comBEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABADF.A.No. 668 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.21 OF 2005
DISTRICT FORUM KHAMMAM
Between:
Namdhari Seeds Private Ltd.,
Bidadi, Bangalore, Karnataka State-562109
Rep. by its Managing Director.
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. Obelineni Raghu S/o Veeraraju
Aged 30 years, occ: Agriculture
R/o Nellipaka Banjar,
Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam Dist.
Respondent/complainant
2. Sneha Marketing Agencies,
Opposite Andhra Bank,
Church Road, Bhadrachalam
Rep. by its Proprietor
(R2 is not a necessary party to the appeal)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 669 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.22 OF 2005
Between:
Namdhari Seeds Private Ltd.,
Bidadi, Bangalore, Karnataka State-562109
Rep. by its Managing Director.
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. Bethinedi Rama Krishna S/o late Subba Rao
Aged 45 years, occ: Agriculture
R/o Nellipaka Banjar, Awapuram Mandal
Khammam District
Respondent/complainant
2. Sneha Marketing Agencies,
Opposite Andhra Bank,
Church Road, Bhadrachalam
Rep. by its Proprietor
(R2 is not a necessary party to the appeal)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 670 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.23 OF 2005
Between:
Namdhari Seeds Private Ltd.,
Bidadi, Bangalore, Karnataka State-562109
Rep. by its Managing Director.
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
3. Oblineni Venkata Ramana S/o Veeraraju
Aged 34 years, occ: Agriculture
R/o Nellipaka Banjar, Awapuram Mandal
Khammam District
Respondent/complainant
4. Sneha Marketing Agencies,
Opposite Andhra Bank,
Church Road, Bhadrachalam
Rep. by its Proprietor
(R2 is not a necessary party to the appeal)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the appellant Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.1 Mr. Prabhakar
Counsel for the respondent No.2
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
THURSDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
These appeals F.A.No.668, 669 and 670 of 2006 are preferred by the same company on same grounds. As common question of law involved and facts of all the three appeals are identical, the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint.
F.A.No.669 of 2006
The facts leading to filing of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased on 19-07-2004 chilli seeds sold by the opposite party no.1 and manufactured by the opposite party no.2, for a consideration of Rs.1470/-. In the in the last week of July, the complainant had sown the chilli seeds in the land taken on lease in an extent of Ac.1-10gts comprised in survey number 898 and Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.817 and even after 3 months there was no growth of the plants. The plants had grown to a height of 4” to 5” but there was no flowering. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party no.1 who requested him to wait till the month of December, 2004. In the first week of January, 2005 some flowers could sprout of which few grew up to the size of one inch and they had also fallen on the ground. The complainant reported the matter to the Agricultural authorities. The agricultural extension officer inspected the field of the complainant and assured him that he would report the matter to his higher authorities. The opposite party no.1 promised the complainant that the yield would be 30 quintals per acre which comes to 45 quintals and which would fetch him a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.42,000/- for purchase of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers including the expenses for developing the land for raising the chilli crop. The complainant suffered loss and hardship due to the sale of defective seeds by the opposite parties.
The opposite parties resisted the claim by filing a common counter. It was contended that the complainant had not filed copy of pahani to show that he had cultivated the land on lease. The complainant purchased the seeds in 10 packets. The complainant had not followed the procedure and he had purchased only 10 packets of seeds instead of required 18 packets for an extent of Ac.1-20gts. The brochure had not given to understanding that the yield would be 45 quintals and that the complainant would get an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. The complainant had not followed the cultural and managerial practices. The complainant had also sown other variety of seeds to cover up the shortage of chilli seeds which were sown in the extent of Ac.1-20gts of the land. Had the complainant informed the opposite parties about the problem, they would have rectified it. The photos show cracks in the field indicating lack of irrigation facility. The advocate-commissioner and the agricultural officer visited the field on different occasions at the fag end stage of the crop. The crop suffered from high moisture stress and dominating weeds. At the time of the inspection of the crop by the team, the field condition (ground reality) did not confirm to the fact stated by the complainant that he had followed good managerial practice.
The agricultural officer did not follow regular practice of inspecting the crop by the random assessment of taking five counts upto 5.00 acres of 100 plants. The fruit lengths referred by Agricultural Officer and fruit number per plant and plant height are qualitative characters which are mainly influenced by the environment and agricultural inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, water and the managerial excellence. As per the Seed Act and MOU provisions of the Department of Agriculture, the company is responsible in regard to the 14 parameters inscribed on the seed packet. The opposite party no.2 had provided literature to all its dealers and distributors and organized demonstrations and farmer group meetings wherever its representatives visit the production areas.
