This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 5-8-2008 in the presence of Sri. M.Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri.K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for opposite party No-1 ,and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 2 ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri. K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1-20gts in Sy.No.148/AA/2 of Chinamandava Village of Chinthakani Mandal. That the complainant prepared his lands to sow Mahyco Hybrid Seeds Tejawini. The complainant approached the shop of the opposite party No.1 and purchased Mahyco Hybrid Tejaswini Seeds on 12-7-2005 for 15 packets i.e., Rs.180/- per packet and paid Rs.2,775/- and obtained bill from the opposite party No-1.
3. At the time of purchase the opposite party No-1 made the complainant to believe that the seeds supplied by him would yield 20 qunitals per acre. As per the instructions of the opposite party No-1 the complainant prepared seedbed for sowing the above seeds. The complainant sowed the seeds by using the pesticides and fertilizers as required and the complainant also having open well and electric Motor of 3HP and the said land used to raise Mirchi crop since long time. In spite of taking all precautions and the manures, the crop was not grown up properly and there was no budding properly and also the chilli crop appearing very height and also there is no hope of minimum yielding and some plants are died. This fact was intimated to Mandal Agricultural Officer and also to the opposite party No-1 vide representation dated 1-3-2006 but they did not turn up to inspect the crop. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- in raising chilly crop. All this happened due to unqualitative inferior quality and defective seeds supplied by the opposite party No-1 and produced by opposite party No-2. The complainant sustained Rs.1,05,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure in raising crop. The complainant is claiming Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,50,000/- towards crop loss due to unqualitative seeds supplied to the complainant and causing mental agony, pain and sufferance.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:
Ex A1: Original bill issued by opposite party No-1 infavour of complainant, dated 12-7-05 for Rs.2,775/- towards purchase of Tejaswini chilly seed 10 grams packet rate per unit for 185.Ex A2: Representation given to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chithakani by complainant. Ex A3: Containing 2 photos Ex A4: contains 14 pouches Ex A5: Commissioner report, dated 9-8-2006 along with the notices. Ex A6: Report submitted by Agricultural Officer, Chinthakani Ex A7: Statements showing the rates of Chilly for the month of march 2006 at Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam. Ex A8: 36 fertilizers and pesticides bills . Ex A9: Certificate issued by secretary Chinamandava (v) regarding land owner ship of the complainant.
5. Opposite party No-1 filed the following counter:
It is submitted that the opposite party No-1 purchased the seeds from Sri Sreenivasa pesticides and fertilizers, vide bill No.69, dated 11-7-06, vide Batch No.SKD 200718C and quantity of 125 packets and another quantity about 25 packets all the above said quantity belongs to Mahyco Tejeswini Company and the said product sold to the complainant.
6. It is humbly submitted that opposite party No.1 is not the manufacture of the seeds as such there is no liability on the part of the opposite party No-1 to pay damages to the complainant. In the event of any damages paid to the complainant opposite party No-2 has to pay that amount. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
The opposite party No-1 filed the Xerox copy of a bill dated 11-7-2005 of Sri Sreenivasa Pesticides and fertilizers, Khammam.
7. Written Statement filed by the opposite party No-2 as follows:-
The Hon’ble Forum has appointed an Advocate Commissioner on 23 -2-2006 in I.A.No.56/06 to assess the loss of crop on the field of the complainant but the Advocate/Commissioner did not file his report. The respondent reserves the right to file their objection to the report of Advocate/Commissioner. The Advocate/Commissioner is not a competent person to assess the loss of the crop as he has no agricultural background. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the week of march 2006 when the crop was already reached its harvesting stage. There are every possibilities that the complainant tried to mislead Advocate Commissioner as well as this Hon’ble Forum to gain unlawful monetary benefit. As per agricultural standard practice and procedure the duration of chilly crop is 180 days where as the field was inspected after 240 days approximately from the date of purchase of seeds i.e., 12-7-2005.
8. This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint as much as it is not a consumer dispute. It is exclusively triable by civil court.
9. The complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1) C.P.Act as the complainant cultivated the chilli crop for commercial purpose and to gain profit by selling the yield in the market. As per the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CPJ-II(2005) on 10-2-2005 where in Apex court in that “ On an unsupported or unproven basis no inference can be drawn against the petitioner for supplying any poor quality of material. The deficiency in such case cannot be assumed, it needs to be proved. In the present case the complainant has failed to prove as none of the expert reports or records support the claim of non-standard of seeds”.
