BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.105/2008 Order dated this the 11th day of March 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.M.A.Panchalingegowda S/o Panchegowda, R/o Marilinganadoddi, Keragodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.P.Narendra Kumar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mandya Taluk, Mandya. 2. Himalaya Seeds & Farms, B.D.A. Ramapura, Plat No.121122, Hydrabad Road, Varangal, Andhra Pradesh 51. (EXPARTE) (By Sri.S.L.Ramesh Babu (D.G.P.) for O.P.1) Date of complaint 18.10.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 10.11.2008 Date of order 11.03.2009 Total Period 4 Months 1 Day Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- alleging supply of defective seeds. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the paddy seeds of J.G.L.384 distributed by 1st Opposite party who has purchased from 2nd Opposite party Company and he sowed the seeds and planted in his land bearing Sy.No.47/P2 measuring 3 acre 0-30 guntas in Chikkabanasawadi Village, Sy.No.54 measuring 1 acre in Doddabanasawadi Village and 21 guntas in Sy.No.735/4 and 13 guntas in Sy.No.713/5 of Keragodu Village, but the crop did not flowered and grain branches and so he did not get the crop and though he informed the same to 1st Opposite party and its Higher Officers, no action was taken and he sustained crop loss due to the persuasion by 1st Opposite party by supplying defective seeds without examining the quality of seeds. He sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre and totally Rs.2,00,000/-. He got issued a legal notice dated 13.02.2008 and 1st Opposite party has received and 2nd Opposite party has not claimed notice, but notice by Professional Courier was received Opposite parties have not taken any action. Hence, this complaint. 3. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite parties and they were served and 2nd Opposite party has remained exparte and 1st Opposite party has filed written version. According to the 1st Opposite party, as per the Circular No.S.F.S-4:RBV:2007 dated 18.04.2007 of Commissioner of Agriculture to receive the paddy seeds J.G.L.384 supplied by Himalaya Seeds and Farms and to sell the same at concession rate to the farmers by the 1st Opposite party Department, the said paddy seeds were sold to complainant and other farmers of same village and the farmers in the district have grown the crop and got good yield, but the complainant without sowing the seeds in time and due to late planting of the same, on account of chill whether in November, the paddy flowering and grain branches could not come out properly and further due to ÙÖÎÙ ¤ÙÖÓÐ ÌÑÐÖ ¾Ù ¤ÙÖÓÐ, there was failure of crop and not due to defective seeds. The complaint is filed in order to get monitory gain creating false allegations. Further, the complainant had given petition on 27.12.2007 stating that about 20% of the crop had not come and sustained loss and thereafter, the correspondence was made to Agricultural University, Bangalore to ascertain the reason for failure of crop yield and on the direction of the Agricultural University, Bangalore, the Junior Rice Breeder, V.C.Farm, Mandya has inspected the spot in the presence of the complainant and even that Officer enquired Sri.J.Shivalingaiah, the neighbouring Villager and Panchayati Member who had also grown same variety of paddy and obtaining the statement and even the report of the quality of the seeds from the supplier was obtained and on these basis the Tahasildar, Mandya has informed the complainant that the compensation cannot be paid for the reasons mentioned above, for the loss of crop. The negligence and carelessness of the complainant are the reasons and therefore, 1st Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the complainant and 3 witnesses including the Junior Rice Breeder are examined and documents Ex.C.1 to C.11 are produced and the paddy bags M.O.1 & M.O.2 are produced. On behalf of the 1st Opposite party is examined and documents Ex.R.1 to R.5 are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that the 1st Opposite party has supplied defective paddy seeds and the loss of crop was due to defective seeds? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation claimed? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he has purchased paddy seeds of J.G.L. as per Ex.C.6 & C.7 bills on 17.07.2007. Under Ex.C.6, he purchased 60 Kgs and under Ex.C.7 he purchased another 60 Kgs. at concession rate of Rs.250/- only, though the cost of seeds Rs.850/- per each 60 Kgs. and admittedly these seeds were sold by the centre of 1st Opposite party and the seeds were supplied by 2nd Opposite party Seeds Company. Admittedly, at the time of purchase of seeds, the complainant was furnished in the bags, Ex.C.8 & C.9 and also Ex.C.10 and C.11 the certificates about the details of the seeds and quality. 9. Now according to the complainant, he purchased the seeds on 17.07.2007 and he sowed the seeds and planted, but the crop did not ripe and he did not get yield due to defective seeds supplied by 1st Opposite party. 