BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 6th day of June 2006
CC No.175/2005
A. Viswanatha Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged about 45 years,
Boyalakuntla (V), Sirvel (M), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor, M/s Sree Jagadeeswara Seeds.
25/25-E, Near Sanjeeva Nagar Gate, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
2. The Managing Director, M/s. New India Seeds Company,
8-4-322/215, Saibaba Nagar, N.R.R.Puram Site III, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri N, Nagendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent 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)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act seeking order against the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.1,80,000/- i.e. @ Rs.60,000/- per year for 3 years towards the crop loss and interest at 24% per annum thereon, Rs.53,280/- with interest at 24% per annum towards the incurred agriculture expenditure, Rs.50,000/- towards suffered mental agony and costs of this litigation, alleging purchase of 4 packets of PKM variety drumstick seed of lot No.387 manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 for Rs.280/- vide bill No.699 dated 23-6-2004 and sowed them in the month of January 2004 in his land of 1.5 acre extent in survey No.442 of Boyalakuntla village and inspite of adopting proper measures in field and crop management incurring Rs.53,000/- there was no crop even after 7 months of its sowing and ultimately lead to the total loss of the yield by their uneven growth of plants and flower dropping etc., and the Horticultural Officer, Nandyal and MAO Sirivel inspected the said field of the complainant and opined the problem may be due to seed material and hence the said loss of the yield was an account of said seed and there by the liability of the opposite parties to make good of the loss.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 contested the case filing its written version denying its liability and the opposite party No.2 remained exparte to the proceedings.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 even though admit the sale of seeds mentioned in said bill dated 23-6-2004 it pleads that it is not aware of the quality of the seed sold there under as were sold in sield pouches as furnished to it by opposite party No.2 under its relevant invoice and transitment and therefore says of any of its liability for any loss of yield ensured to the complainant on account of said seed and so seeks dismissal of the case with costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case and a third affidavit of C.Ramasubbanna and the evidence of PW1 Firoz Khan- Horticultural Officer, and replies exchanged to the interrogatories, the opposite party No.1 has taken reliance on to Ex.B1 and B2 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defense and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
5. Hence the point for consider is whether the complainant has made out the loss of crop ensured to him was due to defect with seed purchased from the opposite parties and there by their liability to make good of his claim.
6. As to the cultivation of said seed in his land is concerned the complainant has taken reliance on to his sworn affidavit besides to the third party affidavit of C.Ramasubbanna and the Ex.X1 report of the Horticultural officer and his evidence as PW1. Nothing to discredit their material comes forth either the replied to the interrogatories or in cross examination of the PW1. Hence, the cultivation of complainant’s filed with said seed is ramming established.
7. While the Ex.X1 – report of the PW1 on inspection of complainant’s field alleges the problem to the crop of complainant may be due to seed material, the evidence of said Horticulture Officer as PW1 doesn’t at all take mention of the defect in seed even though observes good crop and field management by the complainant. The Ex.X1 employing the wording “May be” appears to be not definite of the problem to said crop was due to defect in seed only especially when the evidence of said Horticulture Officer as PW1 doesn’t at all say of any definite defect in the said seed his said opinion remains inconclusive to hold any defect in the said seed with any definiteness.
8. Expect in observation in Ex.X1 as to the field and crop management of the complainant by the person who has any personal acquaintance with them as his visit was for the first time at the time of the inspection of said field on 18-1-2005, the complainant has not substantiated by any cogent material as to the standard measures he has adopted in cultivation of the said field. Thus it cannot be said the failure of the crop ensuing loss of yield to the complainant was due to the defect in said seed alone especially when the evidence of PW1 says the seed used in complainant’s field was PKM –1 hybrid variety and not of any other variety or a substandard variety of said hybrid.
9. The Ex.A1 bill of purchase of said seed or the mere representation made in Ex.A2 as to the loss of crop and service of said representation in Ex.A2 vide Ex.A3 and A4 on all others unconcerned except the opposite parties, which doesn’t reveal the real defect in said seed which must have contributed the loss of yield those marked documents does remain of any help to the complainant’s case.
10. While the opposite party No.1 alleges the said seed in sield pouches was supplied to his purchasers in the same state as were received by it under Ex.B1 and B2 there being any contention on the complainant’s side disputing it or to mean that they were adulterated by any meddling by the opposite party No.1, the liability of the opposite party No.1 as dealer in the circumstances of supplying them in the same state as were received by him from manufacturer, holds any of his liability for the loss of yield occurred due to defect in said seed, as per the decision of Hon’ble A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., V/s P.Malla Reddy reported in I (2004) CPJ 161, the case against the opposite party No.1 doesn’t lie and consequently it remains dismissed against the opposite party No.1.
11. Inspite of denial by the opposite party No.1 of the fact as to any adjured promise of opposite party No.1 to the complainant as to probable quantum of yield of said quality of seed provides to farmer who avails them for cultivation, the complainant has not substantiated the same by any cogent material. Nor the complainant has placed any such cogent material that the said quality of seed yielded to anybody crop worth Rs.40,000/- per acre per year or to him in any recent past. Hence it remains very hard to believe the truth in the said alleged value of the loss of yield per year. Further the complainant has not placed any literature of said seed that its sowing once, yields for 3 years and yield worth Rs.40,000/- per annum per acre. Nor the complainant has placed any cogent substantiating material as to the alleged incurred expenditure of items shown in pare No.8 of the complainant other than the seed cost. Hence there remains any bonafidies in said claim of the complainant for Rs.1,80,000/- towards the loss of the crop and other alleged incidental expenditure of Rs.53,000/-.
12. In the absence of any proof as to defect in seed with any definiteness and so called incurred incidental expenditure in cultivation of the said crop of said seed, their remains any liability of the manufacturer of said seed i.e. opposite party No.2 even.
13. Consequently the case of the complainant is as not establishing any of the opposite parties to the claim of the complainant, it is dismissed against both the opposite parties.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 6th day of June, 2006.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OFEVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties: Nil
PW1- Firoz Khan- Horticultural Officer
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Bill No. 699 of Sree Jagadeeswara seeds, Nandyal dt 23.6.2004 for
Rs. 350/-.
Ex A.2 Written representation submitted to the Dist. Collector, Joint Director of
Agri. Dist. Horticulture and Asst. Director, Kurnool.
Ex A.3 Postal receipts (4).
Ex A.4 Postal acknowledgements (4).
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Invoice in favour of opposite party No.1 issued by opposite party No.2
Dt. 6.12.2003 for Rs.3,550/-.
Ex B.2 Navatha Road Transport receipt No. 85397, dt 6.12.2003 for Rs.
53.10p.
Ex.X1 Inspection report of the Horticulture Officer, Nandyal, Dt.18-1-2005.
(along with letter & memo).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:
1.Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
2.Sri. N.Nagendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
3. The Managing Director, M/s. New India Seeds Company, 8-4-322/215, Saibaba Nagar, N.R.R.Puram Site III, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy delivered to parties:
