FA.No.487/2006  against  C.D.No.199/2004, District Forum,  Prakasam at Ongole.

Between:

M/s.Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.,

Rep. by it’s General Manager

7-C, Surya Towers, S.P.Road,

Secunderabad-500 003.                                                                  .Appellant/

Opp.party 1

And

1. Dasari Venkata Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 38 years.

2. Mupparaju Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 45 years.

3. Dasari Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Buchaiah, aged 68 years.

4. Mupparaju Singaiah, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 48 years.

5. Koniki Kotaiah, S/o.Brahmam, aged 25 years.

6. Dasari Lakshmi Narayana, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 28 years.

7. Janepogu Kotaiah, S/o.                           aged 42 years.

8. Changanti Venkatappaiah, S/o.Seetharamaiah, aged 33 years.

9. Mupparaju Malakondaiah, S/o.Bodenna, aged 50 years.

10.Mupparaju Anjaneyulu, S/o.Chalamaiah, aged 45 years.

11.Mupparaju Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Chalamaiah, aged 45 years.

12.Lakeenaboyina Yesudasu, S/o.China Kotaiah, aged 32 years.

13.Gurimitla Sudhakar, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 30 years.

14.Tumati Krishna Mohan, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 36 years.

15,Dharmavarapu Brahmaiah, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 30 years.

16.Dasari Mallaiah, S/o.Pangaiah, aged 48 years.

17.Bandaru Srinu, S/o.Kondaiah, aged 35 years.

18.Panakala Seshaiah, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 32 years.

19.Dasari Satyam, S/o.Seshaiah, aged 45 years.

20.Chatala Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venganna, aged 45 years.

21.Dasari Prasad, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 36 years.

22.Gali Venkateswarlu, S/o.Kotaiah, aged 33 years.

23.Gali Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Krishnanaih, aged 30 years. Respondents/

                                                                                                            Complainants

(All the respondents 1 to 23 are the residents of

  Ravipadu village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District)

24. M/s.Zuari Seeds Ltd.,

      805, 13^th A, Main Road, 80 ft Road,

      Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-64.

25. M/s.Prabhat Agri Bio Tech Ltd.,

      6-3-510/10, Opp:State Bank of Hyderabad,

      Punjagutta, Hyderabad-82.

26. M/s.Mahyco Seeds Ltd.,

      3-6-666, Street No.10, Himayathnagar,

      Hyderabad.

27. Rajamani Scientist, Breeder,

      A.R.S.Darsi, Darsi (PO)

      Prakasam District.

28. T.Vani Prasada Rao, ADA (PP)

     Office of Joint Director of Agriculture,

     Ongole, Prakasam District.

29. The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R)

       Ongole, Prakasam District.

30. P.V.Srinivasulu,

      Sri Bhavani Fertilizers & Pesticides,

      Podili, Prakasam District.

31. K.Audinarayana,

     Sri Veeranjaneya Seeds Depot,

     Podili, Prakasam District.

32. Y.Satyanarayana,

      Sri Venkateswara Coffee & General Stores,

      Podili, Prakasam District.

33. B.Subba Rao,

      Krishna Enterprises,

      Podili, Prakasam District.                                              Respondents.

(Respondents 21 to 33 are not necessary parties)

Counsel for the Appellant:Mr.D.Krishna Murthy                 : 

Counsel for the Respondents.M/s.J.Subba Rao.                .

QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.

AND

            SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Hon'ble Member.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ***

This is an appeal filed by opposite party No.1 one of the four producers/suppliers  of Bajra seed supplied to the complainants assailing the order of the District Forum that obviously went against it among other producers and suppliers of seed.

The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

The complainants 1 to 20 purchased seeds from the appellant/opposite party No.1 while complainant Nos.21 to 23 purchased seed from opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively.  The complainants claimed to have raised crops sowing those seeds by irrigating with all the inputs.  They hoped that there would be good results.  But to their utter disappointment, the seeds did not germinate and the germination was merely 4%.  As a result they sustained heavy loss.  This matter was taken to the notice of the Mandal Agricultural Officer who in turn sent a report to the Joint Director of Agriculture.  The Joint Director of Agriculture made an enquiry and found the seeds as inferior but fixed the compensation very low.  Aggrieved by the same, the complainants approached the Forum for appropriate compensation in the wake of deficiency in service on the part of the producers of the seed signified by poor germination of the seeds and the resultant loss not only in the output but also by way of incurring heavy expenditure required to raise the crop.

