1
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1120 of 2013 against CC 126/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Venkateshwara Agro Agencies,
Shop No.24, H.No.8-5-48/2
Opp: Sunil Theatre,
Seetharama Complex,
Station Road, Warangal.
Rep.by its Prop: T.Narsinga Rao.
2) The Manager, Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
Bommala Pedda Swamy,
S/oLingaiah, Age: 55 yrs,
Occ: Agri, R/o Pallariguda
R/M Sangem, Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1121 of 2013 against CC 127/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 500 029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Bhadru
S/o Sakru , Age: 42 yrs,
Occ: Agri,
R/o. Venkataram Naik Thanda
R/o Pallariguda, R/M Sangam,
Warangal Dist.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
2
FA 1122 of 2013 against CC 128/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 500 029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Hakya, S/o. Harya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
H/o. Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1123 of 2013 against CC 129/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Pimpli,
W/o. Late Jathiya,
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
H/o. Pallariguda(V),
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
3
FA 1124 of 2013 against CC 130/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Madhuri Agencies
Pesticides and Seeds
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Talkies,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Proprietor
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bhekya, S/o. Redya,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
H/o. Pallariguda(V),
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1125 of 2013 against CC 131/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Narasimha
S/o.Samya
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
H/o. Pallariguda(V),
Sangam (M),Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
4
FA 1126 of 2013 against CC 132/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Chandar
S/o.Ballu,
Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal Disrict.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1127 of 2013 against CC 133/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Rajamma
S/o. Late Hari,
Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1128 of 2013 against CC 134/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 5
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Ravi, S/o.J ethya,
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1129 of 2013 against CC 135/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Erya
S/o. Manjya,
Age: 67 yrs, Occ: Agri,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1130 of 2013 against CC 136/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 6
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Venkudothu Hakya
S/o. Devya,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal Dist.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1131 of 2013 against CC 137/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Venkateshwara Agro Agencies,
Shop No.24, H.No.8-5-48/2
Opp: Sunil Theatre,
Seetharama Complex,
Station Road, Warangal.
Rep.by its Prop: T.Narsinga Rao.
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Bhukya Veerama
S/o. Sammulu
Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M), Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1132 of 2013 against CC 138/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 7
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Kanthamma @ Kanthi
S/o. Late Dharma,
Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1133 of 2013 against CC 139/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bhilya
S/o. Somia,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
8
FA 1134 of 2013 against CC 140/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Madhuri Agencies
Pesticides and Seeds
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Talkies,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Proprietor
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Kishan
S/o. Nanu,
Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vanjarapally,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1135 of 2013 against CC 141/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bhadru
S/o. Bondya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1136 of 2013 against CC 142/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 9
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Ravi
S/o. Dhanjya,
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Chinthalapally Shivar thanda,
R/o. Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1137 of 2013 against CC 143/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Sadarlalu
S/o. Bagya (Bajya),
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
10
FA 1138 of 2013 against CC 144/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Sammulu @ Samya
S/o. Gangya,
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o.Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1139 of 2013 against CC 145/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Erya
S/o. Bhadya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1140 of 2013 against CC 146/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 11
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Erya
S/o. Late Devya,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1141 of 2013 against CC 147/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Madhuri Agencies
Pesticides and Seeds
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Talkies,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Proprietor
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Tejya
S/o. Bimla,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agri,
H/o.Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1142 of 2013 against CC 148/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 12
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Kobla
S/o. Ravuji,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1143 of 2013 against CC 149/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Aruna Yeruvula Depot,
Pesticides & Seeds,
Station Road,
Warangal District,
Rep. by its Proprietor
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Devas Singh
S/o. Lachu,
Age: yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o.Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1144 of 2013 against CC 150/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 13
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Ramdhan
S/o. Narsya, Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Chinthalapally Shivar thanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M), Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1145 of 2013 against CC 151/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Panthulu
S/o. Narsya,
Age: 57 yrs, Occ: Agri,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1146 of 2013 against CC 181/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 14
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Erya
S/o. Limbya,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Chinthalapally Shivae thanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M), Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1147 of 2013 against CC 182/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Hakya
S/o. Ganya,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal Disrict.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
15
FA 1148 of 2013 against CC 183/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Lachuma
S/o. Sandya,
Age: 62 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1149 of 2013 against CC 184/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Samya
S/o. Devya,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o.Chinthalapally Shivar thanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1150 of 2013 against CC 185/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 16
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Saraiah
S/o. Samya,
Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Agri,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1151 of 2013 against CC 196/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Balu
S/o. Chatru,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1152 of 2013 against CC 197/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 17
Between:
1) Madhuri Agencies
Pesticides and Seeds
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Talkies,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Prop. P.Venkanna.
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Ramka
S/o. Narsya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Chinthalapally Shivar thanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1153 of 2013 against CC 198/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Madhuri Agencies
Pesticides and Seeds
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Talkies,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Prop. P.Venkanna.
