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

F.A.  1463/2008 against C.C.  289/2007,  Dist. Forum, Vijayawada.

Between:

Green Gold Seeds,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Kona Surya Prakash,

S/o. Madan Gopal,R/o. Vadali Village

Penukonda Mandal, W. Godavari Dist.        ***                          Appellant/Op1

And

1)  Chilukuri Subba Reddy

S/o. Chenna Reddy

R/o. 4-122A,  New Repudi Village

A. Konduru  Mandal

Krishna Dist.       

2)  Gade Srinivasa Rao,

S/o. Lakshmiah

D. No. 2-43/1, Taliadeverapalli (V)

Vissannapet Mandal.

3)   Ryala Venu, S/o. Seshagiri Rao

D. No. 2-43/1, Taliadeverapalli (V)

Vissannapet Mandal.

4)  Rayala Bhaskara Rao

S/o. Gopaiah, D.No. 2-75

Taliadeverapalli (V)

Vissannapet Mandal.

5)  Nekkalapu Satyanarayana

S/o. Tannaiah, D.No. 1-53

Korlamandu Village,

Vissannapet Mandal.

6)  Nadendla Rama Krishna

S/o. Seetharamaiah

D.No. 3-129/1, Srirampuram Village

Reddigudem Mandal

7)  Vangala Krishna Rao

@ Venugopala Swamy

S/o. Lakshmaiah

Srirampuram Village

Reddigudem Mandal

8)  Veeramalla Muttaiah

S/o. Venkata Ratnam

D.No. 3-188/A,

Srirampuram Village

Reddigudem Mandal

9)  Chapi Satyanarayana

S/o. Naraiah,

R/o.  Srirampuram Village

Reddigudem Mandal

10)   Chava Krishnaiah,

S/o.  Satyanarayana

R/o. Khambampadu Village

A. Konduru Mandal

Krishna Dist.

11)     Korukonda Ram Babu

S/o. Adinarayana,

Telladevarapalli Village

Vissannapet Mandal.                                  ***                         Respondents/

Complainants

12)  Venkata Krishna Seeds

Rep. by its Proprietor

Samineni Venkata Krishna Rao

D.No. 8-244, Tiruvuru Road

Vissannapet-521 235.

13)  Venkata Sai Seeds & General Stores

Rep. by its Proprietor

Nalla Sai Prasad, Near RTC Bus-stand

Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist.                              ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 2 & 3.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s.  M. Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  J. Ramesh Babu

                                                                   M/s. Srinivasa Rao V. (Ops 2 &3)

CORAM:

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

                                                                   &

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
                                                         

MONDAY,  THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

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

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by R1 manufacturer of the seeds against the order of the Dist.  Forum directing it to pay compensation and costs to various farmers. 

2)                 The case of the complainants 11 in number in brief is that   they are agriculturists  and own lands.    While  complainant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 purchased paddy seeds MTU 1061  Green Gold Seeds  manufactured by the appellant  from its distributor  R2  while complainant No. 5 purchased from its distributor R3 at  Rs. 420/- per Kg.,   during the period from 30.6.2007 to  28.9.2007.    After the said seed had sprouted,  they  transplanted, however it did not yield as guaranteed viz.,  35  quintals of  paddy within a period of 150 days.    The   crop   was   failed   as   they   were  adulterated,  and   spurious.   

Despite the fact that they had informed to them they did not respond.    On that they reported the matter to the agricultural  officers who had inspected the fields and found the seeds were defective.  Therefore they claimed Rs. 7,820/- towards expenses spent for fertilizers and pesticides, Rs. 10,000/-  towards loss sustained by them, Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

3)                 The appellant manufacturer resisted the case.    It denied that it  has  received  information from the complainants about the purchase of seeds and the fact that crops were failed.    It is a recognized seed producer approved by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, and other allied institutions on the license given by the agricultural department.    It had followed the prescribed procedure viz., indenting breeder or foundation seeds, providing  seeds to the seed producer, and under its guidance seed production being taken  place in specific lands.    As per the specifications of the government seed processing was made in the plant which was inspected by the agricultural authorities.    Therefore there was no chance of selling inferior quality.  It was not responsible for any loss caused to the complainants.    The complainants did not get the seeds tested.   The complainants did not produce the bags or produce necessary sample seeds.  The extent of land and the seeds purchased by the complainants were not being tallied.    It is not known as to the fertilizers and the pesticides that were used.    There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                 R2 & R3 the dealers while admitting that they had sold the seeds manufactured by R1 to the complainants, however alleged that  complainants never made any complaint as to the genuineness in seeds.    They have verbatim copied the allegations made by the appellant manufacturer in regard to rest of allegations.    

5)                 The complainants in proof of their case examined PWs 1 to 4 got Exs. A1 to A4 marked while the opposite parties filed their affidavit evidence and that of RWs 2 to 5 and got Exs. B1 to B8 marked. 

