BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1112 of 2013 against CC 20/2012, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur
Between:
1) M/s. Ajeeth Seeds Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Regd. Office : 2nd Floor
Tapadiya Terraces
Adalat Road, Aurangabad
Maharashtra-431 001.
2) M/s. Sri Sairam Fertilizers
Rep. by its Proprietor
D.No. 1-18-B, College Road
Kadiri Town
Ananthapur Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite Parties
And
L. Madhusudhan Reddy
S/o. L. Gangi Reddy
D.No. 1-191,
Kondamanyaunipalyam Village
Kadiri Rural Mandal
Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. M. Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondent: Served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
***
MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
.
1) The Opposite Parties in CC 20/2012 before the Dist. Forum, Ananthapur are the appellants, and this appeal is directed against the order dt. 6.4.2013 in CC No. 20/2012 wherein the Dist. Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.2,250/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.1,500/- towards Commissioner’s fee, Rs.30,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2)_ Brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as follows. For the sake of brevity the parties are described as shown in the complaint.
The complainant is a resident of Kondamanayunipalyam Village of Kadiri Mandal, in Anantapur District. He is an agriculturist. Op1 is the dealer in seeds and fertilizers and Op2 is the manufacturer of Hybrid Maize Seeds. The complainant submits that being attracted by the advertisement etc., made by the opposite parties about high yield variety of hybrid maize seeds, he purchased three packets of Hybrid Maize Seeds manufactured by Op2 through Op1 for an amount of Rs. 2,550/- vide bill No. 97 dt. 25.1.2012. The complainant submits that he raised the maize seeds crop in Sy.No.83-2 in Ac.2.00 out of Acs.2.67 cents in his fields duly following the crop management practices by incurring an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. He alleges that after two and half months, he found that the crop did not yield as promised by the opposite parties. The crop was grown well, but there is no seed formation. On that he approached the Op1 and also Mandal Agricultural Officer to inspect the crop. On 18.4.2012 the MAO inspected the crop and opined that there is no formation of the crop. The complainant alleged that due to inferior quality of seeds the crop was failed. He has taken photographs of the standing crop. He submits that the entire land is fertile land and red soil irrigated by bore-well water and he has taken all the precautions as directed by Op1. Despite that he did not get the yield as promised by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of expenditure (Rs.15,000/- x Acs.2.00), Rs.70,000/- towards loss of one year crop (Rs.35,000/- x Ac.2.00), Rs.2,550/- towards cost of seeds and Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony in all Rs.2,52,550/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of seeds till the date of realization.
3) Op1 filed counter and the same is adopted by Op2. While denying the averments in the complaint, Op1 contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the maize crop is a commercial crop. There is no defect in the maize seeds supplied by them, and the defect lies with the farming practices adopted by the complainant. The yield of crop depends on many factors like fertility of the soil, irrigation facilities, farming practices, vagaries of nature etc., If all these conditions are conducive, the seed would yield a good crop. The yield does not solely depend on the quality of the seeds. In all the pamphlets published by Op2 the quality and expected results of the seeds are described with a caution which reads as under:
“The information furnished above is based on the study and experiments conducted at our research form. It has to be taken into account based on irrigation practices, soil type, usage of fertilizers, pest control measures, climate, farming practices etc., which are not in our control. The crop management practices are not under the control of the company and hence the farmers have to undertake the total responsibility.”
(3.1) Op1 submits that they have no control over the quality of seeds as they sold the sealed packets distributed by Op2 manufacturer. Hence, Op1 is not at all liable to pay any compensation.
(3.2) Op2 company has taken all the care in supplying quality seeds to the farming community. It has well developed laboratory and research facilities. Each and every lot of seeds undergoes strict quality control measures without which Op2 company could not have grown to such an extent. Op1 has sold many packets of seeds to a number of farmers and there is no complaint from any quarter. This clearly establishes that the complaint is filed with a malafide intention to defame the opposite parties. The Commissioner report along-with the photos would reveal that the soil is not black soil and it is saline soil, which is not congenial for a good crop. There was heavy growth of weeds throughout the field of the complainant. He has not taken minimum care to remove the weeds. A good farmer would never allow the weeds to crop up in his field. This clearly depicts that the complainant has not followed the normal farming practices. The crop was attacked with wilt disease, and the complainant has not taken even a semblance of care to prevent the spread of the wilt disease or curb the same with suitable pesticides and other suitable farming practices which led to absence of cob formation or defective cob formation. The complainant has to blame himself for the poor yield, and he did not use the required manure and fertilizers to cover up the salinity in the soil. Op1 denied that the complainant has spent Rs.15,000/- per acre for applying manure and pesticides for raising the crop. Op1 submits that even the Mandal Agricultural Officer, has not made any mention in his report about the poor quality of the seeds. In fact, he suggested for inspection by the Agricultural Scientists. The complainant has not taken any steps to conduct inspection by Agricultural Scientists which would have revealed defective forming practices, attack of wilt disease, growth of weeds and poor nature of soil etc.
(3.3) Op1 further stated that the complainant had not taken necessary care and precautions. They never promised 35 quintals of yield per acre and the claim made by the complainant is very high. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4) After hearing the learned counsel and also looking at the documents that were marked i.e., Exs. A1 to A6, B1 to B3 and C1 to C10, the Dist. Forum had come to the conclusion that the complainant had incurred loss because of defective seeds which were supplied by the opposite parties and thus allowing the complaint partly, directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,250/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.1,500/- towards Commissioner’s fee, Rs.30,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint as stated supra, and the same is assailed in this Commission.
5) Though the complainant is served, he has not chosen to put in his appearance. Heard Mr. M. Hari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties.
6) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties that there is no expert opinion to establish the fact that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective in nature. It is also his further submission that there is absolutely nothing on record to establish the fact that the complainant had incurred any loss and according to him, neither the Advocate Commissioner nor the Mandal Agricultural Officer estimated the crop loss.
7) May be, it is true that there is no expert opinion to establish that the seeds are defective in nature and the crop loss was not estimated, from a perusal of report of the Commissioner, it is clear that he visited the lands in question in an extent of Ac. 2.00 in Survey No. 83/2. There was maize crop and it was well grown up with flowers on the top but at the same time, the report clearly indicates that they are covered with weed and the same was wet. When he collected samples, he found the cobs without formation of any seed.
8) The report of Mandal Agricultural Officer which was marked as Ex. C10 states that during the course of inspection he observed that the yield of maize crop was not up to the mark as the cobs are very small.
9) From the above, it is clear that the crop was grown up to cobs without any seeds. Though it cannot be concluded that the seeds that were supplied by the opposite parties are defective but it did not produce the expected results. In those circumstances, it can be definitely inferred that there is loss. As the loss is neither estimated by the Commissioner nor by the Mandal Agricultural Officer who submitted his report, the Dist. Forum awarded damages of about Rs. 30,000/- i.e., (Rs. 15,000/- per acre x 2 acres).
In those circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the Dist. Forum is justified in awarding Rs.2,250/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.1,500/- towards Commissioner’s fee and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. The estimate with regard to crop loss is not proper, accordingly the loss is reduced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (@ Rs. 10,000/- per acre x 2 acres) . Excepting the said modification, in respect of crop loss, in all others aspects the order of the Dist. Forum is confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.
10) In the result this appeal is allowed in part directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards crop loss while confirming the rest of the order of the Dist. Forum. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
27/01/2014
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
