AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1093/2005 against C.D  404/1997, Dist. Forum, Khammam   

Between:

Mandepudi Mohan Rao

S/o. Narasaiah

Age: 46 years,

Occ:  Agriculture

R/o. Choppakatla Palem

Bonakal Mandal

Khammam Dist.                                           …                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 Complainant

                                                                    And

1. Sri Ayyappa Seeds Ryot Depot.

Rep. by its Proprietor

Nar Kamala Theatre

Opp. Petrol Bunk,

E.V. Rao Complex

Main Bazar, Jaggaiahpeta

Krishna Dist.

2. M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Seeds Division, Nagarjuna Hills

Punjagutta, Hyderabad.                               …                         Respondents/

                                                                                                 Opposite Parties  

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. K. Mahesh

Counsel for the Resps:                               R1- Served

                                                                   Mr. C.V. Narasimham – R2.

F.A. 1095/2005 against C.D  403/1997, Dist. Forum, Khammam  

Between:

Mandepudi  Venkateswara Rao

S/o. Subba Rao

Age: 39 years,

Occ:  Agriculture

R/o. Choppakatla Palem

Bonakal Mandal

Khammam Dist.                                          …                          Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant

                                                                   And

1. Sri Ayyappa Seeds Ryot Depot.

Rep. by its Proprietor

Nar Kamala Theatre

Opp. Petrol Bunk,

E.V. Rao Complex

Main Bazar, Jaggaiahpeta

Krishna Dist.

2. M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

Seeds Division, Nagarjuna Hills

Punjagutta, Hyderabad.                               …                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties  

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. K. Mahesh

Counsel for the Resps:                               R1- Served

                                                                   Mr. C.V. Narasimham – R2.

QUORUM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

And 

SRI G. BHOOPATHY REDDY, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE  TWENTY FIRST  DAY OF JULY  TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          …..

                   These two appeals arise against the orders of the Dist. Forum, Khammam in C.D. 403/1997 and C.D. 404/1997 dismissing the complaints by separate orders.   Since the matters involved the very same questions of fact and law, we deem it fit  that a common order could be passed.  We may clarify herein that  except  the complainants are different, the matters pertain to the deficiency of seeds manufactured by R2.

                   The brief facts of  the complainants are that  Sri  Mandepudi Venkateswara Rao (C.D. No. 403/1997) purchased  900 gms of  Dhana Sagar cotton seeds DH-1 variety from  Respondent No. 1 dealer  on 29.5.1997 for Rs. 630/- and sowed the same in an extent of Ac. 2.00 gts in Survey No. 193/AA situated at Choppakatlapalem in the first week of July, 1997.   Equally, Sri  Mandepudi Mohan Rao  (C.D. 404/1997)  had purchased 900 gms of same seed  from R1 on 30.5.1997 for Rs. 630/- and sowed the same in his fields to an extent of  Ac. 1.60 gts in Survey No. 202/E situated at Mushtinkunta in the first week of July, 2007.  The seeds were manufactured by the 2^nd respondent.  Both of  them have followed all the precautions to be taken, applied water, manure regularly and properly.  Though the plants were grown  to a height of 6” but there was no budding and flowering.  They complained to the dealer (R1), he replied that he was not responsible.   They have invested an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards fertilizers, pesticides and labour charges.   The complainant in C.D. No. 403/1997 stated that he sustained loss of crop to a tune of Rs. 30,000/-.  He filed the complaint claiming  Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation.   

                   The complainant in C.D. 404/1997 alleged that he had spent Rs. 16,000/- and sustained loss of crop to a tune of Rs. 30,000/-.  He prayed that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- be awarded towards compensation.

                   Respondent No.. 1 did not file any counter. 

                    Respondent No. 2 the manufacturer   filed its counter putting  the complainants to proof of  each and every fact.  It alleged numerous factors affect the yield from seeds and they are beyond its control.  It all depends on  soil fertility, proper and timely manuring of the soil,  controlling pests and crop diseases, and adoption of proper crop management etc.  When the plants  have grown  to 4-1/2’ to 5-1/2’  in length it was good growth. No damage to the plants or boll shedding was reported.  Flowers and bolls were inspected  at the fag end of the crop, wherein the flowers and bolls were limited in number.  The boll shedding was not reported owing to rainfall at bearing stage.  They could have complained to the Seed Law Enforcement Agency to ascertain the reasons for the failure of the crop.   They have not received any complaint from any of the farmers, in regard to, the seed in question.   It could have been sent to notified testing laboratory.  They never promised any minimum yield of crop  from any of the seeds.   The claims of the complainants cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act.  An analysis or test report  from an appropriate laboratory  as defined u/s 2(1)(a) of the Act  should have been  produced.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

                   The Dist. Forum, despite the fact, that the complainant had filed  the bills  of  R1 and brochure of   R2  did not mark them. Equally the reports of the Commissioner and Agricultural Officer.  The Dist. Forum after considering the reports opined that the complainants could not  prove that there was any deficiency in seeds.  Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.

                             Aggrieved by the said orders, the complainants preferred these appeals contending that an advocate Commissioner as well as agricultural officer visited the fields noted that the seeds were defective.   The Agricultural Officer has assessed the loss of crop. The Dist. Forum ought to have relied upon the report and awarded the compensation.  Therefore, they prayed that the appeals be allowed.

