st July 2009 C.C. No. 34 of 2009 C.C. No. 34 of 20094 7. Point No. 1 & 2 Ex. A1 was Xerox copy of receipt issued in the name of D. Ramamohan Reddy, but not in the name of the complainant. In the complaint at para – 5, it was mentioned that one Kasavur Dasthagiri purchased the seed on her behalf. Hence, the complainant was not a consumer. The complainant had not filed any bill or receipt for purchasing of the seed from R1. When the lands of the complainant and D. Ramamohan Reddy were with separate cultivation, the bills should be separate. He claimed compensation on the basis of bill of D. Ramamohan Reddy, for which he was not entitled to any relief. The R2 was producer of Black Gram seed. The duration of the crop was 85 days. After sowing the seed in November 2006 it was grown well in the land but it had no flowers and pods. The petitioner spent Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards fertilizers, pesticides, land preparation and weeding. The petitioner contended that he purchased seed under wrong advice given by R1 that the crop in the month of November would grow with good yield. Even, after taking all precautions there was no yield. The reasons were the seed was defective and substandard. If the seed was not defective and good seed the yield would be 10 to 15 quintals per acre. In the complaint at para – 6 it was disclosed that the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Muddanoor and Panchayat Secretary inspected the crop and gave their opinion. But either the opinion or the report of the Asst. Director of Agriculture was not filed. The complainant filed Ex. A2 a copy of list of farmers grown Black Gram LBG 645 variety in Yamavaram village of Muddanoor Mandal issued by Mandal Agriculture Officer, Muddanoor in which the total extent with survey Nos. and purchase of seed with bill No. and date from R2 by the complainant was mentioned. Ex. A3 was statement of Panchayat Secretary, Yamavaram that the farmers shown in the list had raised Black Gram crop in their lands. But there was no yield. In the statement Ex. A3, it was disclosed the names of farmers and survey Nos. extent and quantity of seed purchased with bills Nos. and dates. Ex. A3 was counter signed by Tashildar, Muddanoor as the Black Gram crop did not give good yield. The complainant got issued a notice along with other farmers C.C. No. 34 of 20095 to both the respondents to pay compensation. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A4. Ex. A4 included the reply notice from both the respondents. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of adangal extract. When the complainant had not purchased the seed and did not produce the bill, it is not known how the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Muddanoor and Tahsildar, Muddanoor certified the Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 that the complainant purchased vide bill No. 394, d t . 2-11-2006 which was not i n t h e name of D. Ramamohan Reddy, who filed the complaint in C.C. No. 27/2009. But in the name of K. Dasthagiri complainant in C.C. No. 35/2009. 8. The respondents filed Ex. B1 and B2 the reply notice issued to the complainant. The same were filed by the complainant along with office copy of the notice as Ex. A4. The respondents filed Ex. B3 statement of some other farmers with their pattadar passbooks in Xerox copies that the Black Gram seed LBG 645 variety gave good yield and hence, it was not a substandard seed. They filed Ex. B4 a Xerox copy of literature of Black Gram seed and various varieties of seed including LBG 645. Under Ex. B4 the duration of the crop was 85 to 90 days and the yield per acre would be around 8 to 10 quintals. In Ex. B4 the method of cultivation including application of pesticides and fertilizers and quality of both of them and quantity of seed required per acre in dry land during the month of October has been mentioned. During Rabi season, the time for sowing was October for dry land and for wet land it was November and the quantity of seed per acre in the dry land was 6.4 Kgs to 7.2 Kgs and in the wet land it was 16 Kgs. The land of the complainant was dry land and so the crop should be raised in October and not during November and the required seed was 6.4 Kgs to 7.2Kgs per acre. But in the present case the Black Gram LBG 645 variety was sown in November 2006 instead of October 2006 and for the entire extent of land of the complainant, she had to sow 6.4 Kgs to 7.2 Kgs but she sowed only 3 Kgs out of 16 Kgs as shown in para – 7 of the complaint. So the complainant raised the crop in her entire land with less quantity of seed 3 Kgs only and hence, she did not get the required quantity of yield of 8 to 10 quintals per acre C.C. No. 34 of 20096 as mentioned in Ex. B4 literature. In addition to it was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint about the quantity received by the complainant in previous years. She did not file any scrap of paper regarding purchase of fertilizers, pesticides. In its absence it is clear that the complainant did not apply any quantity of fertilizers or pesticides to the crop as shown in Ex. B4. There was no calculation arrived for Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation. As soon as the complainant had an idea that there were no pods to the plant, he would have taken the report of the Asst. Director of Agriculture about the stage of the crop and defects in the crop. She did not file the report of Asst. Director of Agriculture. The respondents also did not file the analysis report regarding the germination of the seed. There was no proper report from any laboratory or an expert in agriculture. It could not be said that the seed in question was defective as reported in 2009 CTJ 740 (CP) (NCDRC) Gyan Chandra Sharada Vs. Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and others. When the complainant mentioned in para – 6 of the complaint that the Asst. Director of Agriculture and Panchayat Secretary inspected the crop, it was his duty to file their report regarding the stage of crop and defects in not getting yield. The complainant did not file at least the empty packet of the seed to show when the seed was packed and when the date would be expired and its lot Nos. The loss of crop was on various factors like excess water, rains, climatic conditions and not using fertilizers and pesticides as mentioned in the concerned literature and whether there was any disease to the crop. In its absence they could not say that the Black Gram seed was defective and substandard. The seed was defective was not proved by the complainant through the Department of Agriculture. So the complainant was not a consumer. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 01 MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT C.C. No. 34 of 2009st July 20097 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of Cash / Credit bill issued by R1, dt. 8-11-2006. Ex. A2 Copy of list issued by Mandal Agriculture Officer, Muddanoor, dt. 2-2-07. Ex. A3 Copy of list issued by Tahsildar, Muddanoor Mandal, dt 21-4-2007. Ex. A4 Office copy of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to respondents, dt. 28-2-2007. Ex. A5 Adangal extract copy of the complainant. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Ex. B1 X/c of reply notice from R2’s advocate to complainant’s advocate, dt. 9-3-2007. Ex. B2 X/c of reply notice from R1’s advocate to complainant’s advocate, dt. 23-3-2007. Ex. B3 X/c of statement of some ryots with X/c of pattadar passbooks, dt. 19-3-2007 and 20-3-2007. Ex. B4 X/c of literature i.e. cultivation of Black Gram seeds MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri P. Sekhar Reddy, Advocate. 3) Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 34 of 2009 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 34 / 2009 K. Subbamma, W/o K. Dastagiri, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Residing at Chintakunta Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District. ….. Complainant. Vs. 1) Bruhadeswara Fertiliser’s Oil Cake Fertilizer Merchants, 9/532, Mydukur Road, Proddatur town. 2) M/s Sri Lakshmi Seeds Corporation, D.No. 54-B-35, Plot No. 30, J.Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. ….. Respondents. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 22-6-2009 in the presence of Sri P. Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The petitioner sowed Black gram seed in November 2006 purchased from R1 produced by R2. The duration of the crop was 85 days and the growth of crop was good. But it had no flowers and pods. The petitioner followed all precautions and spent Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards cultivation expenses, fertilizers, pesticides and weeding and seed cost for his lands of Ac. 0.80 cents our of Ac. 2-57 cents in survey No. 204/1, 213 and 205. The R1 gave a wrong direction to the petitioner that the variety of seed would grow in November. Thus the petitioner purchased the seed and crop was grown in November. The seed was defective and substandard for germination. If the seed was perfect and the respondents gave proper directions the petitioner would get 10 to 15 quintals yield per acre. Due to supply of substandard seed the petitioner had a loss of Rs. 45,000/- per acre. The petitioner represented to the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Muddanoor and Panchayat Secretary of the village. They inspected the crop and gave 2 their opinion. The petitioner at last got issued a notice to the respondents and they sent a reply. One Kasavur Dasthagiri, purchased the seed on behalf of the petitioner from R1. The seed purchased by the petitioner was 3 Kgs on 2-11-2006 under bill No. 394 from R1 out of 16 Kgs. Therefore, the complaint was filed for Rs. 70,000/- per acre and Rs. 5,000/- towards cultivation charges totaling Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs. 3. The respondents filed a counter that the petitioner purchased seed from R1 and selling to the farmers. The petitioner admitted that he was selling Black Gram seed to the farmers doing business. So the petitioner was not a consumer as the petitioner had not purchased the seed from R1. O ne K. Dasthagiri, had purchased 16 Kgs on 2-11-2006 under bill No. 394 from R1. The minimum seed required per one acre was 8 Kgs. It was mentioned in Agricultural Panchangam 2005-06 at page 57 to 59 published by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture University, Hyderabad. 4. The complainant cultivated Ac. 0.80 cents out of Ac. 2.05 cents to which she required more Black Gram seed. She had no basic knowledge of cultivation of Black Gram. One could not expect a minimum yield when the required quantity of seed was not used for sowing. So Rs. 10,000/- per acre towards cultivation was not correct. She claimed Rs. 75,000/- as loss for Ac. 0.80 cents. The required expenditure for cultivation per acre was Rs. 1,660/-. The crop was not a main crop but an intermediary crop. The period of crop was 85 days. The flowering would start from 35 to 45 days. The yield would be 2 to 5 quintals depending upon various factors. Normally the average rate per quintal would be Rs. 2,500/- and it would vary from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. It was not correct that the R1 gave a wrong direction that the crop would be good in the month of November. It was not correct that the seed supplied by R2 to R1 was defective and substandard. The respondents came to know that the complainant got good yield and sold in the market at Proddatur. The respondents had no knowledge about representation to the Asst. C.C. No. 34 of 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., MEMBER SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER. Wednesday, 01 3 Director of Agriculture and Panchayat Secretary and they inspected the land and crop growth and issuing of the opinion. The respondents were never intimated by Agriculture Department. During the crop season the complainant did not make any allegations against the respondents and the crop growth was good. There were no allegations about variety of the crop. The germination and genetic purity were good. Regarding the defect in germination and genetic purity it had to be intimated within 7 days i.e. period required for germination and within 35 to 45 days i.e the period required for flowering. As the yield was good, there was no complaint. The respondents received a notice after 4 months. The reply notice was issued by the respondents immediately. There was no complaint from others, who purchased the same seed. The Mandal Agricultural Officer gave a list of farmers. The Mandal Agricultural Officer had not alleged any defect of the seed. He visited after completion of crop season. The certificate of the Panchayat Secretary need not be considered. The yielding of crop was on the basis of water, pest control, virus, sudden climatic changes and manures. The complainant did not file the seed analysis report. The certificates issued by the Agricultural officer and V.A.O, were without any evidence of quality of seed. The seed purchased by the complainant was not sufficient. The respondents did not supply seed to the complainant. There was no complaint from other farmers. There was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the respondents. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked.
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | | 
