CC Filed on 02.03.2009
Disposed on 13.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 13th day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 16/2009
Between:
Sri. D. Srinivasa, S/o. Dasappa, Aged about 40 years, R/at. NeralaMaradahalliVillage, Sadli Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy & others ) V/S 1. Sree Lakshmi Agro Seeds, Prop: C.S.N. Ramesh, Opposite: Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Chikkaballapur. 2. The Manager, Venkateshwara Farm Supplies, No. 5, Ist Floor, Swastik Complex, S.C. Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020. | ….Complainant |
3. The General Manager, Syngenta India Limited, Seeds Division, 1170/27, Revenue Coloney, Shivajinagar, Poona – 411 005, MaharastraState. (By Advocate Sri. D.V. Vishwanatha Gowda & others) | ….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.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from October 2008 till the date of payment with costs and such other reliefs.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is a progressive agriculturist and he used to raise commercial crops on his land bearing Sy. No. 108/1 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas of Nerele Maradahalli Village in Sadli Hobli of Siddlaghatta Taluk. The OP No.1 is the dealer and OP.2 is the distributor and OP.3 is the management of Seeds Production Company. OP.3 had produced “F1 Hybrid Sweet Pepper INDRA” a variety of hybrid capsicum seeds for sale to the farmers. The said seed was released for sale during 2008 through distributors and dealers. OP.1 who is the dealer under OP.2 and OP.3, had the shop at Chikkaballapur. The complainant purchased on 24.06.2008, nine packets of F1 Hybrid Sweet Pepper INDRA variety of capsicum seeds each weighing 10 grams for Rs.5,220/- with intend to grow crop on his land. The said packets were bearing lot No. 2344342. The complainant obtained the receipt dated 24.06.2008 from OP.1 for having purchased the capsicum seeds. He had sown the said seeds in his land on 04.07.2008 by following the required procedure for raising the saplings of said seeds. Thereafter on 08.08.2008 he planted the capsicum saplings and followed all the procedure for cultivation of the said crop. Further that he provided necessary cattle manure and fertilizers and also used pesticides from time to time as per the required procedure for growing hybrid capsicum.
It is alleged that inspite of following all these steps thoroughly the growth of the plants was not commensurate with the cultivation practices adopted by the complainant though he used the recommended levels of inputs of manures, fertilizers and pesticides. It is alleged that though the crop became 90 days old, the plants were hardly about 1 to 1½ feet in height with fewer branches and the fruits in more than 90% of the crop were small and short and not oblong which was the typical character of the F1 Hybrid Sweet Pepper INDRA. It is further alleged that the entire crop was lost. The complainant believed that the crop failure was due to defective seeds supplied to him by the OPs.
The complainant has further alleged that he gave complaint dated 13.10.2008 to jurisdictional Assistant Director of Horticulture, Siddlaghatta, when he noticed the defects in the growth of fruits at the initial stage itself. Further he alleged that the experts of GKVK, Bangalore inspected his farm land on 06.11.2008 and made thorough investigation and issued report stating that the failure of crop was due to defects in the seeds supplied by the OPs. It is alleged that the complainant as well as the Assistant Director of Horticulture issued notice to reimburse the loss caused to complainant, but the OPs did not respond to the said demand. It is alleged that the complainant would have got 11 ½ to 12 tones of crop if there was proper yield and at the prevailing market rate during that season as per the information supplied by Hopcoms, Bangalore which was Rs.50,000/- per ton, he would have earned net profit of Rs.5,00,000/- after deducting the cultivation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint on 02.03.2009.
3. The OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Advocate and filed common version signed by OP.3. The purchase of F1 Hybrid Sweet Pepper INDRA capsicum seeds from OP.1 by the complainant is not disputed. They denied all the adverse allegations made against them. They contended that the said variety of seeds is a successful product of OP.3, which is praised by all the farmers who have raised the said crop and that the seeds from the same lot have been sold to different farmers, but there was no sort of any complaint whatsoever from any other farmer so far, which showed that the product of said seeds produced by OP.3 was of good quality without any complaint or blemish. Further they contended that in Chikkaballpur District itself there were plenty of crop raised by different farmers during the same season of 2008 and they got very good results during the said period from raising the said crops and that this variety of capsicum is being grown by farmers in Kolar region and Bangalore region since more than 18 years without any complaint. It is further contended that the result of growth, production and yield of the crop will depend upon many factors such as weather, land, inputs, timely application of pesticides, manure and fertilizers and also proper watering and that it will also depend upon rains, clouds, environment and many other factors during the relevant time. Further it is contended that the Field Officer by name Mr. Lokesh of OP No.3 had visited the complainant’s farm on several occasions and had given instruction for spraying the pesticide in time and to put the necessary fertilizers as well as micro nutrients well within time since it was found that the complainant had not properly followed the instruction and had not maintained his farm upto the mark. Further it is contended that the expert opinion produced by complainant says that the crop loss was due to mosaic virus disease and that the spread of said disease could not be due to the defects in the seeds. Further it is contended that OP.3 Seed Company is having experts for production of the seeds and it produces the seeds after conducting many tests under strict supervision, care and watch, they are more particular regarding good yield and performance of their products in the competitive world and market and that OP.3 has maintained their identity, significance and reputation in the field of production of seeds and the seed Company never takes any chance either to supply or to produce defective seeds and that the seeds in question were also raised under strict supervision and care as per the norms and guidelines of the Company and none else other than the complainant has complained about any defects in the performance of said seeds so far.