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Balya
S/o. Dhanjaya,
Age: 51 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal Disrict.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
18
FA 1154 of 2013 against CC 199/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Aruna Eruvaka Depot,
Pesticides & Seeds,
Station Road,
Warangal District.
Rep. by its Proprietor
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Nariya
S/o. Kevla, Age: 68 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1155 of 2013 against CC 200/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bhadru
S/o. Panthulu,
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1156 of 2013 against CC 201/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 19
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Sonia
S/o. Dhanya,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V),Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1157 of 2013 against CC 212/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Chatru
S/o. Narayana,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
20
FA 1158 of 2013 against CC 213/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Ramdas
S/o. Kevla, Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1159 of 2013 against CC 214/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Balaji
S/o. Rupsingh,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Chinthalapally Shivar thanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1160 of 2013 against CC 215/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 21
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bhilya
S/o. Dhanjya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1161 of 2013 against CC 216/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Dharmu
S/o. Dhanjya,
Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1162 of 2013 against CC 218/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 22
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Valya
S/o. Dhanjya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1163 of 2013 against CC 219/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Ramesh
S/o. Redya,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o. Pallariguda (V)
Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
23
FA 1164 of 2013 against CC 220/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Devula
S/o. Thavurya,
Age: 52 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1165 of 2013 against CC 221/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Jawaharlalu
S/o. Narsya,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1166 of 2013 against CC 222/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 24
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Erya
S/o. Bondya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1167 of 2013 against CC 223/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Bhadru
S/o. Dasru,
Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1168 of 2013 against CC 224/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 25
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Janki
S/o. Dhanjya,
Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1169 of 2013 against CC 225/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Dharavath Keerya,
S/o. Balya, Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Chintalapally Shivar Thanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1170 of 2013 against CC 226/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 26
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Ravi
S/o. Dhan Singh,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1171 of 2013 against CC 264/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vakudothu Bhadru
S/o. Bhallu
Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1172 of 2013 against CC 269/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 27
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Bukya Keerya
S/o. Rupla,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1173 of 2013 against CC 275/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Ramdhan,
S/o. Kanukaiah,
Age: 47 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1174 of 2013 against CC 277/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 28
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Banothu Balu,
S/o. Narsimha,
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1175 of 2013 against CC 279/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Bujjamma,
W/o. Erya,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
29
FA 1176 of 2013 against CC 305/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gugulothu Shiva,
S/o. Jangu
Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1177 of 2013 against CC 309/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Sri Krishna Agencies,
Nekkonda
Warangal District, A.P.
Rep. by its Prop. Y. Bhaskar Reddy
2) The Manager,
Customer Care Cell,
FSL LAYA Bt-2 Hybrid Cotton Seeds,
Fortune Hybrid Seeds Limited,
3-5-821, I Floor,
Doshi Square, Hyderguda,
Hyderabad – 5000029
Rep. by its Sr. Manager,
Marketing & Coordinating
V.V. Satyanarayana. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Vankudothu Shiva,
S/o. Dudiya
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Venkatram Naik Tanda,
Pallariguda (V), Sangam (M),
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1178 of 2013 against CC 120/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 30
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies
Seeds, Fertilizers, Pesticides, & Cement,
Zaffergadh Mandal, Warangal Dist.
Rep. by its Proprietor Dodda Raj Kumar,
S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,
Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gundla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager
Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,
Kanchanjunga Building
Bara khamba Road,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110 001. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Samba Raju,
S/o. Ramulu, Age: 23 yrs,
Occ: Agri, R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)Warangal Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1179 of 2013 against CC 121/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Sutari Komaraiah,
S/o. Chandraiah,
Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1180 of 2013 against CC 122/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 31
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachanjung Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gandam Bikshapathi,
S/o. Venkaamallu,
Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District. *** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1181 of 2013 against CC 123/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Mamidi Swamy, S/o. Narsaiah,
Age: 25 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1182 of 2013 against CC 124/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 32
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Kumara Swamy,
S/o. Sommaiah,
Age: 43 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1183 of 2013 against CC 125/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gittaboina Somaiah,
S/o. Gattaiah,
Age: 65 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
33
FA 1184 of 2013 against CC 174/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Rajaiah,
S/o. Uppalaiah,
Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1185 of 2013 against CC 175/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Ashok,
S/o. Raja Lingam
Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1186 of 2013 against CC 176/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 34
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Penta Yellaiah,
S/o. Muttaiah,
Age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1187 of 2013 against CC 177/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manda Gattaiah,
S/o. Bhumaiah,
Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1188 of 2013 against CC 178/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 35
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gittaboina Pitchaiah,
S/o. Yellaiah,
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1189 of 2013 against CC 179/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manda Yellaiah,
S/o. Ilaiah,
Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
36
FA 1190 of 2013 against CC 180/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Gandam Narsaiah,
S/o. Venkatamallu,
Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1191 of 2013 against CC 186/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Yellaiah,
S/o. Gattaiah,
Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
37
FA 1192 of 2013 against CC 187/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Nallabeem Laxminarayana,
S/o. Veeraiah,
Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1193 of 2013 against CC 188/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Dubyala Sambaiah,
S/o. Lingaiah,
Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1194 of 2013 against CC 189/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 38
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Nalla Bheem Devender,
S/o. Chinna Komuraiah,
Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1195 of 2013 against CC 190/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Ramesh,
S/o. Yellaiah,
Age: 25 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1196 of 2013 against CC 191/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal 39
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Swamy,
S/o. Sarraiah,
Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
FA 1197 of 2013 against CC 203/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Manchala Komuraiah,
S/o. Pedda Rangaiah,
Age: 65 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
40
FA 1198 of 2013 against CC 205/2011, Dist. Forum, Warangal
Between:
1) Mohan Krishna Agro Agencies Seeds Fertilizers,
Pesticides,Cement, Zaffergadh Mandal,
Warangal Dist. Rep. by its Prop.
