st July 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009st July 2009 C.C. No. 29 of 2009

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 29 / 2009

C. Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Konda Reddy, aged about 50 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. 2.83 cents in survey No. 198/1. 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 their opinion. The

petitioner at last got issued a notice to the respondents and they sent a reply. One

2

Mantrala Kantaiah purchased the seed on behalf of the petitioner from R1. The seed

purchased by the petitioner was 16 Kgs on 26-10-2006 under bill No. 372 from R1

out of 60 Kgs. Therefore, the complaint was filed for Rs. 48,000/- per Ac.2.83 cents

and Rs. 5,000/- towards cultivation charges totaling Rs. 53,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-

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. One M. Kantaiah had purchased

on 26-10-2006 under bill No. 372 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. The

complainant used only 3 to 4 Kgs seed per acre. It would not give proper yield.

4. The complainant cultivated Ac. 2.83 cents to which he required more

seed of Black Gram. The complainant in C.C. No. 24/2009 who purchased 60 Kgs of

seed required 74.96 Kgs for his land. He had no scope to give seed to the

complainant. He 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. He claimed

Rs. 53,000/- as loss for Ac. 2.83 cents where as the complainant in C.C. No.

24/2009 claimed Rs. 60,000/- as loss for Ac. 9.37 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

C.C. No. 29 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

know that the complainant got good yield and sold in the market at Proddatur. The

respondents had no knowledge about representation to the Asst. 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. He got seed from one Mantrala

Kanthaiah i.e. C.C No. 24/2009. 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?

4

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of

the respondents Ex. B1 to B4 were marked.

7. Point No. 1 & 2 Ex. A1 was Xerox copy of receipt issued in the name of

Mantrala Kanthaiah but not in the name of the complainant. 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

Kantaiah were with separate cultivation, the bills should be separate. He claimed

compensation on the basis of bill of Mantrala Kanthaiah, 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

5

yield. The complainant got issued a notice along with other farmers 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

pattadar passbook and 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. 372, dt. 26-10-2006, which was in the name

of M. Kantaiah, who filed the complaint in C.C. No. 24/2009.

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, he had to sow 20 Kgs to 24 Kgs but he

sowed only 16 Kgs out of 60 Kgs as shown in para – 7 of the complaint. So the

complainant raised the crop in his entire land with less quantity of seed 16 Kgs only

and hence, he did not get the required quantity of yield of 8 to 10 quintals per acre as

6

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. He 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. There was no calculation arrived for Rs. 53,000/- 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. He 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

7

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. 26-10-2006.

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 X/c of pattadar passbook and adangal extract 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. - - -