It is contended that Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre cultivation expense is sufficient and the OPs have denied that the complainant would have got Rs.5,00,000/- by sale of capsicum in the event of good crop. They denied the average yield estimation and the price likely to be fetched for the crop as stated by complainant. Further they have contended that OP.3 is required to preserve guard sample of every lot of seeds offered for sale and that the OP.3 is ready to give the required quantity of seeds out of concerned guard sample for testing by the competent Laboratory. Therefore they contended that the failure of crop was not due to the supply of defective seeds and that the reasons for it must be different. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. One Chandrashekar S.C. Asst. Professor of Land Pathology working in University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Bangalore is examined as Pw.1. He is cross-examined by the Learned Counsel for OPs. His report is marked at Ex-P.1 and the photos of the crop obtained at the time of his inspection are marked at Ex- P.2 to Ex-P.6. Apart from the said witness the complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. He also produced other relevant documents. On behalf of OPs one Vijay Kumar Kori, the Territory Manager-Sales of OP.3 and one Lokesh, Field Assistant working under OP.3 have filed affidavits supporting the defence of OPs and they also filed certain documents.
5. OP.3 furnished the required sample seeds for Laboratory tests out of the guard sample relating to lot No. 2344342. This Forum has sent the said sample seeds to the Director, National Seed Research and Training Centre, Central Seed Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Varnasi (UP) with a request to make the analysis and test of the said seeds with a view to find out whether the seeds sent were suffering from any defects regarding – germination, physical purity, inert matter, moisture and genetic purity as stated in the truthful label of the seed packets relating to lot No. 2344342. Subsequently the said Director of Central Seed Testing Laboratory furnished the report dated 20.12.2010 after conducting the required tests and procedures.
6. We heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for parties and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that the F1 Hybrid
Sweet Pepper Indra seeds purchased by him under
Receipt dated 24.06.2008 from OP.1, were defective
and sub-standard seeds?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, what should be
the compensation to complainant?
Point No.3: To what order?
8. After considering the records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: It is not the case of OP.3 that the seeds in question were certified seeds and it had obtained Certificate by Certification Agency prescribed under the Seeds Act 1966 (for short Seeds Act). The truthful label of the seed packets purchased by complainant contained the following relevant particulars
Germination (min) 60%
Physical Purity (min) 98%
Inert Matter (max) 2%
Moisture (max) 6%
Genetic Purity (min) 95%
The allegations made by the complainant are that though he followed the required procedure and steps for cultivating the crop, the growth was not commensurate with the cultivation practices adopted by him and that in the fruits more than 95% were small and short and not oblong which is the typical character of F1 Hybrid Sweet Pepper Indra. The further allegation is that such defects had occurred due to the defective and sub-standard seeds supplied to him.
Central Seed Testing Laboratory, Varnasi is established by the Central Government by publishing Notification as required under Sec-4 of the Seeds Act. The report furnished by Central Seed Laboratory is final as prescribed under Sec-16 (3) of the said Act. In the present case, the OP.3 furnished the sample seeds required for analysis by the Central Seed Testing Laboratory, out of the guard seeds preserved by it in respect of lot No. 2344342. This Forum had sent the sample seeds to the Director, National Seed Research and Training Centre, Central Seed Testing Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Varnasi (UP) with a request to make the analysis and test of the said seeds with a view to finding out whether the seeds sent were suffering from any defects regarding – germination, physical purity, inert matter, moisture and genetic purity as stated in the truthful label of the seed packets relating to lot No. 2344342. Subsequently the said Director of Central Seed Testing Laboratory furnished the report dated 20.12.2010.
The conclusion reached by the Central Seed Testing Laboratory is that the seed sample sent for test was found to be sub-standard on the ground of other crop seeds and genetic purity. 50 nos./kg of other crop seeds were found in the sample, whereas prescribed minimum seed standard for other crop seed no./kg. in respect of capsicum crop is 10/kg. We are concerned in this case particularly regarding the result of Genetic Purity Test. The report discloses that the genetic purity of the seeds in question was 60% whereas prescribed minimum seed standard for genetic purity percentage in respect of capsicum crop is 95%. The report further shows that out of 400 no. of plants selected for observation 160 no. of plants were found Off-type. Therefore it was found that the Genetic Purity was only 60% far below the prescribed minimum seed standard in respect of capsicum crop as 95%.
