BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Tuesday the 29th day of August, 2006
CD No.104 /2005
Chinna Ayyanna, S/o. Ganganna, Aged about 52 years,
Konganapadu (V), Kallur (M), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Managing Director, Prabhat Agro Bio-tech Ltd,
6-3-540/10, Opp. S.B.H., Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
2.P.G. Sreenivasulu, Aged 45 years,
Prop Venkata- Ramana Fertilizers, Seeds business, Opp. Market Yard, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri D.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri V. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent set esparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble Preisdent)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.1, 31,950/- vide particulars of claim of Para No. 9 of complaint towards cost of seed, dung manure, fertilizers, pesticides, labour charges and crop loss, and Rs. 20,000/- towards suffered mental agony and costs of this case alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in selling substandard and defective hybrid sunflower seed which lead to total failure of crop and loss of investment ensuing mental agony.
2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased on 2.9.2002 seven pockets of Prabhat Sunflower Hybrid seed each of 2kgs net pertaining to lot No. 2210150 produced by the opposite party No.1, from the opposite party No.2 dealer of opposite party No.1, paying Rs. 350/- for each pocket and sowed them in the second week of September 2002 in the extent of his seven acres land in Sy. No. 59 of Konganpadu (V) and made good field management as per the need of hour and by 60th day, even though the flowering to all plants completed, ill-filling of seed in the flower heads was observed and it ultimately lead to poor seed setting of 15 to 20 % leaving the remaining flower has chaffy and there was no improvement. The same condition was to the crop in other 14 farmers fields who cultivated with the same seed. On its being brought to the notice of Joint Director, Agricultural, Kurnool and Agricultural Officer Kallur (Mandal) a team consisting of officials of agricultural office and other Government officials visited their said lands in the presence of representatives of opposite party 1 to 2 and on inspection observed the ill-filling of seed and its was an account of badness in seed as adulterated and the opposite parties assured to complainant the reimbursement of loss sustained but did not kept up the said promise except dodging on time and ultimately its declain by the opposite party No.1. On the account of the said bad seed the complainant was put to a loss of expected yield of 8 quintals per acre at the rate of Rs.1500/- per quintal and it has to be compensated by the opposite parties as defective seed that was furnished caused said loss.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, while the opposite party No.1 contested the matter filing the written version through his counsel, the opposite party No.2 remained exparte to the case proceedings.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case in law and facts by denial of the complaint averments and requiring the strict proof and seeking dismissal of this case with costs alleges firstly the cause of action barred by limitation, secondly as filed with ulterior motive to have wrongful gain, thirdly of non filing of any material as to details of the fertilizers and pesticides etc that was purchased and used, fourthly the non filing of any material as to suitability of compliant’s land for cultivation of said crop and its support with any irrigation source fifthly as to the non intimation to the opposite parties as to alleged ill-filling or improper seed setting by complainant prior to filing the case sixthly the alleging the inspection of some lands of Konganapadu (V), where the said seed was cultivated, on 23.12.2002 by team consisting of a Senior Scientist (Breeder), Deputy Director, Agricultural B.Hussain Reddy., Asst. Director of Agriculture and representative of farmers and seed company and said team expressing no Genetic variation and the seed is not the causative factor for ill filling of flower heads but lack of moisture in soil at the time of seed setting is cause for poor yield, and there by not awarding any compensation to the farmers by said team or M.O.U committee, seventhly allege that if seed is spurious, adulterated or substandard it would not have germinated and then would not have normal plant growth and flower to the plants and hence seed cannot be found fault with, eighthly alleging the poor setting as due to various reasons such as lack of moisture in the soil at the time of seed setting in flower, lack of irrigation facilitates, seviour draught conditions, non suitability of soil or poor fertility of land, improper or indiscriminate use of fertilizers and pesticides and unfavourable climatic conditions and ninthly the other seed of the same lot yielding good crop to some farmers of said village, tenthly alleging that no assurance from by company as to the yield of 10 to 12 quintals per acre and disputing the then existing rate of Rs.1500 per quintal, eleventhly alleging the said seed as per production certificate/ release order of company seed testing laboratory as having 83% seed Germination as against normal 70 % and 98.8% Genetic purity as against normal 95 % and twelthly alleging the belated filing of this case after the expiry of shelf life of the seed depriving any Chemical analysis and test of the seed.