Dodda Raj Kumar, S/o. Damodhar.
2) The Regional Manager, (Marketing)
D. Rakesh Kumar,Yaganti Seeds (P) Ltd.,
Sy. No.95/2, Gudla Pochampally,
Secunderabad-500 014.
3) The Manager, Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office 905,Kachangunde Building
Barakhamba Road,Cannought Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
*** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
AND
Thota Sudhakar
S/o. Narsaiah,
Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agri,
R/o Vaddegudem (V),
Zaffargadh (M),)
Warangal District.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. Gouri Shankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. P. Rajasripathi Rao
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order : 01/05/2014
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) These appeals 79 in number are preferred by the dealer and
manufacturer of hybrid cotton seeds Ops 1 & 2 respectively.
2) Though the Dist. Forum passed separate orders on the complaints
filed by various complainants alleging that they had sustained loss due to
supply of defective hybrid cotton seeds, since common questions of fact and
law are involved, we are of the opinion that all these appeals could be disposed
of by a common order: 41
3) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the
Dist. Forum for felicity of expression and to avoid confusion.
4) The case of the complainants in brief is that they are residents of
Pallariguda and Vaddegudem villages of Sangem and Zaffargadh Mandals
respectively in Warangal District owning small extents of lands i.e., one or two
acres and eking out their livelihood by attending to agricultural operations.
As the soil in the District of Warangal is prone for cotton growth and the
complainants wanted to raise cotton crop and in that context they purchased
LAYA Bt-II (NCS 861 Bt-II) US Agri-seeds hybrid cotton seeds manufactured by
Op1 on payment of costs vide various bills. The complainants sowed the said
seeds in their respective lands , took all precautionary measures but they
found that only 40% of the seeds have been germinated with poor scanty
flower and boll. There was no yield as promised. Immediately the
complainants along with other farmers rushed to the Opposite Parties with a
request to visit the standing crop. During their inspection they found that
there was defect in the seed and agreed to compensate the complainants but
they did not do so. The complainants submit that on the complaints made by
the farmers the Principal Scientist (Cotton Breeding) Regional Agricultural
Research Station, Warangal inspected the fields of the complainants and
other farmers and submitted a report dt. 10.11.2010 to the effect that due to
Jassid infestation the yield was very poor. The complainants allege that
though the Opposite Parties promised to compensate the loss in the presence
of inspection team they did not adhere to the same. As the complainants
sustained heavy loss, they got issued a legal notice on 18.2.2011 for which the
Opposite Parties gave evasive reply on 4.3.2011. In those circumstances, the
complainants were constrained to approach the Dist. Forum seeking
compensation for supplying defective seeds.
42
5) So far as Op1 is concerned, his main thrust is that he is only a
dealer and he sells the cotton seeds as manufactured by the manufacturer
who is added as Op2 for which he receives certain commission and he can in
no way be found fault with when the said seeds do not yield as expected. So
far as Op2 who is the manufacturer is concerned its contention as per the
written version is as under :
The complainants did not send the sample seed for analysis to any
laboratory as provided for u/s 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act to
establish that the seed supplied by them was defective. The Opposite Parties
never assured that LAYA (BT-2) would sustain to all sorts of insects including
Green Leaf Hopper (JASSID) or PACCHA DOMA nor that the yield would be
between 15 and 20 quintals per acre. Dr. Gopinath, Principal Scientist of
RARS, Warangal has not inspected the fields of complainants but only made
random inspection of few fields in Venkatapur, Pallriguda, Obulapur,
Veddegudem, Peddamupparam and Parkal Mandal. The Opposite Parties
further submit that unless and until the seed meets the standards of 90%
genetic purity they would not release the products into the market. There was
no defect in the seed and the shortfall in the yield is due to heavy rainfall and
sucking pests like JASSIDS. The Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any
compensation and therefore prayed that the complaints be dismissed.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record
i.e., Ex. A1 to A8 marked on behalf of complainant and Exs. B1 to B12 marked
on behalf of Opposite Parties in CC No. 126/2011 particularly taking Ex. A4
report of Dr. Gopinath, Principal Scientist, RARS, Warangal came to the
conclusion that there was defect in the cotton seed supplied by the Opposite
Parties. The Dist. Forum assessed the loss at eight quintals per acre and
further estimated that each quintal would value an amount of Rs. 3,000/-
and thus while allowing the said complaints awarded compensation.