The complainant had not followed package of practices prescribed. He had not used proper seed rate per acre. Under the MOU norms the Agricultural Officer should have entertained the complainant in the right time i.e., during 50% of the flowering. Since the opposite party no.2 company has entered into MOU with department of Agriculture it was the duty of the Agricultural Officer to proceed to register the complaint by submitting his report to the Joint Director of Agriculture and arranges the District MOU committee for inspection. The Agricultural Officer failed in his duty and advised the farmers to approach the Consumer Forum. The Committee had not visited the good plots where of NS 114 Chilli of the same lot was grown which are in the vicinity of the same District and Mandal of the complainant field. The Agricultural Officer in his report mentioned thirps attack to the crop. Since the thirps are the vectors of leaf virus and the complainant had not taken protection measure to control the insect problem.
Basing on the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum allowed the complaint awarding an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum and costs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the opposite party no.1.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Forum has not considered the seed rate per acre and incompetence of the Agriculture Officer to decide the quality of the seed and also the failure of the complainant in following proper managerial practices of chilli crop.
The points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is deficiency is service on the part of the opposite
parties?
ii) Whether the seeds sold by the opposite party no.1are spurious?
ii) To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?.
POINTS NO.1&2: The complainant has purchased 5 packets consisting 10grams each of NS 114 Namdhari variety chilli seed on 19-07-2004 from the opposite party no.1 and manufactured by the opposite party no.2 for a consideration of Rs.1,050/-. The complainant had claimed that he had sown the chilli seed in an extent of Ac.2-00gts in survey number 818. The opposite party no.2 claims that the complainant sown only 10 packets of chilli seeds as against required seed of 18 packets (each 10gm) for 1 ½ acres of land. The Agricultural Officer, Aswapuram Mandal has visited Nellipaka Banjar and inspected the field of the complainant and Obilineni Raghu. He has mentioned in his report that the area of the chilli sown as Ac.1.20gts. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the extent of the land in which the chilli sown by the complainant is Ac1-20gts.
In his affidavit, the complainant has stated that he has sown 100 gms of the chilli seed in his Ac1-20gts of land situated at Nellipaka Banjar Village and he has applied the fertilizers and pesticides at appropriate time. The receipts and cash bills issued by Sri Venkatrama Agricultural Agencies, Sneha Marketing Agencies, Vijaya Fertilizers, Pesticides & General Stores and Srinivasa Agricultural Agencies contain the names of Fertilizers and Pesticides purchased by the complainant on different dates. The complainant categorically stated that they were applied to the chilli crop at appropriate time. Hence, we find no force in the contention of the opposite party no.2 that the complainant has not used pesticides and Fertilizers for the protection of the crop.
The complainant and other farmers of Nellepaka Banjar village lodged complaint against the opposite parties before Agriculture Extenion Officer, Aswapuram stating that the crop chilli cultivated by them has not yielded as promised by the opposite party no.1 and requested to take action against the opposite party no.2 after inspecting their fields. The District Forum has appointed an Advocate Commissioner directing her with the help of Agricultural Officer, Ashwapuram to inspect the field of the complainant and the complainants in C.D.Nos.21 of 2005 and C.D.No.23 of 2005 who raised the crop in their filed at Nellipaka Banjar. The Agricultural Officer, Ashwapuram has submitted inspection report to the Commissioner wherein he has elaborately mentioned cultural practices adopted by the complainant and other farmers. It is mentioned in the report that the chilli crop was failed and the characters for the failure of the crop are i) reduction in the size of the Pod, ii) poor Pod setting and the pod dropping rate is high even without damage caused by insects, iii) only 2 to 3% original plant yield was seen. The estimated yield is only 3 to 4 quintals per acre. Further, the Agricultural Officer had given details of the number and size of the plants, number of the fruits and the method he adopted for assessment of the fruits.
The opposite parties have not denied the fact of poor yield and its is established that the opposite parties had the knowledge of the poor yield of the crop of the complainant and other farmers who raised cotton crop in their fields. The opposite party no.1 had inspected the field of the complainant and other farmers. The opposite party no.1 informed the complainant and other farmers that he would take the matter to the notice of opposite partyno.2. The opposite partyno.2 had not taken any action in this regard.