The OPs have not filed any objection to the report sent by Central Seed Testing Laboratory. This seed sample analysis report sent by Central Seed Testing Laboratory clearly establishes that the sample was found to be sub-standard regarding Genetic Purity.
In view of the said Analysis Report, we think it is unnecessary to consider the oral evidence of the parties or the witnesses. Such evidence may be helpful in estimating the extent of loss caused to complainant due to supply of sub-standard seeds. Hence Point No.1 is held affirmative.
Point No.2: The relevant part of report submitted by Chandrashekar S.C. Associate Professor of Plant Pathology after his visit to complainant’s farm on 06.11.2008 is as follows:
“An inspection of the crop revealed that the growth was not to commensurate with the cultivation practices adopted by the farmer although he has used recommended levels of inputs as listed above. Though 90 days old, the plants were hardly about 1 to 1½ foot in height with fewer branches. The fruits is more than 90 percent of the crop were small and short and not oblong which is the typical character of the F1 hybrid indra. The oblong fruits resembling Indra Hybrid were found in about 10 percent of the plants only. The plants with non-oblong fruits appears not to be F1 hybrid Indra. This variety was found to be affected with mosaic virus disease to an extent of about 75 percent leading to crop loss by about 70 percent.”
This report was prepared without issuing the notice to OPs. The report says that the oblong fruits resembling Indra Hybrid were found about 10 percent of the plants grown on the field. Further it says that the fruits in more than 90% of the crop were small and short and not oblong which is the typical character of the F1 Hybrid Indra. Further it says that the plants with non-oblong fruits appear not to be of F1 Hybrid Indra and this variety was found to be affected with mosaic virus disease to an extent of about 75 percent leading to crop loss by about 70 percent. Whereas the Central Seed Testing Laboratory report shows that the percentage of plants found off-type was 40% and thereby it was concluded that the Genetic Purity was only 60% far below the prescribed minimum seed standard in respect of capsicum crop. In the letter dated 16.10.2008 Assistant Director of Horticulture, Zilla Panchayat, Siddlaghatta Taluk has stated that 25% of crop is good and the remaining 75% crop is affected by mosaic virus disease. The statement in this letter is made on the basis of his field inspection without issuing notice to OPs. Considering all these facts along with the report of Central Seed Testing Laboratory, we can say that the crop loss attributable to supply of defective seeds may be taken as 40%.
The complainant has estimated the total yield of capsicum crop as 10 tons per acre. The Assistant Director of Horticulture has issued a Certificate to this effect. The OPs have not stated their own estimation of yield per acre except stating that the estimation of complainant was not true and correct. Therefore one can say that the estimation of complainant regarding total yield of crop per acre may be accepted. He stated that he cultivated capsicum crop on an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas. Hence the total crop he could have got was nearly 11 ½ tons if there was proper yield. The complainant estimated the purchase value of capsicum at Rs.50,000/- per ton. He produced the statement furnished by Hopcoms Lalbagh, Bangalore pertaining to October, November 2008 in respect of purchase rate of capsicum. This statement shows that from October 01 to 18 the average rate was Rs.25/- per kg. and from October 20 to 27 the average rate was about Rs.30/- per kg. and from October 28 to November 04 the average rate was Rs.51/- per kg. and subsequently the rate was decreasing sharply and in the last week of November the average rate was Rs.10/- per kg. Therefore we think the average rate of capsicum crop can be estimated at best at Rs.25/- per kg for the purpose of this case. In that event a ton of capsicum crop could have fetched Rs.25,000/-. Therefore the total gross value of capsicum crop for 11 ½ tons may be estimated at Rs.2,87,500/-. The 40% loss of it comes to Rs.1,15,000/-.
The complainant has alleged that the total cost of cultivation of capsicum crop was about Rs.1,00,000/-. The OPs have contended that the cultivation expense could not exceed Rs.15,000/- per acre. The complainant and OPs were asked to furnish the details of expenses required for cultivation according to their estimation. The memo filed by OPs shows that the total expense comes to Rs.40,000/-. On the other hand the memo filed by complainant shows that the total expense of cultivation comes to Rs.93,000/-. The complainant has not produced the supporting vouchers showing expenses stated in his memo, though he mentioned the voucher no. and date. He has not stated the reason for non-production of such vouchers. Therefore one can estimate the cultivation expense at Rs.60,000/- in all in the present case. Considering the above facts and figures, we hold that the net loss suffered by complainant comes to Rs.1,15,000/-. Interest by way of damages may be awarded at 6% p.a. on the said amount from 01.01.2009 till the date of payment. We think OP.3 should be made liable to pay the said amounts and costs of the proceedings to complainant. For the above reasons point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.3-Sygenta India Limited shall pay Rs.1,15,000/- (rupees one lakh fifteen thousand only) to complainant as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from 01.01.2009 till the date of payment on the said amount, within 45 days from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 13th day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
