BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.

F.A.Nos.460/2006 and 479/2006 to 483/2006 against C.C.Nos.137/2005, 138/2005 to 144/2005 District Consumer Forum,GUNTUR

Between:

1. The Managing Director,

    INDIA) LIMITED,

    th    

in F.As. 460/06, 479/06 to 483/2006.

2. The Proprietor,

   Guntur Road,

3. The Proprietor,

    Bapatla Road,

4. The Proprietor,

    rd                               

4. The Proprietor,

Rajagarithota,                 

Guntur

5. 

Sri Sai Priya Agencies,

Main Road                                                          

1. Nallamothu Subba Rao

2. Gullapalli Lathifulla,

3. Gullapalli Kareem

4. Shaik Basheer,

5. Gullapalli Huzurvali,

6. Kattubadi sattar,

7. Katrapadu Khader,

All are agriculturists, all residents of

KommuruVillage, Kakumanu Mandal,

Guntur District.                                                                      

Complainants in F.A 481/06

8. D.Haribabu,

   Guntur District.                                          

9. Kanneganti Chandra Rao,

Counsel for the 

(Common in all the appeals)

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.N.Srinivasa Rao

(Common in all the appeals)

QUORUM : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member).

These appeals are disposed of by a common order since the facts are similar in all these appeals.

F.A.No.460/2006:

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.137/2005 on the file of District Forum,Guntur, opposite parties preferred this appeal.

             31-12-2004, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties to pay compensation for the loss.   

We have perused the material on record.   has not been adhered to and therefore the District Forum erred in concluding that the seed is defective is also unsustainable in the light of the judgement of the Apex courtreported in

The Supreme Court in    

It is also reported in a Commissioner’s report can be accepted by the Consumer Forum/Commission with respect to defective seeds when opposite party has not sought for seed certification and Section13(1)(C) becomes un-implementable’.

In the instant case, we observe from the record the opposite parties did not file any application to send the seeds for testing and the complainant might have used the entire seeds for sowing.  Ex.A11, which is the certificate issued by Village Secretary in favour of the complainant herein dated 19-10-2005 and Ex.A19 is the report of the M.A.O., Kakumanu submitted to J.D.A., Guntur.  

‘ I have received a representation stating that the farmers of Kommur

are effected by sowing the Bollguard cotton seed.

           12-11-2004. 

observed and the bolls are less when compared to the other varieties.

performance of the Boll guard seed produced by the Monsanto India Limited.

I have endorsed herewith the details of farmers and Photostat copies of the

purchase bills;.

It is clear from this aforementioned report that the contention of the opposite parties in stating that the loss of yield is not due to defective seeds is unsustainable.  The details of the farmers and the Photostat copies of their purchase bills have also been enclosed.  Opposite parties except for their self serving reports have not conducted any test on the same batch of seeds and have not made any attempt to send the seeds for testing. 

F.A.Nos.479/2006 to 483/2006:

        Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT.           .