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.3 and Ex X.1 to X.4 besides to his sworn affidavit and of a third party and replies to the interrogatories, the opposite party has taken reliance on Ex B.1 to B.5 and evidence of RW 1 to 3 besides to its sworn affidavit and replies to the interrogatories.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged cause of action and deficiencies on part of the opposite parties making them liable for the claim made.
7. The Ex A.1 is bill bearing No. 8112 dated 2.9.2002. It envisages the purchase of three pockets of P.S.F.H.10 – variety of Prabhat seeds of lot No. 2210150 – 6/02 3/03 at the rate of Rs.2,450/- by CH. Ayyanna resident of Konganapadu for Rs. 2,450/- from the opposite party No.2. In the absence of any of its rebuttal by the opposite party the fact of purchase of said variety of seed by complainant remains established to believe the said facts in super session to the denial of the opposite party No.1 especially when the said Ex A.1 was issued by the very opposite party No.2 who remained exparte without contesting the case.
8. The Ex A.2 is the CC of adangal for the F.Y 1412 pertaining to Sy No. 59 of Konganapadu (V). It envisages the cultivation of 7 acres Complainant’s by the Complainant during said year as dry land for cultivation of Poola Kusumalu. In the absence of any of its rebuttal by opposite party side it gives an answers to the opposite parties query as to the area of cultivation, crop raised and the nature of said land as land where in the said crop was cultivated in rabbi season in dry land. Hence making clear the source of irrigation as rain fed only.
9. The Ex X.1 and X.2 – the part B observation report pertaining to the land of Chinna Kashalu and Gorantla of Konganapadu, who is not complainant of this case – as to P.S.F.H 10 Prabhat Agro limited Sunflower crop -and it bears the signatures of committee members and its chairman besides to the signatures of said Chinna Keshalu and Gorantla and the representatives of opposite party seed company. As the Complainant of this case being one CH. Ayyanna and neither Chinna Kashalu nor Gorantla are Complainant of this case, and the Ex X.2 doesn’t specify who is other farmers to it pertains to, the said Ex X.1 and X.2 and its observations remains irrelevant for consideration in this case especially when the evidence of RW2-Dr Basha Moinnddin- who says of his concern to Ex X.1 and X.2 – says that they were pertaining to Chinna Kashalu Gorantla and no where names the name of the complainant of this case. Hence the observations made in Ex X. 1 and X.2 remains as mere observations of the fields of others, otherthan the Complainant as to the crop raised with alleged seed.
10. Even if the Ex X.1 and X.2 is taken as representing the position of the crop raised using the same seed in the fields of others of said village it is also not remaining of any avail to the Complainant’s case as it says of no genetic variation and genetic purity cannot be assessed and there by provide any material to believe the spuriousness of the said seed and while the complainant alleges total loss of yield the Ex X.1 and X.2 estimates the crop loss at 50 % only that too not attributing any defect to the seed.
11. Even though the Ex X.3 - the inspection report signed on 2.12.2002 pertains to the inspection alleged to have been made on 29.11.2002 covering an extent of 100 acres land at harvest stage, observing ill-filling of heads i.e irregular seed setting, and takes mention of the name of the Complainant also among 15 names mentioned therein as names and address of Complainant’s and details of seed as one purchased on 2.9.2002 from opposite party No.2 and the said was taken reference in the evidence of C Chandra Shekar – MAO Kallur (RW1), the said Ex X.3 is also not remaining of any help to the Complainants case as it does speak an where the reasons for said irregular seed setting or attributing it to any genetic variations or genetic purity or improper germination of said seed to find any fault with the seed supplied by the opposite party to the complainant.
12. The Ex X.4 being merely showing the list of the farmers whose fields were inspected by said RW1 it is also not remaining any help to the Complainant’s case for want of any cogent material therein to find out any spuriousness of said seed.
13. The Ex B.2 is the production certificate (release order) dated 28.6.2002 issued by seed officer of Prabhat Agri Biotech limited of certifies the seed of lot No. 2210150 of P.S.F.H- 10 variety as of 7o % germination with 98 % purity of seeds taking its genetic purity to 95%. The Ex B.3 is the information truthful seed production certificate by its producer ( Prabhat Agro Biotech Limited). The date of said certificate being just a few months earlier to its sale to the agriculturist like Complainant, in the absence of any material discrediting their worthiness or doubting their correctness coupled with any observation as to any defect in said seed in the material relied by the complainant’s side, the observation as to the genetic purity and germination percentage mentioned in Ex B.2 and B.3 remains believable as to standards of said seed, especially when there is no complaint from complainant’s side as to germination, plant growth and flowering, and the so called improper seed setting is attributed to any inherent defect of the said seed in reference two any genetic impurity.
