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

Thursday the 21^st day of April, 2005

C.D.No.15/2004

Srinivasulu, S/o. Ramaiah,

R/o. Yambai (V), Bethamcherla (M), Kurnool Dist.             

                        . . . Complainant represented by his counsel

                                                                   Sri S.V. Krishna Reddy.

    -Vs-

1.The Managing Director, Ganga Kaveri Seeds Private Ltd,

   1406 Babukhan Estate,    Basheer Bagh,    Hyderabad.                 

.Opposite party No.1 represented by his

                                                                 Counsel Sri B.Narasimhulu.

2.Proprietor,    New Siva Ramakrishna Fertilizers,

   M.C.M.Complex,    Bellary Road,    Kurnool.                                           

. . . Opposite party.

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 parties to pay him Rs.89, 000/- towards incurred loss of the crop and invested agricultural in-puts arising out of defective seed supplied, Rs.10, 000/- towards mental agony suffered along with costs of this case and other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.

2.         The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he purchased 4 packets of Ganga Kaveri Sun-flower seed weighing 8 Kgs for Rs.1840/- on 26.4.2003 from the O.P.No.2- local authorized dealer of the said seed to which the O.P.No.1 was the Managing Director, and sowed them in his field of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.676 of Emboi Village. But it had a poor germination of less than 70% and has constrained to invest more fertilizers, pesticides and labour in clearing the weeds and pests and in spite of that the plants were very weak and being not uniform in growth had 25% poor and weak covering and lead to failure of crop.  The said circumstances and state of affairs were brought into the notice of the O.P.No.2, but no fruitful purpose was served with it.  The officials of the Agriculture Department visited his field and inspected it and concluded the said was on account of adulteration in seed sowed. The loss of yield and investment resulted not only peculiarly loss, but also ensued mental agony to him.

3.         In pursuance of the service of the notices of this Forum as to the case of the complainant while the opposite party No.2 remained expert by absenting to the proceedings, the opposite party No.1 contested the case through its counsel denying its liability to the claim  of the complainant.

4.         The written version of the O.P.No.1 besides questioning the justness sand maintainability of the complainant’s case denying the complaint averments, allege himself as a reputed producer of Ganga Kaveri Sun-flower seed and his privy to the O.P.No.2 as Principal to Principal and the seed supplied to the aO.P.No.2 being in sealed packets after its due testing denies of any adulteration and submit the said allegations of the complainant as false and frivolous and fictibous till any laboratory test of the said seed or report of Agricultural Department Officials establishes otherwise as the failure of the crop need not always be attributable to the quality of the seed alone as several factors such as crop patron, crop management, field management, irrigation facility, soil and whether conditions and other environmental conditions also contribute. It dispute the status of the consumer to the complainant as the seed was sowed for the commercial purpose and thereby the case of the complainant beyond the scope of the C.P.Act for being dealt with and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as the matters relating to the Seeds Act has to be dealt only by a Civil Court and hence for want of proper cause of action the jurisdiction seeks the dismissal of the complainant case with costs.

5.         In substantiation of the complainant’s case the complainant relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 and the self-sworn affidavit of the complainant in re-iteration of his case, the opposite party No.1 in defense to its stand has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B.1 and his self sworn-affidavit.

6.         Hence, the point for consideration is whether the alleged defect in the seed resulting in the loss of yield and mental agony to the complainant and the liability of the opposite parties to make good of the complainant’s case is established:-

7.         No cogent material is placed in support of the stand of the Ouster of the jurisdiction of the Forum to the Civil Court alleged by the opposite party, is placed in appreciation of the said stand and hence the said plea appears to be a plea for plea sake without any substance and hence the said plea is rejected.

8.         No cogent material is placed by the opposite party for the cultivation of the crop by the Farmers amounts to raising the crop for the commercial purposes and hence merely because the farmer may encash his crop raised in his field by shedding sweat and blood and considerable amount of the investment.  Therefore, in the absence of any authority in support of the opposite party’s contention the said plea is rejected as one without substance.

9.         The Ex.A.1 is the bill for purchase of 4 packets of G.K-2002 S.F Seed at a rate of Rs.460/- for each packet of 2 Kgs, for Rs.1840/- by the complainant on 24.6.2003 from the opposite party No.2. The seed bags and its tags in Ex.A.7 envisages the seed supplied there under was of lot No.2203. The said bill in Ex.A.1 and contents of the said bags in Ex.A7 were not rebutted by the opposite party as to doubt its bonafidies.  Hence the un-rebutted Ex.A.1 and A.7 establishes the purchase of the

said seed by the complainant and lends support to his case of purchase of the said seed.

11.       The Ex.A.2 is the Adungal entries of the year 2003 of Embai village of the Bethamcherla Mandal of the Kurnool District, regarding the land in Sy.No.676.  It envisages an extent of Ac.5.00 in the position and enjoyment of the complainant and cultivation of the Sun-flower therein. The said facts envisaged therein being not re-butted by the opposite party it lends support to the complainant’s case of the said purchased seed in the said land of Ac.5.00.  The Ex.A.3 issued by Grampanchaytathy Secretary of the said Village also says of the cultivation of the Sun-flower by the complainant in his land and loss of the crop due to defect in the seed. While such is so with the Ex.A.2 and A.3, the photographs in Ex.A.5 concerning to the said field of the complainant envisages thin crop of the less density and non-uniformity.

12.       The Ex.A.4 inspection report dt.4.9.2003 of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Bethamchrerla says the existence of the poor planting which retorted plant growth and patron and some left un-germinated and showing the symptoms of necrotic on stems, leaves and bottom side edges of the flower-heads and opines this was due to poor quality and susceptibility to said viral decease transmitted by sucking pests.

13.       The Ex.B.1 is the attested true copy of seed testing report dt.29.4.2003 said to have been issued by the Agricultural Department pertaining to the lot No.2203.  From the particulars of the reference of the Ex.B.1 the seed concerned therein was sent for seed testing vide letter dt.8.4.2003  of M/S Ganga Kavery seeds,1406,Babu Khan Estates,Basheer Bagh,Hyderabad and the relevant report entry pertaining to the seed of the relevant lot is at Sl.No.68 of the said Ex.B.1. The contents of the Ex.A.1 envisages the seed purchased there under by the complainant pertains to lot No.2203 and of G.K.2002 variety. The date of the purchase of the said seed as per Ex.A.1 being 24.6.2003 and the seed testing report obtained in compliance of the statutory procedure laid down in the C.P.Act subsequent to the dispute its standards submitting the sample of the said lot only could be relevant for consideration and not of otherwise and the seed testing report in Ex.B.1 dt.29.4.2003 was being sufficiently earlier to the sale of the said seed itself and not obtained in accordance with the statutory procedure laid down under Section 13.1.( c ) of the C.P.Act, the said Ex.B.1 leaves any adverse bearing on the merits of the complainant’s case and of the material he relied in substantiation of his case which was also re-iterated in Ex.A.9 legal notice of the complainant to the opposite parties which in spite of its acknowledgement by them under Ex.A.10 not responded. Hence, there appears no material to doubt the bonafidies of the Ex.A.4 report as no cogent material is over coming the said observation report in Ex.A.4.

14.       As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Vs Alvalapati Chandra Reddy reported in 1998-III C.P.J page 8, it is the duty of the opposite party under Section 13.C of the C.P.Act to apply to the District Forum to send the samples of the disputed seed from the said batch, for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.  The seed test report in Ex.B.1 is being obtained by the opposite party not in accordance with the statutory procedure laid down under Sec.13. C.P. Act as contemplated in supra stated decision and it being sufficiently earlier to the sale of the seeds of the said lot and especially being not after to the disputing of its quality and standardness or purity or quality.  The said seed testing report in Ex.B.1 not only remains its little relevancy for any consideration, but also cash any amount of doubt on the bonafidies of the said Ex.B.1 under which the opposite party’s take shelter from their very conduct of shirking of compliance of statutory obligation of proving the standards of the said seed as of otherwise than alleged by the complainant.

15.       The same decision cited supra further says that when Act become un-implimentable as no seeds have been remain to be sent for analysis obviously either on account of their entire utilization by the farmer or on account of the omitive conduct of the manufacturer, distributor/dealer of the said seed to send the sample of the disputed seed from its lot for analysis and report by an appropriate laboratory, then the alternative approach to rely upon the Agricultural Officer Report.

