BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.T. Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M. Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Monday the 02^nd  day of August, 2010

C.C. No.79/09                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Between:

P.Surya Narayana Reddy, S/o P.Rami Reddy,

H.No.4/81, Bilakala Gudur Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District-518 466.                             …..Complainant

-Vs-

1. Dhanya Seeds Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,

Regd. Office Plot No.3, KIADB, 4th Phase, Bommasandra, Bangalore-560 099.           

2.  Sri Venkateswara Seeds, By its Proprietor,

D.No.25-475, Shop No.2, Lalitha Complex, Near RTC Bus-stand, Nandyal-518 501, Kurnool District.              …Opposite PartieS

     This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Smt.A.Uma Devi, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record the Forum made the following.

    ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No.79/09                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Ops

 (a)   to grant damages of Rs.1,31,785/- to complainant with interest at 24 Percent  p.a.

(b)    to grant costs  of this complaint ,

( c)   to grant to such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is an agriculturist . On 25-10-2008 the complainant’s son purchased 15 packets of Sun flower seeds from the shop of OP.No.2. The 1^st OP produced the said seeds. The 2^nd OP is the dealer of the 1^st OP for Sun flower 3389 variety seed. The 2^nd OP assured yield of 9 quintals per acre. The complainant sown Sun flower 3389 seed purchased from OP.No.2 in his land measuring Ac.6-82 cents in Sy.No. 277/2 of Velpanur Village, Velgode Mandal, Kurnool District. The complainant used fertilizers and pesticides worth Rs.20,195/-. He also spent an amount of Rs.3,000/- per acre for cultivation . In total he spent Rs.20,000/- for cultivation of the crop in his land. He paid Rs.2,000/- per acre for labour . In total he spent Rs.20,000/- towards labour charges. The crop raised by the complainant did not give assured yielding. Multi branches is the serious problem in his land. The Mandal Agricultural Officer, Gadivemula also inspected the land and observed that the plants got multi branches and there was problem to yield. OP.No.2 sold defective seed and practiced unfair trade practice in selling the Sun flower 3389 variety seed . Hence the complaint.

1.     OP.No.2 remained ex-parte. OP.No.1 filed written version  stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The 2^nd OP is the dealer of 1^st OP for Sun flower 3389 variety seed is not correct. The averments in the complaint are false. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OP.No.1. OP.No.1 never supplied defective seeds to any distributor to get wrongful gain. The complainant filed his complaint with all false allegations. The claim amount and compensation claimed by the complainant is excessive and exorbitant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 no document is marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.1 is filed.  

5.     Complainant and OP.No.1 filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are    

(i)     whether the OP.No.2 is the dealer of OP.No.1 for Sun flower 3389

         variety seed .

(ii)    whether there is unfair trade practice  on the part of OP.No.2 in selling  seed to the complainant ?

1. whether the complainant is entitled  to any relief
2. To what relief?

7.     Points No.1to 3 :-  It is the case of the complainant  that the 2^nd OP is the dealer of the 1^st OP  for Sun flower 3389 variety seed  and that his son purchased the seed from  OP.No.2 on 25-10-2008 . The 1^st OP in its written version denied that the 2^nd OP is its dealer of Sun flower 3389 variety seed. The complainant in his sworn affidavit has stated that the 1^st OP produced the 3389 variety of Sun flower seed  and that OP.No.2 is the dealer of OP.No.1 for the sale of said variety of Sun flower seed . The OP.No.1 in its sworn affidavit denied that the 2^nd OP is its dealer for Sun flower 3389 variety seed. The 2^nd OP remained ex-parte. No documentary evidence is produced by the complainant to show that the 2^nd OP is the dealer of the 1^st OP for the sale of 3389 variety of Sun flower seed. In the absence of documentary evidence, the contention of the complainant that the 2^nd OP is the dealer of the 1^st OP for Sun flower 3389 variety seed cannot be believed. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that his son purchased 15 packets of Sun flower seeds from OP.No.2 on 25-10-2008. The complainant filed Ex.A3 bills showing the purchase of Sun flower seeds from OP.No.2 on 25-10-2008 by his son Mohan Reddy. The said seed was purchased for Rs.10,800/- . The OP.No.2 is not disputing about the purchase of Sun flower seed by Mohan Reddy who is the son of the complainant.

8.     It is the case of the complainant that he got an extent of 6-82     cents. Complainant relied on Ex.A1 copy of the Adangal issued by VRO , Velpanur (V). It shows that the complainant is in possession and   enjoyment of Ac.6-82 cents, in Sy.Nos 277/2 and 276/2 of Velpanur (v). There is no mention in Ex.A1 that he raised Sun flower crop in the said land during the fasli 1417. The complainant  in order to establish that he raised Sun flower crop in his land during the year 2008 relied on Ex.A5 letter dated 28-01-2009 addressed to Assistant Director of Agriculture , Nandyal by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Gadivemula. In Ex.A5 it is clearly mentioned that complainant sown Sun flower seed in Ac.6-82  cents on 25-10-2008. In Ex.A5 it is also clearly stated that the complainant raised Dhanya seeds purchased from OP.No.2. It is further averred in Ex.A5 that the problem in the yield is multi branching and that nearly 32 to 40% of branches are multi branched. The observation of the MAO reveals that the crop in the land failed to some extent due to multi branches. There is no satisfactory evidence to come to the conclusion that there was total failure of the crop. The evidence on record go to show that the complainant sustained loss due to the defective seed sold by OP.No.2. It is stated by complainant in his sworn affidavit that OP.No.2 assured yield of 9 quintals per acre. As already stated there is no satisfactory evidence to come to the conclusion that the complainant suffered total loss of crop. To meet the ends of justice  I think it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for loss of yield. The complainant purchased the seed from OP.No.2 for Rs.10,800/-. The said seed is found defective. Therefore the complainant is entitled to the said amount. The complainant also filed bills for Rs.7,300/- showing the purchase of fertilizer and pesticides from Dhana lakshmi Agro Agencies . The complainant is also entitled to the said amount. Because of failure of the crop he must have suffered much torture and mental agony .Therefore the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony .

9. Point No.:4    In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP.No.2 to pay damages of Rs.38,100/-  with interest 9%  from the date of the complaint i.e, on  06-04-2009 till the date of payment and also to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards costs. Complaint against OP.No.1 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the  02^nd day of August,  2010.

        Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                                                         

  MALE MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Copy of Adangal relating to Sy No.277/2,276/2 of Velpanur village.

Ex.A2.       Bills for the purchase of Uria (5)

Ex.A3.       Bills for the purchase of  SF3389 (2)

Ex.A4.       Two  photos along with negatives

Ex.A5.       Letter dt. 28-01-2009 issued by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Gadivemula

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:  Nil

           Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on: