P.Pedda Ramudu,

S/o Chinna Jamalaiah,

R/o H.No.3/141 B,

U.Bollavaram Village,

Mahanandi Mandal,

Kurnool District-518812.                                     .…Complainant

                                              -Vs-     

Kanta Kantha Rao,

S/o Chinna Nandaiah,

R/o H.No.2/8,

U.Bollavaram Village,

Mahanandi Mandal,

Kurnool District – 518 812.                         …OPPOSITE PARTy 

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)                                       C.C. No.42/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)        To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,62,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum;

(b)        To cost of the complaint;

(c)         To grant any other relief or reliefs which are deem and proper in circumstances of the case.                                   

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is a  resident of U.Bollavaram Village.  He is an agriculturist.  The opposite party informed the complainant that Kurnool Sona BPT 5204 variety of paddy seed was available with him and that it would yield 40 bags per acre.  Believing the representation of the opposite party, the complainant purchased three bags of paddy (76 Kgs per bag) for a total cost of Rs.3,000/-.  In the second week of June 2010 the complainant sowed the seed in his six acres of land bearing survey Nos.186, 205 and 264.  The complainant spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides.  Thirty days after the transplantation the complainant found unexpected growth of crop.  Than the complainant and other villagers approached the opposite party and he gave reply negligently.   The opposite party gave a false complaint against the complainant and other villages in Mahanandhi Police Station and it was registered as Crime No.146/2010.  The complainant informed about the crop loss to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Mahanandhi.  On 28-10-2010 the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Mahanandhi and Scientists of Acharya Ranga Agricultural University came to the fields of the complainant, inspected the crop and submitted report to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal.   The report of the scientists reveal that 50% off type plants.  The scientist in his report mentioned that 50% off type plants were observed in the fields.  The opposite party was also present at the time of inspection of the land by the MRO and Scientists.  The complainant requested the opposite party to pay compensation.  The complainant filed a Criminal case against the opposite party on the file of First Class Magistrate, Nandyal.  The said complaint was referred to Mahanandhi Police Station.  The policy registered a case against the complainant under section 420 I.P.C. etc in Crime No.15/2011.  Due to unfair trade practice of the opposite party the complainant sustained huge loss. Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite party is an agriculturist.  The agriculture department supplied the foundation seeds of 30 Kgs to each agriculturist.  In the year 2008 the complainant got 96% yield. The complainant mixed the seed with other variety of seed.  The other variety of seed suffered from bacterial leaf blight.   Due to the poor crop management the complainant got 50% of yield.  On 27-11-2010 the complainant and others beat the opposite party in a drunken condition. The survey numbers of the land are not mentioned in the inspection report dated 28-10-2010.  There was no total failure of the crop.  The complainant is not the owner of the land.   There is no proof that the complainant purchased the seeds from the opposite party.  The complainant filed the present complaint in order to gain wrongfully.    The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party of M.Pedda Rama Subbaiah are filed.  Pw1 and 2 are also examined Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are marked.  On behalf of the opposite party the sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.  No document is marked.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

(a)                Whether the seed supplied by the opposite party is adulterated?

(b)                Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(c)                 To what relief?

7.      POINTS 1 and 2:- Admittedly the complainant    and the opposite party are residents of U.Bollavaram Village and they are agriculturists.   It is the case of the complainant that in June 2010 he raised paddy crop in an extent of Six acre bearing survey Nos. 186, 205 and 264 of Bollavaram Village.  The complainant in support of his contention that he raised paddy crop in the said land during 2010 relied on Ex.A3 copy of the adangal.  In Ex.A3 it is mentioned that the complainant raised paddy crop in the said land during fasali 1420.  The complainant also filed Ex.A2 lease agreement.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party informed him that Kurnool Sona BPT 5204 variety paddy seed was available with him and that it would yield 40 bags per acre.  It is further case of the complainant that believing the representation of opposite party he purchased 3 bags of paddy seed form the opposite party for Rs.3,000/- and transplanted the same in his lease hold land.  Admittedly no receipt is filed by the complainant evidencing the purchase of paddy seed from the opposite party.   The complainant relied on Ex.A8 copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.146/2010 of Mahanandhi Police Station where in it is stated that the opposite party sold paddy seed to the complainant and some others.  The opposite party is the complainant in Crime No.146/2010.  