10. As per the section-14(d) of Consumer Protection Act, the Forum cannot award any compensation or damages unless ‘negligence’ is proved. It is submitted that this case pertaining to seeds and comes under purview of Seeds Act, 1966. It is mandatory on the part of the complainant to send samples of the seeds in the laboratory for analysis as per procedure laid down u/s.13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence this complaint deserves to be dismissed. As per the judgement based on by the Hon’ble National Commissioner, New Delhi reported CPJ 2005 NC, Page No.47 between Hindustan Insecticides Limited V/S.Kopoulu Sambasiva Rao & Ors., where in the Hon’ble National Commission held that “It was for the complainant or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate steps as per the provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) of Act that was not done”.
11. That the seed Lot SKD-2007 18 was uniformly tested in the Seed Testing Laboratory of Company prior to its sale vide test reports dated 21-5-2004 and 16-7-2004. As per said reports, the germination of the same was 86% and 96.12% genetic purity which conform to the quality standards prescribed under the seeds Act, 1966. Hence there is no question arose to supply substandard seeds to the farmers.
12. In this case it involves complicated question of disputed facts and which can be decided only after an elaborate trial involving the taking of evidence as well as scrutiny of the numerous documents.
13. The proper growth of crops depends on proper agricultural operations such as, proper preparation of the land, fertilization and use of pest and disease control medicines, proper irrigation, climate and seasonal conditions. Simply because crop was not good, it cannot be said that seeds sown was not good. It this regard this respondent relied on the judgement dated 5-6-1995 of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in CPR-1995(VIII),Page 650 to 653.
14. It is denied the complainant is an agriculturist and he is having dry land to an extent of 1-20gts and Sy.No.148/AA/2 at Chinamandava (v). The complainant has not submitted the land record to prove that he is owner of the land in Sy.No.148/AA/2.
15. It is denied that complainant had purchased 15 packets of Mahyco Hybrid Tejsaswini seeds from opposite party No-1 on 9-7-2005 and paid Rs.2,200/- towards costs of the seeds. The complainant has also not produced the empty seed packet to verify the Lot.No of seeds.
16. It is denied that at the time of purchase the opposite party No-1 made the complainant to believe that the seeds supplied to him would give 20 quintals per acre.
17. It is denied that in spite of taking all precautions and application of manures, the crop was not grown up properly and there was no budding and the crop was completely damaged. It is denied that some of chilly fruits appearing yellow and green colour and some chilly found very short and there was no hope of any yielding from the said crop. It is also denied that the complainant had spent Rs.15,000/- towards cultivation expenses for raising the chilli crop. It is denied that the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.1,25,000/- for causing mental agony, pain, and sufferance.
18. That the complainant failed to take proper and adequate steps in time to control spreading of mites & Thrips diseases, which clearly goes to show that the complainant was very negligent in taking proper plant protection care and agricultural practices of the said chilli crop, which is the main reason for the alleged problem. The alleged problem of low yield is not due to the quality of the seeds but due to lack of timely care of the crop, application of fertilizers, nutrients, irrigation and spraying of pesticides and insecticides.
19. This respondent relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1208 in the matter of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., V/s. Sadhu and another where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition”. All these factors are applicable to this case. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
20. Hence this complaint liable to dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-in the interest of justice.
21. The opposite party No-2 filed the following documents:
Ex B1: Germination test result of Hybrid Chilly Seeds having its Lot.No.SKD200718, dated 21-05-2004. Ex B2:Grow pit Test Result of Hybrid Chilly Seeds having its lot.No.SKD 200718, dated 16-7-2004.Ex B3: Viral and Mycoplasmal diseases of vegetable crops published by Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Banglore(Page No.99to 110). ExB4: Diseases of Vegetable crops published by Dr.R.S.Sing, Prof.Plant Pathology, G.B.Pant Unviersity of Agriculture, Pantanagar (Page Nos.133 to 145). Ex B5: Copy of Certificate of Ministry of Science & Technology for R&D issued by Government of India, dated 23-3-2004.Ex B6:Copy of certificate issued by International Seed Testing Association, dated 20-7-2005.
22. The complainant and opposite party No-2 filed their written arguments reiterate the same facts of the complainant and counter respectively.