6)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants could establish that they had purchased  the seeds MTU 1061 manufactured by appellant evidenced under receipts and that the agricultural officers who inspected the fields opined that they did not relate the characteristics of the seeds notified under MTU 1061, and therefore they were defective.  In the light of report of agricultural officers Ex. A4 the Dist. Forum opined that they had sustained loss and granted Rs. 3,000/- per acre besides costs of Rs. 2,000/- each. 

7)                 Aggrieved by the said decision, the manufacturer (R1) preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have considered the evidence of CWs 1 to 4 who deposed that they had not collected sample seeds to test the genuineness of the seeds.   It did not consider exhibits ‘B’ series filed by them.    The complainants did  not file revenue records to show the loss of crop nor produce  batch  or tag  numbers.  Even the report of the agricultural officers did not show that they had in fact visited the fields of the complainants.    Therefore their report cannot be the basis for awarding compensation. 

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 complainants had purchased paddy seeds MTU-1061 manufactured by appellant evidenced from their own registers Exs. B3 & B4.    In fact they had purchased the seed from Acharya N.G.  Ranga Agricultural University vide Ex. B1.    It might be that they had submitted these registers to the agricultural officers who certified under Exs. B7 & B8.    Nether R2 nor R3 distributors had disputed about the genuineness of  these bills filed by the complainants.      No doubt   in some of the bills batch numbers  vary.  They bear  No.  7778 and 6668.    The fact remains that in all these receipts the seed pertains to MTU-1061 was made a mention.   The complainants  filed   Ex. A4  certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer.  In it  details of the lands owned by them   and its S.No.,   quantity of seeds  sown and the loss of crop sustained by them were mentioned.   They also filed the  inspection report of  Scientists  Sri K.  Nagendra Rao,  Scientist (Plant Breeding),  Agricultural  Research Station, Machilipatnam,  Dr. K. Prasada Rao, Senior Scientist (Br) &  Head  Sugarcane Research Station, Vyyuru and KSV Prasad, ADA (PP), Office of JDA, Machilipatnam,  Asst. Director of Agriculture and Agricultural Officer,  Tiruvulur.  They have categorically mentioned that  “they have visited the early flowered  paddy  fields at  Tiruvuru Mandal  &  Jayalakshmipuram village of Vemsur Mandal  of Khammam Dist and noted :

          “Based on the characters  studied, the variety grown  in the farmers fields  of the inspected villages  of Tiruvuru Mandal  is not the notified  paddy variety MTU -1061  (Indra)  which was released by  the State variety release committee.”  They have compared the variety grown by the farmers with that of the notified variety of MTU -1061.  For benefit we reproduce the table. 

10)               At this juncture  it may  be stated that  despite the fact that a report of experts was filed  the appellant/manufacturer did not file  the test reports  before its release of  seeds into the market.  It did not file any  of the test reports  furnished by the  seeds testing laboratory.    The complainants examined   CW1 Smt.  A. Chamundeshwari,  Mandal Agricultural Officer.    She categorically stated that  that the crops raised  in the fields of the complainants were  of  premature  and that variety  is not of MTU-1061.   When questioned she  admitted that she did not  mention the date of inspection to the fields.    She did not take any soil for testing.    She denied the suggestion that  she issued the certificate  without proper verification.     Same is the evidence of  CW2  Y.  Prakash Rao,  Village Revenue Officer.    No doubt he stated that  he was not having  scientific knowledge about the seeds.    He did not prepare any inspection report.     CW3   Ch. Venkateswara Rao,   is the Villager Revenue Officer, Madavaram and also working as In-charge VRO of Repudi village .   CW4  B. Murali Kishore is  the  Agricultural Officer.  He categorically stated that scientists also  visited the fields  and submitted their report and  based on their  report  he issued certificate Ex. A4.    Some questions were put  whether he had  conducted any   soil test etc., for which he stated he did not conduct  any test.   He admitted that  he did not issue any notice before  inspecting the crop.   

11)              The fact remains that  evidence of these witnesses  in the light of Ex. A2  proves beyond doubt  that  the seeds  manufactured by the appellant did not conform to the characteristics  of  the notified variety of MTU-1061.   When the complainants could prove  that they had  purchased  the seeds manufactured by the appellant,   and when the scientists  have  categorically opined that  they do not have the characteristics  of notified variety,  it is  for the appellant to prove that the seeds that were released into the market  were actually certified by the  certificate agency.    Producing their  own registers  or vouchers would  in no way prove that the very same seeds were sold to the complainants through  R2 & R3. 

12)              The Hon’ble Supreme Court  after taking congnizance  of these factors  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……”

13)              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.

“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."

14)               In the light of  Ex. A2 report  of the scientists, we are of the opinion that  seeds that were sold do not conform  to the characteristics of  notified MTU-1061.    Therefore they are spurious.    The complainants had sustained loss.  Since the complainants could not prove the  amounts  that were spent towards fertilizers or pesticides, the Dist. Forum after considering the yield that one would anticipate  granted  Rs. 3,000/- per  acre which cannot be said to be  high.    It is modest and reasonable.    Therefore we do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Dist. Forum.    We do not see any merits in the appeal.

15)               In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/- Time for compliance four weeks.   

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  24. 01.  2011.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”