BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 765/2008  against C.C. 252/2007,  Dist. Forum, Vijayawada       

Between:

1)  Syngenta India Ltd.

Rep. by its Sales Manager

B. Suresh Babu

Seeds Division, Seeds Home

1170/1/27, Revenue Colony

Shivajinagar, Pune

Having Regd. Office  at

Royal Insurance Building

Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020.

2)  Durga Bhavani Seeds

Rep. by its Proprietor

P.B.Srinivas

D.No. 27-3221, Rajagopala Chary Street

Vijayawada-2.                                             ***                           Appellants/

            Ops 1 & 2.

                                                                   And    

N. Satyanarayana, S/o. Seetaiah

R/o.  Yandapalli, Chintalapudi Mandal

West Godavari  Dist.                                   ***                         Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s. V. Ravindranath Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  Sreenivasa Rao V.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

    &

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, the manufacturer and distributor of the seeds respectively  against the order of the Dist. Forum  directing them to pay Rs. 40,000/- towards crop loss besides  Rs. 2,400/- towards cost seed together with costs.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he  purchased four bags of  sun flower sunbred-275 variety seeds  from Op1  on  28.11.2005 manufactured by Op2  each bag weighing  2 Kgs.   When they have sown on  5.12.2005  in an extent of  Ac. 4.00  despite usage of fertilizers, pesticides etc. there was no germination nor raised into seedlings.    The concerned  officials  after physical verification had issued a certificate that due to sub-standard quality of seed there was no germination of seedlings.    Alleging that it constitutes deficiency in service he claimed Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.

3)                The dealer Op1  while admitting that the complainant  had purchased  the sun flower  seeds manufactured by Op2 suspected that  the complainant had not taken all the measures required for raising the crop.    It had sold the very same seed  in the same batch to various farmers  and none of them had complained.      The complainant in order to make money  made a false allegation, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                Op2  manufacturer  filed a memo adopting the written version  filed by Op1.

5)                 The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence  and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked, while  Op1 filed   his affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1  to B4 marked.

6)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the purchase of seeds by the complainant was not in dispute  and equally inspection by  the Mandal Agricultural Officer.   He had given certificate stating that the quality of seed was  sub-standard, and therefore awarded  Rs. 40,000/- towards crop loss besides cost of seeds and costs.

7)                Aggrieved by the said decision, opposite parties 1 & 2   manufacturer as well as dealer preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either  the facts  or law in correct perspective.   It ought to have seen that  he could not show  the land in which he has sown the seeds was  suitable and that he had taken all  precautions.    In fact  they  had sold the very same seed  to various farmers  evident from Exs. B1 to B4, and that they would show that there was no defect in the seeds.    There was no intimation from any of the officials who had  inspected the crop, and therefore certificates Exs. A2 & A3  ought not to have been relied.    This fact was not mentioned in  the notice Ex. A4  dt. 5.2.2006, and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

8)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased sun flower seeds from dealer R1  on  28.11.2005 after paying cost of seeds evidenced under  Ex. A1.    He owns   Ac. 2.36 2.36  in S.No. 120 and  Ac.1.64 cents in  S.No. 109.6.  In order to prove that the seeds that were sown  by him did not germinate  filed Ex. A3 certificate issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chintalpudi.   The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the shell life  of the seeds was expired and therefore  they had lost the opportunity  to send it to an expert.  If that were to be so, it could have filed test analysis reports taken under  the provisions of Seed Act before releasing it to the market.  Simple denial of facts would not throw burden of  proof on other side, more so when he filed an expert evidence of agricultural officer.    The  agricultural officer had categorically stated that non-germination was due to  sub-standard seed supplied by the company.   When the complainant  had stated this fact  in his complaint, the appellant did not try to send it to analysis in order to show that the seeds were not defective.    Apart from it,   the complainant had proved that the land was suitable for raising the  sun flower crop.  He had proved that he had  used fertilizers, pesticides etc., and that there was  sufficient water  for raising the crop.   

10)              It may be stated herein that the appellant did not  file the  packet containing the specifications or label  as mandated under  Rule 14 of the Seeds Act.    Undoubtedly  the appellant must have the samples of seeds  analysed in a laboratory as ordained under Rule 21 of the Seeds Act.    It could have filed reports of various specifications in order to find out as to the exact analysis  made by the seeds  analyst.    The contention that the complainant did not invoke Section 13 © of the C.P. Act  for sending it to a laboratory  is no longer available in the light of decision of  Hon’ble Supreme Court in  M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Alavalapati  Chandra Reddy reported in  III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC)   upheld the report of the Agricultural officer  when he held  that the seeds were defective.  They approved the opinion of the Agricultural Officer by stating:

“In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory……”

11)              Subsequently in  H.N. Shankara Sastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka reported in II (2004) CPJ 37 (SC)  the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Dist. Forum when it directed  the manufacturer  to refund the price of paddy seeds besides damages and costs.  Quoting with approval the law laid down in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)  it was  held:

“The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, `a network of rackets' or a society in which, producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot."

12)              The certificate issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer  has to be taken as ex-facie evidence when no effort was made by the seeds company to prove that seeds were  in conformity with all standards by filing a certificate obtained from a competent authority before releasing the seeds to the market as per the Seeds Act.   When the  appellant could not file any document in order to refute the evidence of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the Dist. forum was right in awarding compensation.  We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum  in this regard.   We do not see any merits in the appeal.

13)               In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 3,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  20. 12.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”