43
7) As stated supra, questioning the said orders, the Opposite Parties
preferred these appeals.
8) Mr. V. Gouri Shankara Rao, the learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the Opposite Parties never assured that LAYA-Bt2 seed would
sustain all sorts of insects including Green Leaf Hopper (JASSID) or PACHA
DOMA nor did they assure that the yield would be 15 to 20 quintals per acre.
The complainants never informed the Opposite Parties about the less growth
and that the plants were attacked by pests. The Opposite Parties were not
given any opportunity to inspect the standing crop in order to give proper
suggestions. Dr. Gopinath, Principal Scientist, RARS, Warangal did not visit
the fields of the complainants and visited six different fields in six Mandals at
random. Even his report reveals that due to unusual weather conditions and
heavy rains during July to October, 2010 and wet soil conditions resulted in
incidence of Green Leaf Hopper (JASSIDS). The Dist. Forum failed to see
that infestation or JASSIDS has nothing to do with the boll formation. The
Dist. Collector issued Ex. B1 pamphlet to take precautionary measures to save
the cotton crop from Green Leaf Hopper and White Fly etc., by applying proper
pesticides. The yield depends on several factors. Ex. B3 to B10 test
laboratory reports establish that the seeds were of standard in regard to
germination and purity which is decisive factor for determining the quality of
seed. There is no defect in the seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties and
necessary bilingual literature was supplied to the farmers as to the
precautions to be taken in case the cotton crop is affected by pests. Therefore
he prayed that the appeals be allowed by setting aside the orders of the Dist.
Forum.
9) The learned counsel for the appellants further has drawn our
attention to various judgements of National Commission:
44
(i) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., Vs. Pachuri Narayana I (2009) CPJ 180
(NC)
ii) Gyan Chandra Sharda Vs. Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhan Sahkari
Samithi & Ors. III (2009) CPJ 19 (NC)
iii) Mayhco Seeds Ltd., Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC)
iv) Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Vs. M. B. Malipathi III (2011) CPJ 210 (NC)
v) Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Vs. Ghanshyam
Bhai Fulabhai Patel III (2011) CPJ 433 (NC)
vi) Suresh Kumar Vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op Ltd., II (2012) CPJ
170 (NC)
10) The learned counsel for the complainants Mr. P. Rajasripathi Rao
reiterating the stand taken by the complainants in their complaints
submitted that the seeds that were manufactured by Op2 are defective in
nature and in those circumstances only there was crop loss and the same
has to be compensated by the manufacturer i.e., Op2. As it failed to do so,
the complainants were constrained to approach the Dist. Forum. He further
contended that excepting the report of said Scientist Dr. Gopinath there is
nothing on record either to establish or to hold that seeds are not defective or
perfect. It is his further submission that though the seeds are very much
available with Op2 i.e., the manufacturer, they never requested the Dist.
Forum to send the samples for analysis to a government recognized
laboratory with regard to genetic purity, and in those circumstances the Dist.
Forum is justified in coming to the conclusion that the seeds are defective
which aspect amounts to deficiency of service. He also placed reliance on
the following judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(i) Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., Vs. Alavapati Chandra Reddy &
Others (1998) 6 SCC 738.
(ii) H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka (2004)
6 SCC 230.
(iii) Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Vs. Sadhu & Another
(2005) 3 SCC 198.
(iv) National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Another
(2012) 2 SCC 506.
45
11) Before going into the various issues involved in these cases, it
may be apt and necessary to refer to ‘Consumer Movement’ and its
development all over the world including our country i.e., in India. In an
effort to promote consumer protection, as the consumers are being
surcharged in the market places it was felt that a movement is necessary to
come to their aid and the roots took place in the United States of America
(USA) as early as in 18th Century. In the second half of 18th Century the
Meat Packing Industry in USA was functioning in an unhygienic condition
and the meat was boiled in very large vats. It appears, in one of such boiling
vats when a worker fell in the boiling waters and by the time his body was
removed only his skeletons were available however the water was not
discarded and the meat including the meat of the worker was boiled in it.
