufficient evidence. They did not raise any doubt in this regard at the time of inspection of crop along with M.A.O and even they did not raise any objection on the report of M.A.O. in this regard, moreover, the M.A.O. did not state that the complainant failed to follow the requirements, recommendations of opposite parties, fertility of land and adverse climatic conditions, were not suitable to raise cotton crop. In the absence of sufficient proof, we cannot consider the matter in favour of the opposite parties. On the strength of law, the Agricultural Development Officer being an expert witness under seeds Act. She assessed the loss of crop in the presence of Advocate / commissioner, opposite party No.1, representatives of opposite party No.2 and the V.A.O. concerned. So, in view of above circumstances, the report of M.A.O. cannot be discarded and there is no reason to reject the same presumption of truth attached with it. Accordingly, it is clear that the farmer did suffer a loss as a result of supply of seeds by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties averred that the complainant failed to send the seeds for scientific analysis under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act. and also failed to file scientific analysis report from any government laboratory after getting the seeds tested. However, we are not able to agree with the plea taken by the opposite parties because a farmer has been depending only on agriculture, cannot be expected to retain sample of seeds after purchasing the same from the opposite parties and more so, the burden of proof did not lies on the farmer. In this regard, we have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in National Seeds Corporation limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. II (2012) SLT 51=I (2012) CPJ 1 SC. In the light of above decision, we have opined that the complainant had created a high degree of probability of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, thus, onus will shift, on the other side to discharge the onus to prove their denial. Once, the complainant had lodged his grievance with the District level officers and filing of report of agricultural officer during the proceedings of present complaint, it can be safely presumed that the complainant had sufficiently discharged his onus to prove that the seeds in question were of defective quality the same was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex court in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chennamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136. Therefore, the objection raised by the opposite parties regarding non-sending of seeds for laboratory testing is not considerable. In support of its case the opposite party No.3 placed the reliance of Hon’ble Apex Court and the other Forums, but the facts and circumstances mentioned in the cases, referred by it are not similar to the present case on hand. Therefore, we cannot rely for our consideration. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, we have opined that the loss of crop was caused due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No. 2 to 4. Therefore, they held liable jointly and severally for payment of compensation towards crop loss, in this regard we relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC, Punjab in M/s. Nuzuveedu Seeds Ltd., Vs. Mukhul Singh & Ors. (decided on 11-06-2014).
Thus, as per report of the M.A.O, it is clear that the complainant had obtained 1.5 quintals per acre out of expected yielding of 5 to 6 quintals per acre. Accordingly, he had suffered loss of cotton crop to the extent of 4 quintals per acre on account of defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No. 2 to 4. So, the total loss of cotton crop in an extent of acres 8.20 gts is @ 34 quintals. As per market rate on 01-01-2011 evidenced under exhibit A-4 the model price of cotton crop is @ Rs.3,050/- per quintal, accordingly, the total loss is @ Rs.1,03,700/- and as such the opposite parties No.2 to 4 are held liable to pay compensation to the complainant towards crop loss. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly, in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, the opposite parties No.2 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.1,03,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Three Thousand Seven Hundred only) jointly and severally to the complainant towards crop loss within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @6% per annum till realization. Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The complainant against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2016.
Member FAC President
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
PW-1 Smt. D. Aruna Kumari, -None-
M.A.O, Konijerla, Khammam.
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
Ex.A-1:-Bill dt.17-06-2010 for Rs.8,680/- issued by opposite party No.1. | Ex.B-1:- | Recognition of Government of India, dt. 11-08-2009. |
Ex.A-2:-Written representation made by the complainant dt. 23-12-2010 to the M.A.O. Singareni along with official seal of M.A.O concerned, courier receipts (Nos.2) sent to J.D.A and A.D.A, Khammam. | Ex.B-2:- | Photocopies of Certificate of Accreditation, issued by ISTA. |
Ex.A-3:-Photocopy of Pahani, belongs to complainant. | Ex.B-3:- | Laboratory test report of opposite party No.2 |
Ex.A-4:-Price List of cotton crop of Agmarknet, issued by Special Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Yellandu. | Ex.B-4:- | Quality Assurance Laboratory Test Report, issued by opposite party No.2 company. |
Ex.A-5:-List for minimum support price of cotton, decided by the Government of India. | Ex.B-5:- | Photocopy of Licence, issued by A.D.A., Government of A.P. |
| Ex.B-6:- | Photocopy of Seed Analysis Certificate issued by opposite party No.3 company. |
| Ex.B-7:- | Photocopy of Morphological Characters of Obama BG-II. |
| Ex.B-8:- | Photocopy of Breeder Certificate. |
| Ex.B-9:- | Photocopy of Broacher of opposite party No.3 seeds. |
| Ex.B-10:- | Photocopy of Characteristics of Obama BG-II, printed in Broacher. |
| Ex.B-11:- | Photocopy of Broacher. |
Ex.C-1:-letter dt.30-12-2010 addressed by the M.A.O. singareni, to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam.
Ex.C-2:- Report of M.A.O., Singareni.
Ex.C-3:- Photographs (Nos.9).
Ex.C-4:-Commissioner / Advocate Report.
Member FAC President
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