Opposite parties filed counters resisting the claims on various grounds including the mis-joinder of causes of action and also questioning the capability of the  Joint Director of Agriculture to give a finding on the quality of seeds  as also the compensation payable to the complainants.

In support of their case, the complainants filed affidavits and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A3.  On the other hand, the opposite parties also got filed affidavits  on their behalf.  They relied upon Exs.B1 to B18.

On a consideration of the evidence tendered by both sides, the District Forum found the producers of seeds guilty of deficiency in service manifest from the poor quality of germination and consequential output and awarded compensation computing it taking into account the acreage cultivated by each complainant, expenses at Rs.1,500/- per acre for ploughing etc., and seed cost etc., over and above the compensation fixed by the Joint Director of Agriculture at the rate of Rs.250/- per acre.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No.1 alone, being one of the producers of seed, filed this appeal contending inter alia that the order of the District Forum suffers from the infirmity of relying upon the flimsy evidence of the Revenue authorities holding that the seed was of poor quality.  In any view of the matter, the District Forum could have directed the producers only to pay the cost of the seed as after all the farmers were expected to sow all over again when the crop fails in germination in earlier stages.  It faulted the MOU committee also saying that it was not competent to spell out that the seed was of low quality etc. 

The only point that falls for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum in so far as it relates to the appellant/opposite party No.1, who alone filed this appeal.

It is sufficiently evident from the record that the present appellant supplied seeds only to complainants 1 to 20.  Therefore, the scope of this appeal has to be confined only to the adjudication of the dispute between complainants 1 to 20 on one hand and opposite party No.1 on the other.  The thrust of the argument of the appellant is that there was no reliable evidence to hold that the seed supplied was of poor quality.  Reliance placed upon the proceedings of the Joint Director was not only misconceived but also untenable it added.  But the fact remains that the proceedings of the Joint Director is the only authentic material to give an opinion about the quality of the seed as it was an opinion given by him on the basis of the reports he received and in course and in exercise of the administrative power he was endowed with.  So there should be no difficulty in accepting the finding of the Joint Director about the quality of the seeds and it cannot be faulted with as there is absolutely no evidence on record placed by the suppliers of seed that they complied with various provisions of the Seeds Act and the various layers of subordinate legislation under the provisions of Seeds Act.  No doubt they relied upon some documents marked as Exs.B1 to B18 but all those documents do not show any signs of these suppliers of seeds having subjected themselves to the governance of Law of Seeds.  So in the absence of any such superior evidence which is expected from the producers and suppliers of  seeds, a some what reasonable and authentic documents like the proceedings of the officials of agriculture department as Ex.A1 on one hand and Exs.B1 and B2 on the other are bound to prevail and stand out as eminently reasonable material for this Consumer Forum to rely uponand agree with the findings of the officials in the matter of identification pf the degree of purity of the seeds in question. 

Then the question that crops up is about the quantification of the compensation payable to the farmers that suffered in the hands of the producers.  In this regard it is incorrect to submit that the District Forum ought to have confined itself to the quantum of compensation granted by the Department of Agriculture in the proceedings referred to.  What all they decided was the compensation for the faulty seeds.  They did not take into account the other inputs  that had gone waste by the failure of crop as well.  The District Forum had taken into account those amounts as the  that expenditure that had gone waste in raising the crop on account of deficiency in the quality of seeds.  The poor quality of seed has direct nexus with the failure of crop.  So the District Forum was right in taking into consideration those amounts claimed by the complainants.  Thus we do not see any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

In view of the above findings, we do not see any merits in the appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.200/- to each of the contesting respondents namely complainants 1 to 20. Time for compliance with the order of the District Forum is six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

        The statutory deposit, if any, made by the appellant shall be transmitted to the District Forum concerned for disbursement in conformity with its orders as confirmed by this Commission.

                                                                                   MEMBER.                                                                     

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                                   Dated 25-6.2009