11.1) In the year 1906 Mr. Upton Sinclair wrote a novel ‘The Jungle’
which portrayed the corruption prevailing in the American Meat Packing
Industry and the unsanitary practices in the industry. In the light of said
novel it has become necessary for the USA Government to pass an Act called
‘ Food & Drugs Act’ in the year 1906. Later Stuart Chase and Frederick
Schlink wrote ‘ Your Money’s Worth’ in the year 1927 with regard to
cheating being meted out to the people as they are not getting the worth
commodities for the money they spent. In the light of said book and various
agitations , the people in USA have come together, and in the year 1936 the
Consumers Union was formed. Similarly it also started publishing
‘Consumer Reports’ and in those circumstances the ‘Consumer Reports’
were sold by Consumer Unions. It has become so popular and the sales have
gone up to six million copies. The ‘Consumer Union’ tests various products
from pins to aeroplanes buying the articles in the open market, and it never
accepted any article from the manufacturer.
46
11.2) Rachel Carlston, a Scientist published a book ‘Silent Spring’ in
the year 1962 in which he highlighted the great damage on account of
usage of pesticides. The pesticides not only kill the pests but also other
insects and the birds which ate them. The pesticides got mixed in the rivers
and the fish also died and the cheerful singing of birds during spring was not
there. Everything was silent.
11.3) The consumers began to demand that they may be given better
protection and on account of several agitations by the consumers, the then
President of United States of America John F. Kennedy on 15.3.1962 in his
address to the U.S. Congress categorically stated that all the consumers have
four rights i.e., 1) The Right to Safety 2) The Right to Information 3) The
right to Choose and 4) The Right to be heard.
11.4) Thereafter Ralph Nadar shot into prominence in the year 1965
with his popular book titled as ‘Unsafe at any Speed’ which described many
faults in the cars manufactured by General Motors and the cars were not
safe for travel, and on account of the same the General Motors came forward,
accepted its faults and rectified the cars.
11.5) 12 years after pronouncement of four rights by the then
President John Kennedy, another U.S. President Gerald Ford felt that said
four rights are not enough without awareness among the people. Thus he
added another right ‘The Right to Consumer Education’, and according to him
without consumer education a consumer can never be empowered.
11.6) The International Union of Consumer Organizations i.e., the
world body of Consumer Organizations from different countries felt that said
five consumer rights are not enough without a remedy when the complaints
of the consumers are not acted upon. Therefore it suggested that the ‘Right
to Redressal’ was necessary so that consumer grievances can be resolved.
After a bitter lobbying the United Nations Organization (UNO) accepted eight 47
rights and the same were announced on 9.4.1995. All the Member Nations
were urged to take measures to protect the interests of consumers.
11.7) The consumer movement that surprisingly started in the
developed countries is almost a century old. The activities of stalwarts like
Ralph Nader, whose name became almost synonymous with the consumer
movement and approach of progressive looking Presidents like John F.
Kennedy led to a series of legislations and regulations in the United States.
His book “Unsafe at any speed” is not only an exposure of Chaverlet Car but
an indictment of auto industry as a whole. His gruella operations through
“Centre for study of responsive law’” were phenomenal. Documentation by
Nader’s Raiders - idealistic and enthusiastic students woke up FTC and
Food and Drug administration etc. from their slumber to respond to
consumer problems. His ‘Public Citizen’ an umbrella organization for
consumer organization did yeomen service to the cause of consumer
movement. In view of widespread exploitation of consumers by traders and
service providers, it was felt all over the world that the consumer needed to
be protected from the powerful lobby of business.
11.8) On 9.4.1985 United Nations by its Resolution No. 39/248 of the
General Assembly recognised consumer rights on the level of human rights.
It adopted guidelines for consumer protection which provide a framework for
governments to use in elaborating and strengthening consumer protection
policies and legislation.
11.9) The consumer movement in U.S. can be said to have gained
momentum when John F. Kennedy officially declared as 15.3.1963 (which
day is celebrated as World Consumer’s Day) four rights to the consumers
namely, 1) Right to Safety 2) Right to Information 3) Right to Choice 4) Right
to consideration of his grievances. The U.S. spends more than 30 billion
dollars on consumer protection. 48
11.10) In United Kingdom warranty of merchantability has been
developed and incorporated as an exception to the Caveat Emptor Rule in the
Sale of Goods Act of 1893. More legislations like Restrictive Trade Practises
Act, 1956 followed. The Consumer Protection Act, 1987 is the primary
legislation dealing with consumer protection in U.K. now.
11.11) In Australia the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906
was the first anti-trust legislation which was similar to Sherman Act 1890 of
the United States. Trade Practices Act, 1965 was the next enactment which
replaced 1906 Act. Again it was replaced by Trade Practices Act, 1974. The
Act deals with restrictive trade practices and consumer protection and is
aimed at eliminating unfair competition in trade and in strengthening the
consumers.
