P.Venkata Ramana,

S/o Venkateswarlu,

R/o H.No.4/148,

U.Bollavaram Village,

Mahanandi Mandal,

Kurnool District – 518 812.                         …Complainant

                                              -Vs-     

Kanta Kantha Rao,

S/o Chinna Nandaiah,

R/o H.No.2/8,

U.Bollavaram Village,

Mahanandi Mandal,

Kurnool District.                                   …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.43/2011

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.3,34,000/- 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 two bags of paddy (76 Kgs per bag) for a total cost of Rs.2,000/-.  In the second week of June 2010 the complainant sowed the seed in his 8 acres of land bearing survey Nos.185, 201, 353, 349 and 350.  The complainant spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- 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 reveals 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 A14 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 in an extent of 8 acre bearing survey Nos.185, 201, 353, 349 and 350 of Bollavaram Village.  The complainant in support of his contention that he raised paddy crop in the said land during 2010 relied on Ex.A6 copy of the adangal.  In Ex.A6 it is mentioned that the complainant raised paddy crop in the said land during fasali 1420.  The complainant also filed Exs.A4 and A5 lease agreements.  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 2 bags of paddy seed form the opposite party for Rs.2,000/- 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.A14 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 the 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 the 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 lands of five farmers on 28-10-2010.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that PW1 and PW2 did not visit the land of the complainant on 28-10-2010 and that the evidence of PW1 and 2 that the land of the complainant was visited by them cannot be believed.  Ex.X2 is the report of the scientists.  In Ex.X2 it is mentioned that PW2 and other scientist visited the land of the (1) Pesarai Ramanaiah, S/o Sheshanna (2) Laaka Ramulu, S/o Balaiah (3) P.Ramdu, S/o Chinnajamaalaiah (4) B.Laxminarayana, S/o B/Venkateswaralu (5) Neeli Sreenivasulu, S/o Pedda Pullaiah.  There is no mention in Ex.X2 that the land of P.Venkata Ramana who is the complainant was also visited by the scientist on 28-10-2010.  No doubt PW2 in her cross examine denyed the suggestion that they visited lands of five farmers only whose names are mentioned in the Ex.X2.  In Ex.X2 the survey Nos of the land that visited by the scientist are not at all mentioned.  Had the scientists visited the land of the complainant on 28-10-2010 they would have mentioned the name of the complainant also in the report Ex.X2.  The name of the complainant does not find place in Ex.2.   In the absence of the documentary evidence, the oral evidence of PW1 and 2 that the land of the complainant was also visited by them on 28-10-2010 cannot be believed. 

10.    The complainant filed Ex.A6 copy of Adangal issued by V.R.O. Bollavaram Village.  In the said adangal it is mentioned that the complainant raised paddy crop in the land during faseli 1420.  There is no mention in Ex.A6 that there was total crop loss.    Except the oral evidence of the complainant and third party affidavit evidence there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that there was total failure of crop in the land of the complainant during faseli 1420.  There is no mention in Ex.X2 report of the scientist that the visited the land of the complainant and found 50% off type plants.  In the absence of expert evidence it cannot be concluded that the paddy seed sold by the opposite party to the complainant was adulterated.  In the absence of the satisfactory evidence that the paddy seed sold by the opposite party to the complainant was adulterated, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. 

 11.   In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

        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.       A bunch of Purchase bills (No.7).

Ex.A3         Photo copy of pattadar Pass Books No.357 and 173.

Ex.A4         Lease Agreement dated 01-06-2009.

Ex.A5         Lease Agreement dated 01-06-2009.

Ex.A6         Adangal of the complainant issued by V.R.O. Bollavaram village, dated 12-01-2011.

Ex.A7         Photo copy of Sakshi Daily News Paper Nandyal Edition dated 29-10-2010.      

Ex.A8         Photo copy of Sakshi Daily News Paper Nandyal Edition dated 23-10-2010.

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.A11       Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.15/2011, Mahanandi Police Station, dated 09-02-2011.

Ex.A12       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.A13       Photo copy of Charge Sheet in Crime No.146/2010 Mahanandi Police Station dated 28-12-2010.

Ex.A14       Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.146/2010 Mahanandi Police Station dated 28-12-2010.

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               :