8.     It is the case of the complainant that the paddy seed purchased by him from the opposite party was adulterated, that he raised the paddy crop in his lease hold land by spending huge amount and that he incurred total loss.  The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that he raised crop and that the paddy seed supplied by the complainant was defective and spurious.  According to the complainant he along with other farmers gave a report to Mandal Agriculture Officer and that the Mandal Agriculture Officer along with Scientists visited land.  Pw1 who worked as Mandal Agriculture Officer, Mahanandhi during the relevant period in his evidence stated that the villages of U.Bollavaram gave a representation to A.D.R (R), Nandyal on 22-10-2010 and the said petition was entrusted to A.D.R Nandyal and that A.D.R. directed three Scientists to visit the fields of the villagers. He further stated that he along with Scientists visited the land in the presence of the opposite party.   

9.     The complainant to show that the paddy seed supplied by the opposite party was adulterated relied on the evidence of PW2.  PW2 who worked as a Scientist in RARS, Nandyal in his evidence stated that he along with Ashok Kumar and Viswanath visited the lands of the farmers of the U.Bollavaram village on 28-10-2010 and submitted Ex.X2 common report to A.D.R. Nandyal.  In Ex.X2 it is clearly mentioned that PW2 along with other scientists inspected the land of the complainant and four other farmers on 28-10-2010.  It is mentioned in Ex.X2 that the scientist found different crop growth stages like grain hardening to maturity stages.   PW2 in his evidence clearly stated that she observed 50% off type plants and said problem was an account admixture of seed.  In her cross examine she stated that off type plants found were JGL 1798 and other Nellore Varieties like NLR 34449 which are early duration than BPT 5204.  From the evidence of PW2 it is very clear that the paddy seed supplied by the opposite party was adulterated.  In Ex.X2 it is clearly mentioned that the scientist found 50% off type plants in the land.  The complainant did not place satisfactory evidence on record to show that there was total loss of crop.  PW2 in his evidence stated that the loss of yield might be about 50%.  The opposite party sold adulterated seed to the complainant by misrepresentation. 

10.    It is the case of the complainant that the normal yield would be about 30 Quintals per acre and that he got loss of 180 Quintals of paddy.  In Ex.A3 adangal there is no mention about the yield got by the complainant form the crop.  Normal yield would be around 20 Quintals per acre.  According to PW2 the scientist, the loss of yield might be about 50%.  The complainant must have suffered loss of 10 Quintals of paddy per acre.  The extent of land is six acre.  The total loss of the yield comes to 60 Quintals.  According to the complainant the rate of paddy per Quintal is Rs.1,050/-.  The complainant filed circular dated 26-10-2010of marketing where in the cost of the common variety of paddy is noted at Rs.1,000/- per quintal.  The complainant sustained loss of Rs.60,000/- (6X1,000).

 11.   In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order along with costs of Rs.500/-. 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 8^th day of November, 2011.

          Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

  MALE MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT

                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: PW 1&2             For the opposite party:Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Photos along with CD.

Ex.A2.       Lease Agreement dated 10-06-2010.

Ex.A3                Adangal of the complainant issued by V.R.O. Bollavaram

village, dated 12-01-2011.

Ex.A4        Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.15/2011, Mahanandi

                Police Station, dated 09-02-2011.

Ex.A5                  Photo copy of complaint filed on behalf of the complainant

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal, dated 14-02-2011.

Ex.A6                Photo copy of Charge Sheet in Crime No.146/2010

Mahanandi Police Station dated 28-12-2010.  

Ex.A7        Photo copy of Charge Sheet in CC No.75/2011

dated 14-02-2011.

Ex.A8        Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.146/2010 Mahanandhi Police Station dated 28-12-2010.

Ex.A9                Photo copy of Report of Assistant Director of Agriculture,

                Nandyal dated 09-12-2010.

Ex.A10       Photo copy of Inspection report of Achraya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Regional Agricultural Research Station, Nandyal, dated 28-10-2010.

Ex.X1         Photo copy of Farmers complaint dated 22-10-2010.

Ex.X2        Photo copy of Inspection Report of Scientist of Associate

Director of Research, RARS, Nandyal, dated 28-10-2010.

PW1         Deposition of C.Vijaya Sekhar dated 11-08-2011.

PW2         Deposition of N.K.Gayathri dated 11-08-2011.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill

          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               :