12) The General Assembly of the United Nations after extensive
discussion and negotiations among Governments and taking into account the
interests and needs of consumers in all countries, particularly those in
developing countries, adopted the draft guidelines submitted by the Secretary
General to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The objectives
of these guidelines are:
a. To assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate protection for
their population as consumers.
b. To facilitate production and distribution patterns responsive to the
needs and desires of consumers.
c. To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those engaged in the
production and distribution of goods and services to consumers.
d. To assist countries in curbing abusive business practices by all
enterprises at the 44 national and international levels which adversely
affect consumers.
e. To facilitate the development of independent consumer groups.
f. To further international cooperation in the field of consumer protection.
g. To encourage the development of market conditions which provide
consumers with greater choice at lower prices.
49
12.1) In India more than 30 enactments were passed to protect the
interests of consumers like Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Drug Control
Act, 1950, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Agricultural Produces (Grading and
Marketing) Act, 1955, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Standards of
Weights and Measures Act, 1976, Weights and Measures Enforcement Act,
Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and Trade and Merchandise Marks
Act, 1958 etc. They do not provide relief to the consumer directly though
punish the violator.
12.2) MRTP Act, 1969 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are the
two major Acts that provide direct relief to the consumers. MRTP Act is
replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.
12.3) The framework for the Consumer Act was provided by a Resolution
known as “Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248 dt. 9.4.1985 of the
General Assembly of the United Nations Organization to which India is a
signatory.
12.4) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks to provide for better
protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to make
provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities
for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith,
as would appear from the Preamble to the Act.
12.5) The salient features of the Consumer Protection Bill were to
promote and protect the rights of consumers such as:
a. the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are
hazardous to life and property;
b. the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity,
standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair
trade practices;
c. the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of
goods at competitive prices.
d. the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers interests will
receive due consideration at appropriate forums;
e. the right to seek Redressal against unfair trade practices or
unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and
f. right to consumer education. 50
12.6) In our country following the demands of Consumer
Organizations, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh Governments formulated
Consumer Protection Bills and on the basis of said bills of respective states,
the Government of India thought it fit to introduce a Central Legislation and
thus the Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 has come into existence and the
then President Giani Zail Singh gave his assent on 24.12.1986 and thus the
Consumer Protection Act has come into existence. If we refer to the Statement
of Objects and Reasons it seeks inter-alia to promote, and protect the rights
of consumers such as:
Right of Protection
Right of Information
Right of Assurance
Right to be Heard
Right to seek Redressal and
Right to Consumer Education.
Further from the said Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the consumers
would be provided with speedy and simple redressal with regard to consumer
disputes and the machinery which is constituted as per the Consumer
Protection Act shall observe the principles of natural justice. From the above
Objects and Reasons, it is manifest that principles of natural justice alone
have a role to play and no other principle.
13) In the light of said pleadings, coupled with arguments advanced
by both sides counsel, this Commission is of the view that trump card/main
aspect revolves around the report of Dr. Gopinath, Principal Scientist,
Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Warangal which was marked
as Ex. A4 and for better appreciation, we extract the same hereunder:
“I would like to bring to your kind notice that several complaints from cotton
growing farmers in Warangal district are being received, as evident from the
references mentioned above, stating poor performance of cotton crop.
Accordingly the JDA has been requesting ADR, RARS, Warangal for the
deputation of Scientists for filed inspection and identification of probable
cause for poor performance of cotton crop in the particular cases.
51
Accordingly, I have inspected the cotton fields in
1. Venkatapur village of Duggondi mandal on 22-09-2010 (obama BG – 2
cotton hybrid of M/s.US Agri Seeds)
2. Pallariguda village of Sangem mandal on 27-09-2010 (Laya BG – 2 cotton
hybrid of M/s. Fortume Agri Biotech)
3. Vaddegudem village Zafargadh mandal on 27-10-2010 (Doriya BG – 2
cotton hybrid of M/s.Yaganti Seeds)
4. Obulapur village of Zafargadh mandal on 27-10-2010 (Vikram 5 BG – 2
hybrid of M/s. Vikram Seeds)
5. Pedamupparam village of Narasimhulupet Mandal on 04-11-2010 (Surpas
BG – 2 cotton hybrid of M/s. Bayer Co) and
6. Parkal mandal onn 06-11-2010 (Neeraja BG – 2 hybrid of M/s.Malyco
Seeds).
Quiet interestingly the farmers of Thimmampet village of Zafarghad
mandal have complained on the poor performance of cotton hybrids supplied by
14 seed companies.
In all the cases the genetic purity was observed to be 95-98%, irrespective
of the hybrid and seed company. Before concluding, we may have to
recapitulate the unusual weather conditions, that are continuing to prevail during
2010-11 crop season. As per the rainfall data recorded at RARS, Warangal a
total rainfall of 731.8 mm was received in 46 rainy days from July to October,
2010. Almost every alternate day it is raining during July, August, September
and October months. This has resulted in continuous wet soil condition. In
addition the incidence of jassids (Green Leaf hoppers) was unabated, occurring
above economic threshold level (ETL) in several broods (generation). Most of the
farmers have relied on imidacloprid and its variants. Sucking pets have
developed resistance to imidacloprid. On the other hand, farmer could spray
only 2-3 times to control jassids, which was insufficient. To control overlapping
broods of jassids 6-8 rounds of spray is necessitated during 2010-11 season.
Another aspect that might have reduced the efficacy of spray fluid was
intermittent rains and subsequent wash of the insecticide before it is absorbed
by the plant and become effective.
Continuous wet soils conditions has resulted in shedding of floral parts
and tender bolls, which was aggravated by heavy incidence of sucking pests,
particularly jassids, above ETL in overlapping broods.
As a result, the crop growth has been stunted, all the leaves become thick,
leathery, downward curling into an inverted cup shape, yellowing, and turning
into brick red with severe jassid injury. The shedding of squares, flower and
tender bolls have resulted in barren plants with 5-10 bolls/plant only. The
farmer is not hopeful about the rejuvenation of such sick crop, hence so much of
commotion. It is very difficult to resort to amelioration measures to bring the crop
to normalcy and to get minimum yields.
Among different cotton hybrids inspected, it is evident that hairy
and densely hairy hybrids like Neeraja, Kanak and Dr.Brunt are having
resistance to jassids inherently, whereas all the other hybrids that have
been marketed in the district are appearing to be highly susceptible to
jassids.
Thus the poor performance of cotton crop during 2010-11 season is due to
more rain occurring in more number of rainy days, continuous wet soil condition
and heavy jassid infestation in successive broods, than genetic impurity.
In view of the above, it is not worthwhile to inspect any cotton fields
further in the district.” 52
From a reading of the said report, we are of the view that said report is
neither helpful to the complainants nor to the Opposite Parties for the reason
that he has not specifically mentioned anywhere in the said report as to
whether the said non-yield of required cotton is on account of defective seeds
supplied by the Opposite Parties or adequate measures which were supposed
to be taken by the complainants. The genetic purity was observed at 95-98%.
If the same is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that said seeds are of
inferior quality, for the reason that as per the notification issued by Ministry
of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi dt.
28.12.1993 defines genetic purity standards, and so far as cotton seed is
concerned it is sufficient if it is 90%.
14) The said report also states that there was heavy rain fall as per
Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Warangal and observed that
the farmers are expected to spray pesticides to control overlapping broods of
Jassids some 6–8 rounds whereas the farmers/complainants have sprayed
only 2 -3 times.
14.1) Similarly, he also stated in his report that total rainfall of 731.8
mm was received in 46 rainy days from July – October, 2010 but he has not
stated anywhere as to whether the formation of Jassids is on account of said
heavy rain fall etc. Further he emphatically stated that there are different
hybrid cotton seeds and hybrids like Neeraja, Kanak and Dr. Brunt are having
resistance to Jassids inherently, and so far as all other hybrids are
concerned he has categorically observed stating that they are highly
susceptible to Jassids. In those circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that one cannot take any view from the said report whether the said
failure of crop is because of act of God, inferior quality of seeds, or not taking
proper care by the farmers.
53
14.2) If we accept the said report of the Scientist, we have to hold that
there is no genetic impurity for the reason that the Scientist has categorically
stated that the genetic purity was 95-98% but nowhere he stated the basis
as to how he has arrived at that figure. In the absence of any basis, simply
stating that the genetic purity is 95-98% in our considered view is
hypothetical.
15) A procedure is provided for u/s 13(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act. A plain reading of that section shows that the District Forum
can call upon the complainant to provide a sample of goods if it is satisfied that
the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test.
After the sample is obtained, the same is required to be sent to an appropriate
laboratory for analysis or test for the purpose of finding out whether the goods
suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint or from any other defect.
15.1) From a simple reading of said provision of law, it is clear that a
duty is cast upon the complainants to produce a sample before the Dist. Forum
and request the same to send it for analysis which was not done in the cases
on hand.
15.2) The learned judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. National
Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported in AIR 2012 SC
1160 have taken the view that the burden is not only on the complainant
but also on the manufacturer to provide samples of seeds and send them for
analysis or for a test in a government recognized laboratory. At para 76 of
the said judgement the learned judges observed as under:
76. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Majority of
the farmers in the country remain illiterate throughout their life because
they do not have access to the system of education. They have no idea
about the Seeds Act and the Rules framed thereunder and other
legislations, 66like, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act,
2011. They mainly rely on the information supplied by the Agricultural
Department and Government agencies, like the appellant.
54
Ordinarily, nobody would tell a farmer that after purchasing the seeds for
sowing, he should retain a sample thereof so that in the event of loss of
crop or less yield on account of defect in the seeds, he may claim
compensation from the seller/supplier. In the normal course, a farmer
would use the entire quantity of seeds purchased by him for the purpose
of sowing and by the time he discovers that the crop has failed because
the seeds purchased by him were defective nothing remains with him
which could be tested in a laboratory. In some of the cases, the
respondents had categorically stated that they had sown the entire
quantity of seeds purchased from the appellant. Therefore, it is naive to
blame the District Forum for not having called upon the respondents to
provide the samples of seeds and send them for analysis or test in the
laboratory.
