This complaint came before us for final hearing, in presence of Sri. K. Syam Sunder, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri. K. Rama Chandra Murthy, Advocate for Opposite party No.1 and of Sri. M.V. Satyanarayana, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, having agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.20.00 in survey No. 238, 245, 247 situated at Kandukuru Revenue of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, he intends to cultivate Paddy in his fields, prepared the land for sowing.  And by believing the words of opposite party No1 that the seeds produced by the opposite party No.2 would give 35 bags yielding per acre within 140 days from the date of plantation, purchased 13 bags of Annadatha MTU 1001 Paddy Seeds weight of 30 kgs each bag on 17-06-2010 for Rs.6,370/- at Rs.490/- per bag.  Thereafter, the complainant sowed the seeds on 20-06-2010 by taking necessary precautions and by using pesticides and fertilizers.  After transplantation, some of the plants were grown for yielding within 90 days but remaining are not ready for yielding and contains black seeds (Kellilu and Berukulu), due to which, the complainant sustained loss @ 10 to 15 bags of paddy per acre, the complainant also mentioned that the market value of MTU 1001 variety is at Rs.700/- per bag at the time of complaint.  Upon which, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on his grievance by praying the compensation. Though, there is no response from the opposite party No.1 and also made a representation to the Agricultural Officer, the A.O. inspected the field on 25-09-2010 and opined that the crop was damaged by black seed due to defective seeds, mixed with other varieties.  The complainant further submitted that he spent more than 10,000/- per acre towards purchase of seeds, preparation of land for sowing, engaging coolies and other charges, in spite of following all procedures and precautions, sustained heavy loss, and as such he lost 10 to 15 bags paddy per acre @ cost of Rs7,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cultivation charges.  Having no other go, filed the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,40,000/- towards loss and damage of crop and costs.

3.         Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 & A2.

Ex.A1:-  Photocopy of Bill dt.17-06-2010 for Rs.6,370/-

Ex.A2:-  Seed particulars, mentioned on the label.

The complainant also filed the photocopy of News, published in the daily News paper.

4.         On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed separate counters by denying the averments of the complaint.

5.         In the counter the opposite party No.1 submitted that the Opposite party No.1 is the supplier of the seeds, manufactured by the opposite party No.2 therefore, there is no responsibility on the part of it and as such not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.

            The opposite party No.2 filed its separate written version by denying all the averments as mentioned in the complaint by submitting that the complainant did not furnish any proof with the regard to loss, sustained by him and also averred that neither the officer visited the field nor assessment report was filed to prove the loss and the sample was also not collected by the A.O. to send the same for testing.  The opposite party No.2 further contended that the complainant failed to follow the conditions and precautions as mentioned in the backside of the Bill, therefore, there is no liability on the part of it and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6.         Along with the complaint, the complainant filed a petition for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the damaged crop for assessment of loss, caused to him.  Upon which, this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner for assessment of damage caused to the crop with the help of M.A.O., concerned.  The Advocate/Commissioner along with the A.O. inspected the crop of the complainant on 10-11-2010 and filed his interim report by submitting that the A.O, who inspected the crop did not give any report to him inspite of many reminders, further he stated that due to the said reason, he could not submit the final report.  Thereafter, the complainant filed another petition vide I.A.No.60/2012 by praying to issue summons to the Joint Director, Agriculture, Khammam and the A.O. of Vemsoor for filing assessment report of crop of the complainant.  After issuing summons, the A.D.A., Sathupally, appeared and filed report of M.A.O., Vemsoor Mandal, dt. 27-09-2010, which was marked under exhibit C1.

7.         In support of their averments, the complainant and the opposite parties filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments.

8.         In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

According to the above averments, it is a fact that the complainant had purchased Annadata MTU 1001 Paddy Seeds, manufactured by opposite party No.2 and sowed the same in his fields by taking all precautions and after germination also he took all the steps as required.  It is the case of the complainant that the crop was grown up for yielding unevenly, some plants were yielded within 90 days, remaining crop was not grown for yielding due to which, the complainant sustained loss of 10 to 15 bags paddy per acre.  There upon, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and the Agricultural Officer on his grievance, after all efforts were in vain, filed the present complaint by praying to award damages of Rs.3,40,000/- towards crop loss, in an extent of Ac.20.00 gts of land.  To determine the loss, complainant filed a petition for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner for assessment of loss.  After having perused the said petition, this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner to assess the loss with the assistance of M. A. O., concerned.  The Advocate/Commissioner, who appointed for the said purpose, inspected the crop along with the M.A.O. on 10-11-2010 and filed his interim report on 02-03-2012, wherein the Advocate/Commissioner stated that the M. A. O., did not give the assessment report to the Advocate/Commissioner till the date of filing of interim report, therefore, without assessment report, he filed only the interim report.  Thereafter, the complainant filed another petition vide I.A.No.60/2012 by praying to issue summons to the J.D.A. and A.O. Vemsoor for filing of assessment report.  After issuance of summons, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sathupally filed the assessment report of M.A.O., Vemsoor, dt. 29-09-2010 instead of filing of inspection report of Advocate/Commissioner, who appointed in I.A.No.174/2010 for assessment of loss with the assistance of M.A.O. concerned, this Forum opined that it is not fault on the part of the complainant and as such marked the same under exhibit C1, according to which, the M.A.O., Vemsoor visited the crop of the complainant for inspection of crop on receipt of complaint from the farmers of Kandukuru Revenue of Vemsoor Mandal.  After observation of external (physical) characters of plants in the crop, she opined that 5% of other variety mixed with MTU 1001 variety and basing on her random observation, she stated that “5% (Approx.) of other variety than MTU 1001 variety is found in the field” the M.A.O., who is the competent person, having required knowledge in agricultural sciences, assessed that 5% of other variety mixed with MTU 1001 variety.  Therefore it is sufficient to come to the conclusion in favour of the complainant and we are of the opinion that in cases of ad-mixture, there is no necessacity to go for laboratory testing, only physical observation plants by a competent person is enough to find out the ad-mixture in the crop.  Thus the plea taken by the opposite parties regarding the non-sending of sample for laboratory testing is not justifiable.  

As per the complaint and Exhibit A1, the complainant purchased MTU 1001 paddy seeds and sowed the same in Ac. 20-00 gts of his land.  In general, the average expected yielding in paddy crop is about 30 bags per acre.  Since the mixing of other variety to the extent of 5% than 95% of MTU variety in view of the aforesaid observation, the loss of crop to the extent of 5% per acre, therefore, loss in terms of quantity of crop was 1.5 bags per acre, as per the complaint, the price of paddy at the time was at the rate of Rs.700/- per bag.  Therefore we opined that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1050.00/- per acre in total he sustained loss of Rs.21,000/- towards crop loss with an extent of 20 acres of land and as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards crop loss to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.  The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the          day of December, 2014.

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam