BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 29th day of November, 2005
CD No.94/2005
G.Yellaiah Alies Harijana Yelllaiah,S/o G.Naganna,
Seesamguntala Village,Dhone Mandal,Kurnool District. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
- The Managing Director,S.K.Seeds Private Limited,
Regd., Office 22-7-732,Nir Alam Manbdi,Hyderabad.
- The proprietor,
Raja Seeds and Pesticides,Near Co-Operative Central Bank, Dhone. . . . Opposite parties
The complaint coming on 28.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri.G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party 1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte, 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 President)
CC.No.94/2005
1. This CD case of the complaint is filed seeking an award on the opposite parties directing them jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.23,500/- with interest towards the agricultural in-puts and expenditure, Rs.77,215/- towards the crop loss, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and costs of this case, alleging the purchase from opposite party No.2 five pockets of castor seed of Kranti Variety of lot No.SKS/121 produced by the opposite party No.1, at a rate of Rs.140/- per pocket of two KGs each, under bill No.138 dated 25-06-2004 and sowing them in his field of Ac.5.50 Cents inSy.No.637/2 of Seesamguntala Village of Dhone Mandal and in-spite of good field management and use of required manures and fertilizer there was very poor germination and ultimately suffered total loss of crop and they said was due to defect in said seed as observed by the Field Inspection Team of the office of Joint Direct or Agricultural, Kurnool and as in normal conditions the normal yield expected is 12 Quintals per acre the total loss of crop tunes to Rs.77,215/- at them prevailing market rate of said Castor Seed at Rs.1,513/- per Quintal and the agricultural in-puts and investment tunes to Rs.23,500/- as per the details given in para No.5 of the complaint.
2. The opposite parties, who made their appearance into the case in pursuance of the receipt of notice issued by this Forum as to this case of complaint, filed their written version denying the cause of action of the complainant and any of their liability to the complainants claim alleging failure of the crop if any on account of adverse and unfavorable seasonal conditions, poor quality of land and the assessment of loss of the complainant by Inspection committee constituted by the Government to the tune of Rs.2,325/- and passing an award accordingly and the refusal by the complainant t o receive the same filing this speculative case and there by seeking dismissal of the complainant case.
3. In substantiation of the complaint contentions while the complainants side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case and the reply to the interrogatories exchanged the opposite party side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.X1 and Ex.2 and its sworn affidavit and reply to the interrogatories exchanged with complainant.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any case against the opposite party No.2 and their liability to the claim made in the complaint.
5. Ex.A1 is the bill no.1038 envisaging the purchase of five pockets each of two KGs Castor Seed of Kranti Variety at the rate of Rs.140/- for Rs.700/- along with read gram seed worth Rs.130/-, by G.Yellaiah (Complainant) resident of Seesamguntla on 25-06-2004/27-07-2004 from Raja Seeds and Pesticides, Dhone (Opposite party No.2). As nothing to contradict it is placed by the opposite party the Ex.A1 is believed as bill under which the 5 packets of alleged Castor Seed was purchased from opposite party No.2.
6. The Ex.A2 is the Inspection report dated 30-07-2004 of District Leave Team on its visits to the complainant s fields to assess the reasons for germination failure, says the purchase of said seed of 5 pockets from opposite party no.2 and its sowing on 16-07-2004 and the nature of said soil as light sandy and the optimum moisture at the time of sowing said seed and two rainy days only in that one month as on 25-07-2004 with 10.6 M.M. and the other on 27-07-2004 with 8.49 M.M. rain fall and the sowing rate of 20 grams per 40 Square Meters and finding of 1 to 2 plants germination. The above material was not contradicted by the opposite party side but on the other hand was stated as to the assessment of loss of complainant by the Inspection Committee constituted by the Government. Hence, the contents of the above Ex.A2 remains to have proved t o the extent it speaks and on its basis the loss of the crop alleged by the complainant can be believed, as the two photos in Ex.A5 also shows a barren land without any crop therein and the paper cutting in Ex.A6 also says of the loss of the crop of the complainant and some others, the fact of which was not denied by the opposite parties as otherwise.