23. The point for consideration whether the opposite party No-2 manufactured and supplied spurious seed to the complainant?
24. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages towards crop loss. To what relief?
25. It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased Mahyco Hybrid Chilli seed from opposite party No.1 on 12-7-20005 for 15 packets each packet Rs.185/- and paid Rs.2,775/-. To prove this contention the complainant filed original bill which was marked ExA1. It is the contention of the complainant that after preparation of seed bed is sowed the seeds by taking all precautions by applying fertilizers and pesticides. He is also having open well and electric motor of 3HP to the said land. In spite of taking all precautions the crop was not grown up properly and there was no budding properly and the crop was completely damaged and the crop appearing very height and this fact was intimated to Mandal Agricultural Officer and to the opposite party No-1 also. To prove his contention the complainant filed Ex A2 that is representation given to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chinthakani . Due to non-yielding of the crop the complainant incurred loss of Rs.1,25,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.20,000/- towards expenses. The complainant filed pesticides and fertilizers bills as per Ex A8.
26. For which the contention of the opposite party is that the crop period is 180 days. By the month of February 2006, the crop yielding is already over and the Commissioner visited on 14-3-2006 to the field of the complainant by the time it was the fag end stage of the crop. The complainant already plucked the crop and he did not say anything about this fact to the Advocate/Commissioner or to the Agricultural Officer. The conclusion arrived by the Advocate/Commissioner and Agricultural Officer is not on any scientific basis. No market value report filed and no documents filed regarding fertilizers and pesticides and no genetic impurity there. Agricultural Officer filed report on 14-7-2006 with a gap of 3 months. Whether irrigation facility is there or not. A.O. is silent on this aspect and A.O. is silent on germination or virus and he exaggerated the damages. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
27. The complainant relied on the following judgments:
(i) II(2004)CPJ 529
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI.
Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.S.Rane, President & Mr..VK.Date, Member
MAHENDRA HYBRID SEEDS CO.LTD.
-Appellant
Versus
BABURAO &ANR. -Respondents
Appeal No.1731 of 1997 – Decided on 22-4-2003
Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Seeds – Sub-Standard- 20% adulteration in seeds proved by report of Agriculture Officer- Compensation awarded –Interest reduced in appeal.
I(2004)CPJ.122(NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member:Mrs.Rajyalakshmi Rao and Mr.B.K.Taimni, Members
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPN.LTD.
-Petitioner
Versus
M.MADHUSUDAN REDDY -Respondent
Revision Petition Nos.507 and 508 of 2003- Decided on 24-3-2003
Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 13(1)(c)- Seeds Act, 1966- Seeds- Defective- Plant growth not of normal size, not anticipating expected yield – Deficiency in service proved- Compensation awarded by Forum, upheld in appeal- Hence revision- contention, burden to prove defect not discharged by complainant- Contention not acceptable- Farmer not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds and get it tested to meet requirements of Section 13 (1)(c)- Revision dismissed.
28. The opposite party also relied on the following decisions:
(1) Copy of judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005(II),Page No.94 (Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs.Babu Ram), dated 10-02-2005.
2. Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005 (IV), Page No.47 (Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Vs.Kopolu Sambasiva Rao), dated 12-5-2005.
3. Copy of judgement of Hon’ble State Commission, Bangalore reported in CPR 1995(VIII)(2), Page No.650 Tammanna Ginappa Narsingnavar & ors., Vs. Agricultural Consulting Service Association & Ors.,
4. Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2005 SCW 1208 between Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Sadhu & Anr., dated 18-2-2005.
29. We are also relied on the following decision reported in
Vol.I (2008) CPJ 158 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.N.Kapoor, Presiding Member & Mr.B.K.Taimni, Member
SOUTH EASTERN SEEDS CORPORATION
-Petitioner
Versus
R.SHEKHAR @SRIDHAR -Respondent
Revision Petition No.3482 of 2007 – Decided on 29-10-2007.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g)- Agriculture – Seeds defective – Prematurity of paddy seeds resulted in unsatisfactory formation of grain- Complaint dismissed by Forum- Order set aside in appeal- Cost of lost paddy crop along with interest awarded – Hence revision – Contention, Procedure under section13, C.P.Act, not adopted by lower For a for getting seeds tested – Contention not acceptable- Farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen quantity of seed left which they could have got tested- Their failure to perform, has to be held against them- Order of lower Fora upheld.(Pg.159(Paras 4,5).
