F.A.No.621/2006  against C.D.No.165/2001, Dist. Forum, Khammam. 

Between:

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds,

Company  Limited, Plot no.B-4,

Industrial Estate, Jalna-431 203.                           … Appellant/

                                                                           Opp.party no.2

              And

1.Pothuraju Srinivasa Rao,

   Son of Guruvaiah, Resident of Mulkalapalli,

   Dornakal Mandal,

   Warangal District.                                            … Respondent/

                                                                       Complainant

2. Krishna Sai Seeds & Agro

    Implements, Distributor: HIL

    (Pose) Kanchan Ganga Seeds,

    Indo American Hybrid Seeds,

    Ankur Seeds, Gandhi Chowk,

    Khammam-13.                                                        …Respondent/

                                                                           Opp.party no.1 

(Respondent no.2 is formal party to

this appeal).

 Counsel for the Appellant          :    Mr. Manu

Counsel for the Respondents       :   Mr. V.Srinivasa Rao

CORAM : SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER

                MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,

                                TWO THOUSAND NINE. 

        Oral Order (Per  Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                           ***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.165/2001 on the file of District Forum, Khammam , opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal.  

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased  5 packets of Mahyco F 1 Tejaswini Chilli seed

on 15.5.2001 from opposite party no.1 and sown the same   in his ½ acre of land.  He was expecting 20 quintals for half acre as per the  words of the opposite party.  But there was no germination at all. The complainant submits that the opposite party no.1 visited  his field and promised to inform the manufacturer but there was  no response. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000/- toward compensation  for 20 quintals @ Rs.4000/- per quintal .

        Opposite party no.2 filed written version denying that they never informed the complainant  that he would receive 40 quintals per acre i.e. 20 quintals for ½ acre  from his crop.   The complainant has not filed the land records as documentary proof for verification and also did not inform the date of sowing or method  of agricultural practices  and also they were not aware  as to whether sufficient moisture was present in the soil and the date of observation of the alleged non germination of the seed and whether  the complainant followed the proper crop management practices with respect to fertilizers, irrigation etc.  In case of nil germination farmer immediately re-ploughs the entire crop and takes another crop with the intention of not losing the particular season. They further contend that the complainant has failed to prove  that there was any defect in the said seed and also did not get it inspected by Seed Inspector and infact  on receipt of the complaint the staff of the opposite party visited the complainant’s field on 18.7.2001  and observed that the germination of seed was upto 30% and the nursery bed was heavily infested by weeds.   There was very poor crop management and seeds in question i.e. of lot no.KOO-61-14-KMP-892  were  tested in the laboratory prior to its marketing and germination percentage is as per the Indian Seed Certification standards and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.  Opposite parties submit  that the proper jurisdiction is with Civil court  as the matter  involves complicated question of fact and law  and hence prayed  to dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs.5000/-.

        Opposite party no.1 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the opposite party no.2.

Based on the evidence adduced and pleadings  put forward the Dist. Forum allowed the complaint in part directing he opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.10,000/-  with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 6.8.2001  along with costs of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order.  

        Aggrieved by the said order opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal . 

        The learned counsel for the appellant  also filed his written arguments.

The facts not in dispute  are that the complainant purchased 5 packets   of 10 gms each  of Chilli (MHP-1) seed  from the shop of opposite party no.1 vide bill no.36  dated 15.5.2000.  It is the case of the complainant that  the opposite parties  informed him that the yield would be 20 quintals per half acre and therefore he  had sown in half acre of his land but there was no germination. It is the case of  opposite party no.2  that the crop  is genetically pure and the  subject seed consisting of Thejaswini Chilli Seed was tested in Seed Testing Laboratory and it confirmed to the standards of the Government prescribed  Seeds Act,1966   and sub rules 1968. It is only the version of the opposite parties that the complainant has not followed proper crop management practices and their representative visited the complainant’s field on 18.7.2001  and observed that the germination of the seed was upto 30% and  the nursery bed was heavily infested by  weeds. With respect to the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has not followed proper crop management  practices, we are of the considered opinion  that they did not file any documentary proof in support of this  contention and hence we hold it unsustainable.  Moreover they themselves mentioned  in their counter and written arguments that the germination of seeds as per their personnel who visited the filed on 18.7.2001, is only 30%.  When the purchase of the seeds is not in dispute and the complaint given by the complainant  is also not in dispute and the visit of the opposite party staff  and their finding  that there was only 30% of germination is also not in dispute,  then the burden of proof shifts  to the opposite parties  to send the seed  for testing  as per  the decision of the Apex Court   in III  (1998)  CPJ  8  (SC)  in  MAHYCO v. ALAVALAPATI   CHANDRA REDDY AND   OTHERS    wherein  it   was   observed  that   when  the

seeds are not in possession of the complainant since it is assumed that they  have been  sown it is the duty of the opposite party to send the seed for testing.  Hence the contention of the opposite party that the complainant did not adhere  to Section 13 of Seeds Act is un sustainable.  Hence the burden of proof  shifts on the opposite parties to establish that the seed had no defect in them since they would be having batch number, date of production and the seeds from same batch to be sent to the laboratory.  Apart from baldly stating that the seeds have been  tested prior to sale opposite parties have not filed any test report in support of their  contention. When the opposite parties themselves  have admitted that the germination of seeds is only 30%  we do not see any other reason for interfering with the well considered order of the District Forum which awarded reasonable compensation of 10,000/- towards the crop loss.

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.  

                                                                                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                MEMBER

                                                                Dt.17.8.2009