Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

CC 50 OF 2012

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of crop on account of supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is having Ac.4.00 of wet land in Kunkalakunta Village of Nakarikal Mandal, Guntur district.   The complainant on           21-07-09 purchased three bags of paddy seeds of NLR 34449 variety from the 1^st opposite party and sowed them in his land.   The complainant incurred Rs.20,000/- per acre.   Normal yield per acre could be 40 bags.   The complainant is cultivating lands since 20 years and is thus aware of agricultural procedures.  The complainant took all precautions by applying fertilizers for proper development of crop. The complainant was able to realize two bags per acre inspite of all precautions.   The complainant and other ryots sustained huge loss due to defect in the paddy seeds of NLR 34449 variety. The complainant and some other ryots on 21-01-10 made a representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur regarding crop failure.   The Principle Scientist, Rice Research Unit, Bapatla gave a report stating that the plants were not confirming to the variety of NLR 34449.   The complainant thus sustained Rs.20,000/- per acre.  The opposite parties did not compensate the complainant.   The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service on account of supply of defective seeds.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

4.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

          The 2^nd opposite party is a corporate body and governed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.   The 2^nd opposite party after getting the seeds analysed in their quality control laboratory will supply to the farmers with a subsidy of 50%.   The complainant purchased the seed of paddy NLR 34449 variety from the 1^st opposite party supplied by the 2^nd opposite party.   The variety of paddy NLR 34449 was supplied to 240 farmers on subsidy.   The 2^nd opposite party did not receive any complaint from other farmers.   The variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed.   But it may be due to other factors including water quality or irrigation facility, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture condition at the time of sowing and physical condition of soil.   The complainant did not follow the above methods strictly for getting fruitful result.   The complainant did not produce documentary proof regarding yielding capacity of his land.   As per the inspection report dated 22-02-10 the complainant did not sow the above said variety in his field.   There was no proof that the complainant sowed NLR 34449 variety paddy in his filed.   The complaint is ill conceived.  The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.   

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of complainant and 2^nd opposite party respectively.

CC 51 OF 2012

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of crop on account of supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties and for costs.

6.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is having Ac.4.00 of wet land in Kunkalakunta Village of Nakarikal Mandal, Guntur district.   The complainant on           21-07-09 purchased three bags of paddy seeds of NLR 34449 variety from the 1^st opposite party and sowed them in his land.   The complainant incurred Rs.20,000/- per acre.   Normal yield per acre could be 40 bags.   The complainant is cultivating lands since 20 years and is thus aware of agricultural procedures.  The complainant took all precautions by applying fertilizers for proper development of crop. The complainant was able to realize two bags per acre inspite of all precautions.   The complainant and other ryots sustained huge loss due to defect in the paddy seeds of NLR 34449 variety. The complainant and some other ryots on 21-01-10 made a representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur regarding crop failure.   The Principle Scientist, Rice Research Unit, Bapatla gave a report stating that the plants were not confirming to the variety of NLR 34449.   The complainant thus sustained Rs.20,000/- per acre.  The opposite parties did not compensate the complainant.   The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service on account of supply of defective seeds.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

7.   The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

8.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

          The 2^nd opposite party is a corporate body and governed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.   The 2^nd opposite party after getting the seeds analysed in their quality control laboratory will supply to the farmers with a subsidy of 50%.   The complainant purchased the seed of paddy NLR 34449 variety from the 1^st opposite party supplied by the 2^nd opposite party.   The variety of paddy NLR 34449 was supplied to 240 farmers on subsidy.   The 2^nd opposite party did not receive any complaint from other farmers.   The variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed.   But it may be due to other factors including water quality or irrigation facility, long dry spell, salt accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture condition at the time of sowing and physical condition of soil.   The complainant did not follow the above methods strictly for getting fruitful result.   The complainant did not produce documentary proof regarding yielding capacity of his land.   As per the inspection report dated 22-02-10 the complainant did not sow the above said variety in her field.   There was no proof that the complainant sowed NLR 34449 variety paddy in her filed.   The complaint is ill conceived.  The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.  

9.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of complainant and 2^nd opposite party respectively.