14. The Ex B.1 is rainfall data of Kurnool District for the year 2002 covering several Mandals of the district and rainfall of them for all the 12 months of the year. The lands of the complainant are alleged as of Konganapadu of Kallur (M), the rainfall data of all the 12 months of the year of 2002 of Kallur (M) finds at Sl. No. 2 of said rainfall data in Ex B.1. The seed in the question was purchased by complainant in September 2002 and was said to have been sowed in the same month in his land. Even though the rainfall in the month of October 2002 was extreme being 261.9 as against normal range of 105, there appears poor rainfall in month of September and November 2002 as it records rainfall of 55 and 2 as against normal range of 129 and 44 respectively. Hence there appears less moisture in soil as per said rainfall data in months of September and November 2002 when the germination and other plant growing and flower bearing process occurred. So the said fact of improper seed setting to the flower could be probalised to the unfavourable climatic seasonal condition occasioned on account of less rainfall in the month of November 2002 as whisphered in the evidence of RW2 - Dr Basha Moinnddin also as causing less moisture than required at the time of seed setting. The mere version of RW1 C. Chandra Shekar at the fagend of cross examination attributing the cause for said state of affairs of seed setting to the flower, was on account of defective in the seed is not remaining of any help in favour of the complainant when he doeno’t say of either the nature and kind of said defect in seed technically or takes any mentioned in Ex X.3 report that the reason for said improper seed setting was due to defect in seed.
15. The Ex B.4 in the proceedings of Joint Director of Agriculture dated 17.12.2002 is of any much use to be case of complainant as it to doesn’t any assign any defect to the seed except directing the persons addressed there to cause an inspection by those district level committee constituted under memorandum of understanding and submits its report.
16. The Ex B.5 is an authorization of Prabhat Agri biotech limited authorising Syyed Khaja Hussain, its sales officer - in the matters at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kurnool and to do all necessary acts and their binding the Managing Director of said Company and thus it make its as a valid representation of the opposite party in this case through its authorised representative.
17. The complainant except alleging that has expended several amounts under items mentioned in his complaint did not file any material substantiating the genuineness in said claim inspite of being obligated by denial of the opposite party side. As the failure of the crop being not attributable to any defect in the seed the complainant is not even entitled to the refund of the seed cost nor for any compensation and other reliefs claimed therefore the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the claims made against of the opposite parties.
18.Consequently, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:NIL For the opposite parties
RW1.Deposition of (C. Chandra-
Shekar), dt 7.12.2005.
RW2 Deposition of (Dr.Basha-
Mohiddin), dt 29.12.05.
RW3.Deposition of (S. Khaja-
Hussain), dt 13.4.06.
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A.1. Purchase bill (Original bill) No. 8105, dt 2.9.002 for Rs1,950/-
Ex A.2 Original Adangal of phasali F 1412, (2002-2003) of Kongana Padu (V).
Ex A.3 Adangal of Sudhkar S/o. C.H. Ramanna B. No. SY.No. 114,106 Kongana-
padu (V), Kallur (M).
Ex X.1 Report dated 23.12.2002 Chinna Kashulu of Konganapadu(V), (Submitted
Chairman of the committee) Part B.
Ex X.2 Report, dt 23.12.02 of Gorantla of Konganapadu (V), (prepared report &
Submitted to Chairman )Part-B.
Ex X.3 Proforma for Investigating Complaints Genetic all Crop Seeds Part –A
Dt 29.11.2002, M.A.O Report.
Ex X.4 Sunflower growing farmers statement of Konganapadu (V), Kallur (M) from 1st week of September, 2002.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex. B.1 Rain fail statement for the Year 2002.
Ex B.2 Production certificate of Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd, dt 28.6.2002,(No. 087,
Form-II
Ex B.3 Seed production programme Release Order No. 087, dt 28.6.02.
Ex B.4 Proceedings of J.P.A, Kurnool.
Ex B.5 Authorization letter.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri D. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri V. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3.Sri G. Sreenivasulu, Aged 45 years, prop: Venkata Ramana Fertilizers, Seeds business, Opp. Market Yard, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