10. The 1st Opposite party has denied that the seeds are defective, but due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant in late sowing and late planting, the crop did not ripe and grained due to chill whether in November and further due to plant diseases and hence, there was loss of crop yield. 11. Primarily, the burden is heavy on the complainant to prove that the paddy seeds supplied by 1st Opposite party are defective nature. It is an admitted fact that only on 27.12.2007 he gave a petition to the 1st Opposite party about the failure of the crop alleging defective seeds and then, the CW.2 Sri.P.Mahadev, Junior Rice Breeder, V.C.Farm, Mandya attached to Agricultural University, Bangalore has inspected the paddy field of the complainant on 07.01.2008 and gave a report as per Ex.C.5. The evidence on record reveals that the 1st Opposite party has sent the claim of the complainant with the report of the rice breeder to consider the claim of compensation of the complainant and the Tahasildar, Mandya Taluk has sent reply Ex.R.3 dated 14.02.2008 to 1st Opposite party stating that there is no provision to pay the compensation on account of the reasons given by the rice breeder. As per Ex.R.4, the 1st Opposite party has sent reply to the complainants Advocate. It is admitted by the complainant that C.W.2 Sri.P.Mahadev, the Rice Breeder of V.C.Farm inspected the crop in the land of the complainant and issued the report Ex.C.5. This report is not at all challenged in his evidence by the complainant. In spite of it, relying on the report of C.W.2 the Rice Breeder, the complaint is filed making allegations against the 1st Opposite party. As per the evidence of the Rice Breeder, this type of paddy seeds should be sold in the month of July and in the month of October and November, the flowering and grain branches come out and in the month of December the crop would come. According to his evidence, if the seeds had been sowed on 17.07.2007 and thereafter within 23 days plantation was made, the crop would come in the month of December end. According to him, a long term crop comes in 135 days and according to him, seeds of 25 Kgs. is required for one acre. According to the evidence of Seeds Specialist, at the time of inspection, the crop was 4 ½ months old and the complainant did not give any particulars of date of sowing and date of plantation and the complainant has admitted in his evidence that apart from him, his neighbourers had purchased the same variety of seeds from 1st Opposite party Centre at Keragodu and it is not the evidence that there was failure of crop in the lands of other farmers who had purchased these variety of paddy seeds. According to the evidence of the complainant that after 9 days from 17.07.2007, he sowed the seeds and after 23 days he planted the seedlings. But according to the evidence of C.W.2, if the seeds have been sowed on 17.07.2007 and within 23 days the plantation had been made, the crop would have come in the month of December last week. The complainant has examined one witness Sri.H.L.Puttaswamy of Hosur Muddana Doddi and Sri.Thammanna of Marilingana Doddi. According to the affidavit of Sri.H.L.Puttaswamy, the complainant had sowed the seeds in July 2007 and planted in the 3rd week of August. Even Sri.Thammanna has stated in the same manner in his affidavit. The cross-examination of Sri.Thammanna reveals that he is not the neighbour of the complainant. These two witnesses have deposed that they have not seen other lands where this type of paddy seeds was grown, though according to the complainant, his neighbourers have also sowed the seeds of same type purchased from 1st Opposite party Centre at Keragodu. Therefore, in view of the unchallenged evidence of CW.2 the expert in seeds test, the oral evidence of the complainant and other two witnesses cannot be believed. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service as he has failed to perform his duties as per the broacher issued by the Department of Agriculture as per Ex.C.6. At item No.9(E) the seeds shall be subjected to test before supply. The 1st Opposite party has produced the certificate Ex.R.1 dated 15.07.2007 issued by A.P.State Seeds Certification Agency and the seeds were tested on 10.07.2007. Further, when the complainant purchased on the bags, the certificates issued by the 2nd Opposite party Company as per Ex.C.8, C.9, C.10 and C.11 were tagged, wherein the lot number, date of test, validity date and the germination percentage, physical purity percentage, moisture percentage, inert matter percentage and other particulars are mentioned and these comply the provisions of Seeds Act 1966 Annexure No.1 as per Ex.C.6 produced by 1st Opposite party. So, 1st Opposite party is the Agent of the Government and the Government has purchased the seeds after test and there is no necessity of test of seeds by the Government, which purchased the seeds from the 2nd Opposite party company and before supply, the