CC Filed on 06.01.2010
Disposed on 21.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 21st day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 05/2010
Between:
Sri. Venkatesha Reddy, S/o. Govinda Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Agriculturist, Residing at JilikarapalliVillage, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chickballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. P.M. Shankar Prasad & others) V/S 1. Sri. A. Ashwatha Reddy, Proprietor, National Agro Seeds, TNR Complex, Kumbarpet, BagepalliTown, Chickballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. M. Subbi Reddy & others) 2. The Manager, Sun Tech Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 14, Ist Stage, KIADB Industrail Area, Mundargi, Bellary – 583 102. | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest, costs, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is a bonafide Agriculturist having sufficient lands in his village. That the OP.1 is a Dealer in all types of agricultural seeds manufactured by OP.2-Sun Tech Seeds Pvt. Ltd., OP.1 carries on his business in the name and style “National Agro Seeds” at Bagepalli. It is alleged that the complainant purchased 10 bags of Sun Tech Maize seeds M-288 each containing 5 kgs. totally for Rs.6,500/- on 15.06.2009 from OP.1 and obtained the receipt for it on the same day. It is alleged that OP.1 had recommended the complainant to purchase Sun Tech Maize seeds stating that it would give good yield, on an enquiry made by complainant. Further that after purchase of the seeds the complainant spent Rs.20,000/- per hectare towards sowing, manure, pesticides, intercrop harvesting and labour charge, etc., The complainant put best efforts and best supervision to get good yield, but he did not get any yield and the crops were totally failed (on the 7 acres of the land where he had grown Maize crop). The complainant had given a complaint to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bagepalli and the concerned officials visited the spot and inspected the crops raised by the complainant and a Certificate dated 07.11.2009 was issued signed by Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bagepalli, in which he opined that the failure of crop was due to defective seeds. The complainant estimated that he would have earned Rs.64,000/- from the crop per hectare and deducting the cost of cultivation of Rs.20,000/- he would have got net profit of Rs.44,000/- per hectare if the crop was good. He got issued legal notice against OPs and thereafter filed the present complaint claiming Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. Originally the complaint was filed only against OP.1. Subsequently OP.2 is added as additional party.
3. OP.1 appeared through the Counsel and contested the case. He admitted that he was the Proprietor of National Agro Seeds dealing in seeds produced by OP.2. Further he admitted that he sold the Maize seeds to complainant and issued the bill as alleged. He denied the other averments made in the complaint. He contended that the complainant has not followed the practice and procedure prescribed for growing Maize crops. As per the norms of Seeds Company the complainant was required to use cattle manure to the crop, but the complainant applied chicken manure and that the complainant was not having sufficient water yield and he had not fed sufficient water to the crop and the crop was suffering from disease and he failed to apply proper pesticides and that the other norms and directions of the seeds supplier were not followed by complainant in growing the crop. Further he contended that infact many other farmers who have purchased the same seeds from OP.1 have got good yield and there were no complaint from them regarding quality of seeds. Therefore he contended that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The notice issued to OP.2 under RPAD returned unserved on the ground that the party was absent during delivery time for a week. Therefore the service of notice on OP.2 is taken as sufficient. OP.2 remained absent and did not file any version.
5. The complainant filed affidavit and documents in support of his case. OP.1 also filed his affidavit in support of his defence. We heard the complainant.
6. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved whether
the seeds purchased by him were defective?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative to which
reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
Point No.3: To what order?
7. After considering the records and submissions of complainant our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No. 1: The complainant has produced empty seed packet of Sun Tech M-288 seeds containing Truthful Label and other instructions. The said packet contains the recommendations as follows:
“RECOMMENDED FOR CULTIVATION: Maize growing areas of AP, KTK, TN, MS, MP, ORS, GJT, UP, BHR, RJN, PNB, HP, CHATT, JHRN & WB in Kharif and Rabi, under growing and management conditions recommended by respective SAU.”
The complaint does not contain any particulars regarding the instructions and procedure recommended by the manufacturer of seeds or other authorities for growing Maize crop. The only averment made in the complaint is that the complainant put best efforts and best supervision to get the good yield. Such averment is very bald without containing the required particulars. The complainant has not produced any document to show the prescribed manner and method in which the crop should be grown. Evenafter following the prescribed procedure for growing the crop, the crop failure may occur due to many other reasons like weather conditions, failure of rainfall or untimely rain and various diseases, etc., other than defective seeds. The Certificate issued by Asst. Director of Agriculture, Bagepalli dated 13.11.2009 does not improve the case of complainant, to establish that the seeds sown were defective. This Certificate is issued on the observations of some other subordinate Agricultural Officers on spot inspection and it does not contain a definite expert opinion to establish the crop failure was due to defective seeds. The Certificate states that grown up corns were hollow and they were not properly grown up. The Certificate does not specifically say that the defective seeds were the cause for crop failure. The expert opinion should be definite and it should be based on reasons. Therefore a mere possibility or probability expressed by the Asst. Director for Agriculture in his Certificate does not prove that the crop failure is due to defective seeds. On the other hand OP.1 has stated that the complainant had treated the field with chicken manure instead of cattle manure where chicken manure should not have been used. Further he contended that there was water scarcity for complainant and he had not followed the instruction for controlling the pests and insects. In the affidavit filed by complainant he has not denied these contentions taken by the OP.1 and has not stated that he strictly followed the instructions given by the Company for growing this crop. Therefore we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the crop failure was due to defective seeds. Hence Point No.1 is held in Negative.
Point No.2: As Point No.1 is held Negative, Point No.2 does not arise for consideration.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 21st day of December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