Result: R.P.dismissed.
30. At the outset all these decisions speak that farmer cannot be expected to retain any part of high value seed to get it tested in case of unforeseen contingency. Seeds producer would always have some quantity of seed left with them and which they could have got tested. Their failure to perform, has to be held against them. In this case the complainant proved that the complainant is having land in Sy.No.148/AA/2 as per the Ex A9. The complainant proved that he had purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Chilly seed from opposite party No-1 as per original bill that Ex A1. The complainant also proved that he had used 36 fertilizers and pesticides bills as Ex A8. The complainant also filed rate of chilly crop for the year 2006, as per Ex A7.
31. The main contention of the counsel for opposite party No-2 that the crop was effected with Thrips and mites this will be cause for non-yielding. But we have perused the report of the Agricultural Officer, Ex A6 in which it was observed that during his visit on 14-3-2006 (A) The crop is at Harvesting stage (B) The crop is uneven growth (c)35% plants raised upward long internodes.(D) 35% crop is damaged. The Agricultural Officer did not mention anything about the Mites or Thrips to the crop during that crop season as alleged by opposite party No-2. The Agricultural officer is also seed inspector. Hence the contention of the opposite party No-2 that the crop is affected with mites and Thrips cannot be acceptable. The other contention of the opposite party No-2 is that at the fag end stage the Commissioner and Agricultural Officer visited the field of the complainant by the time the crop is already over and he the complainant plucked most of the crop. For which the opposite party No-2 did not file any material that the crop is already over. Moreover the crop is yearly crop if proper irrigation facilities are there.
32. The contention of the opposite party No-2 is that the complainant purchased the seed on 12-7-05 and at the time of visit of Advocate Commissioner and Agricultural Officer it was 240 days after purchase of this seed. But as per the pouches this seed date of test is 5-3-05, date of packet is 26-3-05 and this seed is valid up to 4-9-05. Hence the complainant can sow the seed up to 4-9-05. Hence the contention of the opposite party No-2 that the Agricultural Officer and Advocate/Commissioner visited the field of the complainant at the Harvesting stage of the crop cannot be acceptable.
33. However, we have estimated the crop loss to the complainant basing on the Agricultural Officer report and Advocate/Commissioner report the crop loss Rs.50,000/- Hence the opposite party No-2 is liable to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint i.e., 25-4-06 till the date of realization. However we are dismissing the complaint against opposite party No-1 as he is the dealer and nothing to do with the spurious seeds. Accordingly this complaint is allowed.
34. Hence, we directing the opposite party No-2 to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest 9%P.A. from the date of complaint i.e.,25-4-2006 till the date of realization and the complaint against the opposite party No-1 is dismissed. Accordingly this complaint is allowed.
Dictated to Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 20th day of August, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Ex A1: Original bill issued by opposite party No-1, infavour of complainant,
dated 12-7-05 for Rs.2,775/-
Ex A2: Representation given to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chithakani by complainant. Ex A3: Containing 2 photos
Ex A4: contains 14 pouches
Ex A5: Commissioner report, dated 9-8-2006 along with the notices.
Ex A6: Report submitted by Agricultural Officer, Chinthakani
Ex A7: Statements showing the rates of Chilly for the month of march 2006 at Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam.
Ex A8: 36 fertilizers and pesticides bills
Ex A9: Certificate issued by secretary Chinamandava (v) regarding land owner ship of the complainant.
Opposite parties
Ex B1: Germination test result of Hybrid Chilly Seeds having its Lot.No.SKD200718, dated 21-05-2004.
Ex B2:Grow pit Test Result of Hybrid Chilly Seeds having its lot.No.SKD 200718, dated 16-7-2004.
Ex B3: Viral and Mycoplasmal diseases of vegetable crops published by Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Banglore(Page No.99to 110).
ExB4: Diseases of Vegetable crops published by Dr.R.S.Sing, Prof.Plant Pathology, G.B.Pant Unviersity of Agriculture, Pantanagar (Page Nos.133 to 145).
Ex B5: Copy of Certificate of Ministry of Science & Technology for R&D issued by Government of India, dated 23-3-2004.
Ex B6:Copy of certificate issued by International Seed Testing Association, dated 20-7-2005.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