10.   Now the points that arose for consideration in both the cases are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

11.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant purchased three bags of paddy seed on  21-07-09 from the 1^st opposite party (Ex.A-1).

1. The complainant and three others on 21-01-10 gave a representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur for inspection of their lands (Ex.A-2).

1. A team of scientists visited the filed of Kolli Venkateswarlu s/o Saidaiah and others on 27-01-10 and submitted a report to the Associate Director, Research, Lam Farm (Ex.A-3).

1. The 2^nd opposite party supplied the seeds to the 1^st opposite party.

12.  POINT No.1:-    Each of the complainant in CC 50 of 2012 and           CC 51 of 2012 have purchased 3 bags of paddy weighing 30 kgs each on 21-07-09 from the 1^st opposite party.   The complainants in CC 50 of 2012 and CC 51 of 2012, Kakarla Joji Babu and Shaik Sattar gave Ex.A-2 representation to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur regarding the condition of crop. In Ex.A-2 representation dated           21-01-10 it was mentioned that the complainants sowed the paddy seed purchased under Ex.A-1 in their lands of Ac.4.00 each, Kakarla Joji Babu in an extent of Ac.1.00 and Shaik Sattar in an extent of                    Ac.0-50 cents.   

13.  Ex.B-2 certificate dated 29-08-12 (issued by the 2^nd opposite party) revealed that 30 kgs of paddy seed is sufficient to raise paddy in one acre.  But in Ex.A-1 the area recommended was five acres or two hectares for the paddy seed purchased under it.   Therefore the contention of the complainant that the paddy purchased under Ex.A-1 was sufficient to raise in his/her land is more probable and stands to reason.  

14.  The complainants relied on the decision reported in National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy and another (2012 (3) ALD 136 (SC) wherein it was held:

        “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 there under and other legislations, like, 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. 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.

        “36. 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, 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.  To substantiate their contentions the complainant relied on       Ex.A-3 report of experts.   One Dr. Ch. Pulla Rao, Principle Scientist (Agro) and head Smt N. Chamundeswari, Scientist (Br), Rice Unit, Bapatla along with other departmental officials on 27-01-10 visited the fields of the persons belonging to residents of Kunkalakunta village, Nakarikalu Mandal (who made representation) and opined the following:

“The duration of the crop as on 27-01-10 was           100-105 days.  On an average there were only                  5-6 plants/m² (15-20%) which are normal and similar to that of characters of NLR 34449.  Among the remaining plants (80-85%), some plants are stunted in growth and dried completely; some plants did not attain even the panicle emergence and dried; in some plants, panicles are emerged partially and infested with severe neck blast and completely dried.   These plants are not confirming to the varietal characteristics of NLR 34449”.   

16.   To rebut the same, the opposite parties did not file the sample seed covered by Ex.A-1 and make efforts to send them for analysis.   The 3^rd party affidavits filed by both parties in our considered opinion is of no assistance to the Forum as they were not filed at the earliest stage along with the complaint/version and respective parties pleaded as concocted and forged.   Under those circumstances placing reliance on Ex.A-3 expert report is just and proper in our considered opinion.   In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the opposite parties we hold that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties under Ex.A-1 are defective.   Supplying defective seeds amount to deficiency of service.  We therefore answer this point against the opposite parties.

17.  POINT No.2:- The complainants claimed Rs.20,000/- per acre as expenses for raising paddy.     The complainants filed Ex.A-4 certificate dated 23-02-10 issued by VRO stating that the complainants possessed four acres each in Kunkalakunta village.   The opposite parties in their version specifically have not denied the extent of land held by the complainants or the expenditure per acre.  Therefore the amount mentioned by the complainants as expenditure for raising paddy is just and proper.  We therefore award Rs.20,000/- each per acre to the complainants in both the complaints.  The opposite parties are also under an obligation to return the amount paid under Ex.A-1.   We therefore answer this accordingly against the opposite parties.

18.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaints are allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,386/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred and eighty six only) (being the cost of the seed under Ex.A-1) to the complainants each.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the complainants together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realization.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainants.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 5^th  day of September, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party: 

              PRESIDENT