16.       In the instant case of the complainant there being no endeavor on the part of the opposite parties to send the sample of the disputed seed from its lot for analysis and report in compliance of the statutory procedure laid down and the Ex.B.1 being obtained not in compliance with the procedure laid down in Sec.13.C of the Consumer Protection Act and that too being not referred after the sold seed is disputed, in the light of the above decision the only alternative approach left for the consideration of the matters in controversy and the claim of the complainant, is the report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer find in record in Ex.A.4 as to the said seed and the result of the said seed effecting the crop. The said report in Ex.A.4 which says of the adulteration of the seed and its effect on the crop was not rebutted by the opposite parties by any dependable cogent record and hence the findings in Ex.A.4 as to the defect in the seed remains worthy of acceptance in favour of the complainant. Hence, from the above considered materials and the observations the complainant is remaining conclusively proved the fact of the seed sold to him by the opposite parties as defective ensuing loss of yield and the investment made in cultivation of the said crop besides to the mental agony and suffering with hardship of the complainant and thereby the liability of the opposite parties for making good of the loss ensued to him on account of utilization of said defective seed supplied to him by the opposite parties.

17.       Hence, the further point remaining consideration is to what quantum of amount the complainant is remaining entitled from the opposite parties.

18.       The Ex.A.6 sale bill dt.4.8.2003 envisages the purchase of pesticides worth Rs.660/- by the complainant.  The said fact was not rebutted by the opposite party by any cogent material to doubt its bonafidies. In the same way the purchase of the seeds envisaged in Ex.A.1.  As the Adungal entries in Ex.A.2 and the certificate of the Secretary of Gram Panchayathi Ex.A.3 envisages the position and cultivation of the said sun-flower on an extent of Ac.5.00 of the complainant. There appears no material to doubt the bonafidies of the alleged cultivation of Sun-flower in the complainant’s land and the consequential expenditure the complainant incurred in purchase of the seed of the value mentioned in Ex.A.1 and the value of the pesticides mentioned in Ex.A.6 and there by his entitleness for making its good of from the opposite parties.

19.       The Ex.A.8 dt.30.9.2003 receipt issued by the Agricultural Market Committee,Kurnool not only envisage the sale of 2.5 quintals of sun-flower by the complainant for a sum of Rs.3697.50ps, but also the then existing rate of the Sun-flower at Rs.1,479/- per quintal. The area of the cultivation of the said Sun-flower by the complainant was Ac.5.00.  The yield expected was 10 to 12 quintals per acre as per the complaint averments.  The said fact being not disputed by the opposite parties with any cogent material record a minimum crop 50 quintals was probable in the said Ac.5.00 extent cultivation of the complainant and the value of the said probable yield at the rate of Rs.1,479/- per quintal as works out to Rs.74,950/- and there by remains near to Rs.75,000/- claimed towards the loss of the crop the said claim of Rs.75,000/- towards crop as not appearing as exorbitant. As the complainant had the value of Rs.3,697.50 ps towards the survived yield of 2.5 quintals of the Sun-flower in the said field his entitleness to the claim of the loss of the crop remains to the value that remains after minusing  the said amount of Rs.3,697.50 from Rs.75,000/- as a justifiable claim i.e for an amount of Rs.75,000/- Rs.3697.50 = Rs.71,302.50.

20.       The other claims made by the complainant were Rs.1,840/- towards seeds costs, Rs.4,000/- towards dung manure, Rs.7,200/- towards fertilizers, Rs1,660/- towards costs of pesticides and Rs.1,000/- towards labour charges.  Except filing Ex.A.1 as to the seed cost of Rs.1,840/- and Ex.A.6 as to the cost of Rs.660/- the complainant did not file any cogent material to believe the prima-facie bonafidies of the said other claims. Hence, the said claims of the complainant except that were substantiated vide Ex.A.1 and A.6 are rejected for want of their substantiation.

21.       The complainant on account of the said cultivation of the defective seed not only suffered loss of yield, but also an agricultural year and hence there appears justifiability in his alleged mental agony and an amount of Rs.5.000/- appears to serve the compensation to the complainant for the suffered mental agony in the above said state of circumstances.

22.       As the opposite parties have driven the complainant to this Forum for redressal of his grievances arising out of the supply of the defective seed and its consequential loss of the probable yield and invested in-puts the liability of the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.2,000/- as to the costs of this litigation to the complainant appear to serve the ends of justice.

23.       Consequently, in sum up of the above discussion and in the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly directing the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant of Rs.71,302.50 towards the loss of the crop, Rs.1,840/- and Rs.660/- towards the costs of Seed and pesticides, Rs.5,000/- towards the suffered mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation within a month of  receipt of this order and in default the awarded amount is liable to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally with an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 21 st day of April, 2005.

                                                            PRESIDENT       

   MEMBER                                                                                                      MEMBER