7. While the complaint alleged merely the purchase of 6 bags of D.A.P. Fertilizers at Rs.2,850/-, Thiomet at Rs.1,100/-, Biogate 1 KG at Rs.180/- and Unnamed Fertilizer at Rs.3,670/- without giving any further details as to their date of purchase to have a cross reference for ascertaining their bona-fidie, the Ex.A3 an undated bill envisages purchase of 5 bags of D.A.P. at Rs.2,350/-. Any corresponding purchase bill is filed by the complainant as to the alleged claim of Rs.180/- for Biogate 1 KG and for the unnamed Fertilizers worth Rs.3,670/-. Further in the absence of any cogent material as to the stage of cultivation when said agricultural in-put were made or any technical data for the use of said fertilizers or pesticides with their relevant stages, the material in said Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 (as to the purchase of Thiomet of Rs.1,100/-) will utmost establish their mere purchase but not their usage in alleged cultivation of said land of the complainant for caster seed crop. Hence, for want of substantiating material as to the claim of agricultural in-puts of Rs.22,800/- (i.e., Rs.23,500 - Rs.700 the cost of the seed) the complainant is not remaining entitled for the same from the opposite parties, especially, when there was poor germination leading to total loss of the crop no vise person can make any such investment.
8. As the opposite parties in their written version admit the loss of castor crop in the complainant s fields and estimates the loss for compensation at Rs.2,325/- and the complainant except placing the minimum and maximum market rate of castor at Rs.1,006/- and Rs.1,497/- for a quintal vide Ex.A7, as did not place any material as to the quantity of crop assured by said seed company to said variety of seed and the MOU committee report and its proceedings i.e., the document produced by Joint Director of Agricultural, Kurnool in pursuance of the order in IA No.439/2005 dated 21-10-2005, which is marked as Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 for its appreciation, estimates the compensation for loss of crop including the costs of purchase seed envisaged under Ex.A1 and ex.A8 (Empty Bags of purchase seed) at Rs.2,325/-, in the absence of any material from the complainant discrediting its bonafidies, in the circumstances discussed above the complainant is not remaining entitled more than Rs.2,325/- mentioned in supra stated MOU Committee findings towards the loss of the crop.
9. Hence, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 (i.e., S.K. Seeds Private Limited) represented by its Managing Director Registered Office 22-07-732, Mir Alam Mandi, Hyderabad to pay Rs.2,325/- as compensation for loss of crop to the complainant with costs of Rs.500/- within a month of the receipt of this order. In default opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay the award with 12percent interest from the said of default till realization.
10. As the Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 fixes the liability of the compensation on the seed company (opposite party No.1) and the opposite party No.2 is a mere dealer of said seed and as per decision of Honourable A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Zuari Agro Chemical Limited -Vs- P.Malla Reddy reported in I(2004) CPJ Page 161 as dealer is exonerated from his liability making liable the manufacture of seed only to pay compensation when the failure of the crop is attributed to defect in the seed, the opposite party No.2 (Raja Seeds and Pesticides, represented by its Proprietor, near Co-Operative Central Bank, Dhone) is exonerated from liability and consequently the case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, pronounced and corrected by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 29th day of November, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Cash/Credit bill of Raja Seeds and Pesticides, Dhone Sl.No.1,38/- dated 25-06-2004 of Rs.830/-.
Ex.A2 Inspection Report dated 30-07-2004.
Ex.A3 Cash/Credit bill of Sri. Lakshmi Sreenivasa Fertilizers No.31 of total Rs.3,670/-.
Ex.A4 Cash/Credit bill of Sri. Lakshmi Sreenivasa Fertilizers No.1460 of total Rs.1,100/-.
Ex.A5 Photographs (3) in number with negatives.
Ex.A6 Cutting News Paper Vaartha dated 31-07-2004.
Ex.A7 Bill list issued by Market Yard, Kurnool.
Ex.A8 Seed bags in number 4.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Report of Inspection Team dated 18-08-2004.
Ex.B2 Proceedings of MOU Committee dated 21-08-2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri N.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Proprietor, Raja Seeds and Pesticides, Near Co-Operative Central Bank,
Dhone.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