seeds were tested by the supplier and there is no question of further test by 1st Opposite party. It is further contended that there were no instructions by 1st Opposite party about the date of sowing and plantation and in fact hand bills have to be issued at the time of sale. Of course, as per Ex.C.6 item no.20 the Department has to issue hand bills at the time of sale of seeds to the farmers. At the same time, as per item no.11(7) the farmers who purchase the seeds should get all the information about the methods of cultivation. In the present case, there is no pleading and evidence by the complainant that no hand bills were issued at the time of purchase of the seeds and further, he enquired about the method of cultivation and the instructions were not at all given by the Centre who sold seeds to the complainant. Even, the complainant has not whispered in his evidence about the non-issue of hand bills or not giving instructions and information about the plantation of seeds, though he enquired. The complainant has simply pleaded that the seeds supplied were defective. After sowing there was no complaint of defective seeds in germination at all. According to the complainant, in M.O.1 bag there are sample seeds. In view of the evidence of the Rice Breeder C.W.2, if the seeds had been sowed in time and planted in time, the flowering and fruit branches would come in the month of October and November. So, in the end of November itself, the fate of paddy crop would come to the knowledge of the complainant, but he kept quiet for one month and only on 27.12.2007, he gave a petition to 1st Opposite party complaining the loss of crop alleging the sale of defective seeds. By that time, the crop would be harvested by other farmers. There is no explanation of the complainant as to why he made delay in giving the information to 1st Opposite party about the improper flowering and fruit branches. According to the evidence of two witnesses examined by the complainant, the complainant had sowed the seeds in July 2007 and planted in 3rd week of August. So, it shows only that after 15th of August the plantation has been made. According to the expert, when he visited the land, the crop was 4 ½ months old i.e., 135 days. Admittedly, he visited the field on 07.01.2008 and therefore, the crop would come in January 1st week and harvest had to be made thereafter. So, it shows that he planted the seedlings in the last week of August 2007 and it clearly proves that though he sowed the seeds in the end of July, he planted in the end of August and there is delay in making nursery and plantation of the paddy seeds. In that case, for the reasons stated by the expert, there would be no proper yield of crop at all. So, it shows the negligence of the complainant in making nursery and plantation of the paddy seeds in time. In view of the unchallenged evidence of Analyst for the failure of crop and when there is no defect in the seeds in germination and since there is no allegations against the 1st Opposite party that no proper instructions for nursery and plantation of paddy seeds were given and when other farmers in the same village have grown same crop and there is no complaint except another farmer mentioned in the certificate Ex.C.5, it cannot be accepted at all that 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in selling the defective paddy seeds and so complainant has failed to prove that the 1st Opposite party has sold defective seeds. Further, according to the complainant, he has purchased totally 120 Kgs. of paddy seeds (4 bags of 30 Kg. each) under the receipts Ex.C.3 and C.4, but Ex.C.3 stands in the name of complainant Sri.M.A.Panchalingegowda, but Ex.C.4 stands in the name of M.P.Lingegowda. Further, the complainant has produced only two empty paddy bags and further he has produced the tag slips Ex.C.8 & C.9 only in respect of two seed bags and not 4 tags of seeds. So, it proves that he purchased only 60 Kgs. paddy which is sufficient for only 2 acres of land, but the complainant has stated that he had planted this paddy variety totally in 5 acres 24 guntas, but no RTC is produced to prove that he had planted paddy in 5 acres 24 guntas. In fact, in cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he had planted paddy only in 2 acres out of 3 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.47/P2, in addition to other items, but no RTC copies are produced. Further, the case and evidence of the complainant that he had sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- per acre by paddy crop is exhogarative and further, he had claimed Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre, but according to the pleading, he had grown paddy in 5 acres 24 guntas. Therefore, the loss claimed is imaginary and unsustainable. 12. Viewed from any angle, the complainant has failed to prove that the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and therefore, the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 11th day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
