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
Monday the 27th day of March, 2006
C.D.No.164/2005
M. Venkateswara Reddy,
S/o. Venkat Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
Agriculture, R/o. A. Gokulapadu (V),
Kallur (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
- The Proprietor,
M/s Sri Murali Agro Chemicals,
Shop No.5, Prakash Shopping Complex,
Bellary Road, Kurnool.
- The Managing Director,
M/s. PHI Seeds Limited,
B-4, Greater Kailash,
Enclave Part-II,
New Delhi-110 048.
- The Regional Manager,
M/s PHI Seeds Limited,
H.No. 6-3-1099/1100,
4th Floor, Babu Khan Mellinium Center,
Raj Bhavan Road, Somaji Guda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri N. Nagendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 to 3, 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. The Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking Rs.88,000/- with 24percent interest towards damages, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered, and costs of this case from the opposite parties as the seed supplied by the opposite party is spurious and defective and resulted in loss of yield and at 10 Quintals per acre, alleging the purchase of 4 packets of Sunflower seed of pioneer 6460 variety on 7-5-2005 at a rate of Rs.500/- per packet and sowed them in his land of 4.48 acres in survey No.184/3C and 184/5A of A.Gokulapadu and Agricultural Department on inspection opined lack of hybrid vigour and it lead to poor yield, while the crop in adjoining lands in similar agro environmental conditions was healthy and yielded well and rate of yield in August 2005 was Rs.2,000/- per Quintal and while the opposite party No.1 was dealer who sold said seeds the opposite party No.2 and 3 are its producer and regional office.
2. In pursuance to the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 and 3 only contested the case filing their written version denying any of their liability to the complainant s claim alleging insufficient seed sowing, alleged inspection of Agricultural Department without any notice to the opposite parties, complainant expected yield as unusual, improper field and crop management as probabilities of loss of yield, and no complaint as to this seed by nobody else and the case as one fit to be referred to Civil Court in view of anticipated elaborate enquiry of question of fact and law and voluminous oral and documentary record and evidence of scientific nature and the claim of the complainant as false and so there by seeking dismissal of the case with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and of a third party on his side in reiteration of his case and the reply of the opposite parties to the interrogatories, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 and 3 and reply of complainant s to its interrogatories and seed analysis report dated 23-11-2005 and Vyavasaya Panchangam of 2004-2005 published by Acharya N.G.Ranga University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged defect in seed supplied to him and nexus between the crop loss and the seed supplied and the liability of the opposite parties for the claim made in complaint.
5. The Ex.A1 is a purchase bill envisaging the purchase of four packets of pioneer 6460 variety Sunflower each weighing 2 Kgs, under said bill at a rate of Rs.500/- per packet for total sum of Rs.2,000/- by M.Venkateswara Reddy (complainant) from Sri Murali Agro Chemicals, Kurnool (Opposite party No.1). This fact which is in know of opposite party No.1, other than the complainant has not denied it and on the other hand as complainant is swearing to that effect the said fact of purchase of seed mentioned in Ex.A1 remains conclusively proved.
6. The complaint and the sworn affidavit of the complainant allege sowing of the purchased seed on an extent of 6 ½ acres of the complainant s land in survey No.184/3C, 184/5A of A.Gokulapadu. But whereas the Ex.A2 CC of Adangul to the land of the complainant in A.Gokulapadu pertaining to the agricultural year 2004-2005 shows the cultivation of Sunflower in survey No. 184/3C, 184/5A of complainant on an extent of 4.78 acres and the complainant claims the loss of yield of 10 Quintals per acre in proportion to the said extent 4.48 acres at a rate of Rs.2,000/- per Quintal. As the affidavit of complainant swear the area of cultivation of 4.48 acres it has to be believed, as the matter in Ex.A2 is not substantiated.
7. The Ex.A3 is the bunch of three bills dated 11-6-2005, 17-6-2005 and 22-6-2005 as to purchase of DAP (Die Ammonia Phosphate) worth Rs.960/-, urea and MOP worth Rs.1,500/- and 460/- respectively under those bills by the complainant from Vasundara Fertilizers and Pesticides, Kurnool. There appears any material from the opposite party side to disbelieve the usage of said fertilizers by the complainant in cultivation of said crop and there by to discredit the bonafidies of said Ex.A3. Therefore the Ex.A3 remains proved and goes in favour of complainant.
8. The Ex.A4 is an attested Xerox copy of letter dated 31-6-2005 said to have been addressed to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool by MAO, Kallur. Apart from the fact of its any legibility and intelligibility for making out as to what it says, the very letter as bearing date 31-6-2005 when the month of June holds 30 days only in its calendar month, is remaining highly doubtful as to its bonafidies especially when none concerned to said documents were examined by the complainant s side to decipher its contents and in substantiation of the contents of said document. Therefore, the Ex.A4, a mere marked document without its substantiation, remains with any evidentiary value in avail to the complainant especially when the sworn affidavit of the MAO (C.Chandra Sekhar) not provides any observations of his in Ex.A4 as to any defect in seed.
9. The Ex.A5 is said to be inspection report of Sunflower pioneer 6460 variety in the fields of A.Gokulapadu and Bastipadu villages said to have been observed by B.Narendra, Sr. Scientist (G & PB) S.F RARS, Nandyal says of the inspection of fields of 50 acres of said villages having Sunflower pioneer 6460 variety covering the field of the complainant also. It observes the crop there in was lacking hybrid vigour though the said hybrid is genetically pure. The reply of third party C.Chandra Sekar, MAO, Kallur to the interrogatories of the opposite party says the hybrid vigour depends upon the quality of the seed. By this it goes without any further say that the lack of hybrid vigour is on account of non qualitativeness or defect in said seed. The genetic purity alleged to said seed either in Ex.A5 or seed analysis report enclosed to the written version of the opposite parties 2 and 3 doesn t appear to be having any relation to lack of hybrid vigour and in ultimate ensual of poor yield or less yield. From the reply of said MAO in para No.7 of the interrogatories it appears that there were any abnormal conditions either as to land or as to other environmental conditions which must have shown effect on the crop as in the same quality of land and same agronomical conditions the yield was healthy and good in all other surrounding lands. Hence it goes without any further say that improper or less or poor yield occur to the land of the complainant was on account of defect in seed and none else than that.
10. The Hon ble National Commission in National Seed Corporation Ltd., V/s M.Madhusudhana Reddy and another reported in 2003 (6 ) ALT page 5 NC (CPA)/2003 (2) CPR 15 NC and in Bejo Sheetal Seeds V/s Bolla Venkamma and others reported in 2001 (3) CPR page 126 NC holds no interference of the order of the lower fora when the reliance was made on Commissioners report when the provisions of section 13 (1)(c ) of the Consumer Protection Act becomes unimplementable. Here in this case the observations as to the crop and quality of the land of the complainant was done by scientist deputed by the Agricultural Department. There is no contra material from the opposite party side to discredit the opinion of agricultural scientist mentioned in the Ex.A5 and properly explained in the reply to the interrogatories of C.Chandra Sekar, MAO.
11. The contentions of the opposite party side that the said inspection in Ex.A5 was conducted without any notice to the opposite parties doesn t appear to hold any merit as no material is placed from the opposite parties side obligating the purchaser of seed and the agencies holding inspection of the complainant s land and crop there in on complaint of defect in the seed, to cause any notice for conducting any such inspection.
12. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party reported in 2005 (3) SCC page 198 does not appear to be relevant for appreciation to the facts of this case as there is any material from the opposite party side to discredit the observations of Ex.A5 and relevant replies of C.Chandra Sekar, MAO as to the existences of any abnormal conditions effecting the crop other than the quality of the seed. Hence, the said report in Ex.A5 remains of every help to the complainant to draw every inference as to the defect in seed cultivated in said filed.
13. The learned counsel for the opposite parties takes reference to Vyavasaya Panchangam published by Acharya N.G.Ranga University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad for the year 2004-2005 as to the recommended things prescribed for the cultivation of Sunflower crop and allege that there is no material from the complainant s side as to their compliance in cultivation and raising of the Sunflower crop. But there remains any force in said contention as non of the bills of purchase of seed of said hybrid Sunflower there is any direction to the farmer to the effect that the said seed has to be cultivated in accordance with the instructions of Vyavaysa Panchangam of Acharya N.G.Ranga University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. Nor any pamphlet of the instructions of said hybrid seed published by the manufacturer or producer of said seed is warranting the farmer to follow any special instructions in cultivation of said hybrid Sunflower seed or strict compliance of any instructions of said agricultural university in that regard.
14. While the complainant alleges total loss of yield, the Ex.A5 indicates the probable yield at that state of circumstances as to 2 Quintals. per acre. While the Ex.A5 says the average yield in near by plots of said variety under similar agronomical package were 6 Quintals per acre, the complainant alleges the expected yield was 10 Quintals per acre and he yielded the same in previous year except averring as such did not place any material in substantiation of the same. Hence, the expected yield of complainant side appears to be on high side and in exaggeration. In the circumstances of Ex.A5 saying as to both average yield in neighbouring field and yield probable in the complainants land the complainant is remaining entitled to the difference of average yield (i.e. 6 quintals per acre) and yield probable in the complainant s land i.e. 2 quintals per acre. When the complainant is establishing the defect in seed as cause for failure of the crop and there by establishing the liability of the opposite parties to make good of his claim made in the complaint the Ex.A6 envisaging the quintal rate of said seed at relevant time remains highly relevant for working out the value of the yield loss. Hence in the circumstances the complainant is entitled at the rate of 4 quintals per acre towards loss of the yield which may value of Rs.8,000/- per acre. The Ex.A6 at relevant time at the rate of 2,000/- per quintal.
15. In the result of the above discussion the complainant is remaining entitled to sum of Rs.8,000/- per acre towards the loss of the yield and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.,10,000/- towards cost of the case and hence the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the ordered amount within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are liable jointly and severally to pay the awarded amount with 12percent interest till realisation.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 27th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- - Nil-
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant :-
Ex A.1 Purchase bill dt 7.5.2005 for Rs.2,000/-.
Ex A.2 Adangal issued by M.R.O of Gokulapadu Village (F.Y.1414) year
2004-05.
Ex A.3 Cash bills(3 in number) dt 11.6.2005 for Rs.960/- dt 17.6.05 for
Rs.960/-, dt 22.6.2005 for Rs.1,480/-.
Ex A.4 Attested copy of letter, dt 3.6.2005 addressed by M.A.O to Joint
Director, Agriculture.
Ex A.5Inspection Report of (B. Narendra) Sr. Scientist (G&PB) S.F, R.A.R.S,
Nandyal.
Ex A.6 Price report issued by Agriculture Market Yard Committee, Kurnool
Dt. 1.9.2005.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to
- Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
- Sri N. Nagendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