The news item in Eenadu daily shows that the complainant and other farmers who purchased the chilli seeds from the opposite party no.1 suffered poor yield and in spite of assurance given by the opposite party no.1 to rectify the problem, no such action was taken by the opposite party no.1 or the opposite party no.2. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Agricultural Officer was not competent to inspect the seed and assess the damage thereof. Before the lower forum no such objection was raised. Even otherwise, the Agricultural Officer is a technical person to evaluate the correct position in regard to the crop and its stage as was found by him in the fields of the complainant and other farmers such as the complainants in C.D.No.21 of 2005 and C.D.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the District Forum. Therefore, we do not find any reason for not accepting the competence of the Agricultural Officer to inspect the seed as to its quality. The counsel for the opposite partyno.2 could not explain how it affects the visit of the Agricultural Officer at fag end stage of the crop when he adopted technical and scientific method in assessing the number and height of the plants and the stage and also number of the fruits.
The learned counsel for the opposite partyno.2 submitted that in view of the provisions of Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the opposite party no.2 and the government, duty was cast on the Agricultural Officer whenever he receives a complaint complaining of poor yield by a farmer to register a complaint and constitute a committee to inspect the field of the farmer and in the absence of such steps being taken by the Agricultural Officer, the opposite party no.2 cannot be held liable. We do not agree with the contention since if there is any lapse on the part of the Agricultural Officer in terms of the MOU to which the complainant is not a party but only a beneficiary, it cannot jeopardize the claim of the complainant. Hence, the contention is devoid of any force.
POINT NO.3. The District Forum had discarded the cash bills and receipts filed by the complainant on the ground that they were filed at a belated stage. The District Forum has not assigned any reason for discarding the cash receipts simply brushing them aside for the mere reason that they were filed at the fag end stage of the case. It ought to have considered whether there was any sufficient ground for the complainant for not having filed them at an earlier point of time. The complainant had stated that he had incurred Rs.40,500/- towards expenditure for purchasing the seeds, pesticides and fertilizers including expenses to plough and develop the land in order to render it suitable for raising the chilli crop. The complainant has suffered loss and mental agony due to the spurious seeds supplied as also on account of deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties.
The complainant had purchased the Chili Seeds for consideration of Rs.1,050/-. The complainant had spent considerable amount in developing the land and for the purpose of the cultivation of the chilli seeds supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant has purchased fertilizers and pesticides and incurred considerable expenditure for sowing and cultivation of the chilli crop. The complainant has visited the opposite party no.1 and informed him the sad plight of the crop. The matter was also informed to the opposite party no.2, but to no avail. The complainant has to approach the Agricultural Extension Officer, Aswapuram. The complainant has suffered loss and mental agony on of the account of the defective seeds supplied and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
As per the report of the Agricultural Officer, Aswapuram the yield was only 2 to 3 quintals per hectare and the expected yield is 25 quintals and he estimated the loss to be at 21.16 quintals. However, the Agricultural Officer has not mentioned in his report the market value of the chilli crop at the relevant period. The District Forum had awarded a token sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant without showing on which basis it had come to estimate the loss that the complainant suffered and for not having shown the reason, the amount of Rs.60000/-as awarded by the District Forum does not stand to any scrutiny. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has fixed the market price of chilli at Rs.2,300/- per quintal during the months of March/April 2005. The complainant has sown the seed in Ac.1.20gunts of the land. Taking into consideration of the poor yield and also the yield that was obtained, we fix the price of the chilli at Rs.2,000/- per quintal and it comes to Rs.44,000/- ( 22quintals X Rs.2000/- ). Therefore, the order of the District Forum to the extent of the amount awarded is liable to be modified and the amount is liable to be scaled down from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.44,000/-. The rest of the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
In F.A.No.668 of 2006 and F.A.No.670 of 2006, the facts and circumstances are identical as those mentioned herein above except variation in the extent of the land, quantity of the seed and loss of the yield. Therefore, in view of the findings discussed above, the complainants in the above appeals are entitled to the relief in proportion to the extent of the loss of yield and accordingly the amount awarded as compensation is liable to be modified.
In the result the appeal F.A.No.669 of 2006 is allowed in part. The opposite party no.2 directed to pay Rs.44,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
F.A.No.668 of 2006 is partly allowed directing the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.42,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
F.A.No.670 of 2006 is partly allowed directing the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.44,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
PRESIDING MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.04.06.2009