                   It is an undisputed fact that the complainant in C.D. No. 403/1997 sown the seeds to an extent of Ac. 2.00 gts in S.No. 193/AA situated at Choppakatlapalem and the complainant in C.D. No. 404/1997 sown the seeds to an extent of Ac. 1.60 gts in S.No. 202/E situated  at Mushtikunta in the first week of July, 1997.  They purchased 900 gms of  Dhana Sagar  DHC-1 variety cotton seeds from  R1 dealer manufactured by R2  on 29.5.1997 and 30.5.1997 respectively.  It is also evidenced under receipts issued by the dealer.

                   When they could not get the yield and there was loss of crop due to defect in the seeds they filed complaints on 25.11.1997.   An advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the lands and assess the damage.   After issuing notice to the respondents and the presence of their counsel, he inspected the lands along with the Agricultural Officer, Bonakal.  The Commissioner “compared the cotton crop raised by the complainants with that of the cotton crop in the neighbouring land which are of different variety” and  found that the neighbouring lands would get an yield of  10-15 quintals  per acre, the complainants would not get more than 2 quintals per acre”.  Therefore, he was of the opinion that there was loss of 10 quintals per acre.  He enclosed the report of Agricultural Officer, who apart from his assessment,  also summoned neighbouring  ryots.  The Agricultural Officer visited the lands and the crop find thereon held that due to deficiency in seeds the complainants could not get the crop as promised by the manufacturer in its brochure.  

He opined  that as against 1384 Kgs  of  crop  to  be  realized,   the   complainants   would   get   178 Kgs.   He has considered elaborately  as to the nature of the soil, procedure adopted by the complainants for raising the crop, pesticides  and fertilizers that were employed, and held  that the complainant in C.D. 403/1997  had sustained a loss of  yield of  930 Kgs.   He categorically stated that this loss was due to the defect in the seeds.   In regard to the complainant in C.D. 404/1997  the Agricultural Officer noted  as against 1329 Kgs, the complainant would get  only 285 Kgs, and that there was shortfall of 912 Kgs of yield.  He categorically stated that the loss was due to the defect in the seeds.

                   The Dist. Forum had observed that the duration of the crop is 165 days and  since the Commissioner as well as the Agricultural Officer have observed the crop only after a week of 165 days i.e., on 172^nd  day, they could see only  the remnant of the crop.   Since it was beyond 165 days, it cannot be taken into cognizance. This is a  perverse  finding of  the fact.  It is no where stated that the moment 165 days period is over, the crop will  be withered,  or there will  be no remnant of the crop.  Hardly, one week expired before the due date.  When the agricultural Officer has opined that there was loss of crop, and did not observe that  some crop was taken away or  was withered due to lapse of six days,  such presumption could not be drawn.  We may add here that representative of the manufacturer  was also present at the time when  the agricultural officer  visited the crop.  They did not point out or object stating that some crop was either taken away or that remnants will not be there.   As  against  the report of  Commissioner as well as the agricultural officer, R2 manufacturer filed objections stating that concerned officers could have taken samples for lab test to confirm his opinion. When no evidence was produced they could not have come to such an opinion.  They contended that required fertilizers or pesticides were used in the surrounding lands and got maximum crop.  This  would  show that the complainant had failed to raise the crop properly.

                   Except raising the said contention, the manufacturer did not  try to prove that the seeds manufactured by it were that of high quality.  Necessarily, the manufacturer would keep some of the seeds with them  and  they could have sent the seeds for analysis  in order to prove  their  innocence.

                   In a somewhat similar case, where the manufacturer raised objection that the seeds would have been sent for analysis when the Horticulture Officer  who visited the fields  had found that the seeds were of inferior quality referring to the contention, the National Commission in  Bejo Sheetal Seeds Vs. Bolla Venkanna and Others  reported in  S.C. and National Commission Consumer Law Cases (1996-2005) opined  that “ It has been submitted before us that the procedure adopted by the Dist. Forum was contrary to Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and the Seeds Act.  Submission was that the seeds would have been sent for analysis.  This could not be possible in as much as seeds purchased by the complainant had already been sown in the soil.  It is too late in the day to test the seeds of its quality.  In the present case, statement of Horticulture Officer who inspected the field along with Assistant Director, Horticulture, was recorded  and they were of the opinion that the seeds were of defective quality.”   Applying  the same dicta we hold that coming to the facts of the present case, the responsible officials who can be termed as ‘experts in the filed’.  They have confirmed  that there was defect in the seed supplied to the complainant.  We have no reason to disbelieve their version.  The Dist. Forum was clearly in error in not relying the report of the agricultural officer.  

                   Coming to the question of assessment of compensation to be awarded to the complainants towards loss by virtue of reports of the Commissioner as well as the Agricultural Officer, it could be safely concluded that there was a loss of 10 quintals per acre.   Basing on the rates prevailing at that time, the Commissioner has assessed the loss at Rs. 35,000/- for  an extent of  Acs 2.00 gts  in C.D. No. 403/1997  and Rs. 26,000/- for an extent of Acs.1-24 gts  in C.D. 404/1997.   The compensation arrived as per the rates prevailing at that period, evidenced by the rates furnished by  Marketing Committee  there cannot be any difficulty in  awarding the said amount.

                   In the result the appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of the Dist. Forum.   Consequently, C.D. No. 403/1997 is  allowed in part  directing  the Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 percent p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., from 26.11.1997  till the date of realization with costs computed at  Rs. 2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.  The case against R1 is dismissed without costs.

                   C.D. 404/1997  is allowed in part directing the Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 26,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 percent p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., from 26.11.1997 till the date of realization with costs computed at  Rs. 2,000/-   Time for compliance four weeks.  The case against R1 is dismissed without costs.

                   PRESIDENT                                      MALE MEMBER

                                                           Dt. 21. 7. 2008.

-pnr.