77. It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the
appellant's part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the
varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on
every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or
otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a
period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except
that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot
represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed
kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if
required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity.
The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and
growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties
of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have
been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an
appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the
appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only
this, the officers of the appellant, 68 who inspected the fields of the
respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a
designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the
extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been
explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of
the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were
defective.
15.3) In fact according to Rule 13(3) of the Seeds Rules made under
the Seeds Act, 1996, it is mandatory that every person selling, keeping for
sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind
or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of
seeds sold.
15.4) Taking cue from the said judgement, we are of the considered
opinion that it is not as though the complainants alone have to establish that
the seeds in question are defective in nature but the manufacture i.e., Op2 is
also responsible for not producing the said seeds before the Dist. Forum.
55
16) The Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta
reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243 has observed that :
"it appears appropriate to ascertain the purpose of the Act, the objective it
seeks to achieve and the nature of social purpose it seeks to promote as it
shall facilitate in comprehending the issue involved and assist in
construing various provisions of the Act effectively. To begin with the
preamble of the Act which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the
legislative intention, it was enacted, 'to provide for the protection of the
interest of consumers'. Use of the word 'protection' furnishes key to the
minds of makers of the Act. Various definitions and provisions which
elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this
light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot
control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact that the law meets
long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for
which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become
illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to
intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for
unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or
it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons, which are not
necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare
of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the
market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer
which he faces against powerful, business, described as, 'a network of
rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the
rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into
storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to
another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous
consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked.
The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the
society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is
accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh
realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed
in checking the rot'.
16.1) The said view was reiterated by the Supreme Court once again in
(2004) 6 SCC 230 in H.N. Shankara Shastry Vs. Asst. Director of Agriculture,
Karnataka.
17) The complainants have proved their cases beyond doubt by filing
the report of Scientist and Dhruveekarana Patram and Pattadar Pass books
to show that they sustained loss due to defective seeds supplied by the
appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that the farmers in the
neighbouring fields by using the same variety of hybrid cotton seeds had
obtained the same quantity of yield as expected and as stated by the
appellants. The loss of crop in the fields of complainants is an undisputed
fact. 56
18) The only question is whether the loss of crop is attributable to
defective seeds supplied by the Opposite Parties/appellants. The
complainants could establish that there was crop loss but the
appellants/Opposite Parties failed rebut the evidence by showing the data of
yield obtained by other farmers who had used the same variety of hybrid seed
during the said season. The onus is on the appellants to prove that the seeds
supplied by them do not suffer from any defect especially when other
varieties of seeds of other companies could fetch good yield in the same region
relating to same crop season. The manufacturer did not send the seeds that
were released to the market under the said batch in order to prove that the
seeds were not of inferior in quality. It did not even file the government
recognized laboratory test reports that were conducted before releasing the
seeds to the market. The questions in regard to nature of land, irrigation
facilities etc., were of general nature. The Scientist did not state that the
lands were not suitable for raising cotton crop. The very fact that when
other companies hybrid cotton seeds are highly resistant to pests as observed
by the Scientist, an adverse inference can be drawn that there was deficiency
in the seeds supplied by the appellants. There could not have been total loss
of crop for all these agriculturists had seeds been in conformity with the
specifications. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the crops were
failed due to defective seeds. The complainants have proved by leading
irrefutable documentary evidence that they have sustained loss in view of
defect in the seeds.
19) Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that
the complainants have raised the cotton crop in an extent of land as mentioned
in the complaints. If we take minimum 8 quintals per acre and computing
@ Rs. 3,000/- per quintal the loss would come to Rs. 24,000/- per acre.
57
The complainants would get the yield after applying fertilizers and pesticides
etc. All this includes cost of the crop. We do not find any illegality or
irregularity in the orders passed by the Dist. Forum in so far as the
manufacturer of seeds is concerned. As there is no role of dealer with regard
to impurity or defect in seeds, he cannot be made liable to pay compensation.
While conforming the orders passed by the Dist. Forum against the
manufacturer, we set-aside the liability fastened against the dealer.
20) For the aforementioned reasons, we do find any merits in the
appeals preferred by the manufacturer i.e., Op2. In the result the appeals
preferred by the manufacturer i.e., (Op2) are dismissed confirming the orders
of the Dist. Forum. No costs. Time for compliance eight weeks.
However, the appeals preferred by the dealers i.e., (Op1) are
allowed by setting aside the orders of the Dist. Forum against the dealers.
(i.e., Op1) No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
58
UP LOAD – O.K.
