BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. B.Yerukulamma W/o Obul Reddy
Aged 61 years, Agriculturist
Kampasamudram Village, Marripadu
Mandal Nellore District
2. Ch.Dasaradharami Reddy
S/o Venkat Reddy aged 72 years,
Agriculturist, Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
3. Ch.Sreedhar Reddy
S/o Ch.Dasaradharami Reddy
Aged 44 years, Agriculturist
Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
4. P.Sudhakar S/o Krishnaiah
Aged 46 years, Agriculturist
Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
5. B.Sivakumar S/o Obul Reddy
Aged about 36 years, Agriculturist
Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
Respondents/complainants
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. N.C.Venkataiah S/o Nagaiah
Aged 70years, Agriculturist
Budawada Village, Marripadu
Mandal Nellore District
2. D.Sudhakar S/o Naraiah
Aged 36 years, Agriculturist,
Budawada Village, Marripadu
Mandal Nellore District
3. K.Subba Reddy S/o Veera Reddy
Aged 31 years, Agirculturist
Kampasamudram Village,
Marripadu Mandal
Nellore District
Respondents/complainants
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
N.Chinnaiah S/o Pitchaiah
Aged 39 years, Agriculturist
Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
Respondent/complainant
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. M.Bharathamma W/o Lakshmi Reddy
aged 44 years, Agriculturist
2. P.Polaiah S/o Venkateshwarlu
aged about 45 years, Agriculturist
3. M.V.Subba Reddy S/o Subba Reddy
Aged about 55 years, Agriculturist
4. M.Lakshmi Reddy S/o Subba Reddy
Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist
5. M.Subbaiah S/o Narasiah
aged about 78 years, Agriculturist
6. M.lakshmamma W/o Subbareddy
Aged 60 years, Agriculturist
7. M.Chenchu Rami Reddy S/o Lakshmi Reddy
aged 48years, Agriculturist
8. N.Chennaiah S/o Ramaiah
Aged 44 years, Agriculturist
(All are R/o Kampasamudram Village, Maripadu
Mandal, Nellore District)
Respondent/complainant
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
M.Lakshmi Reddy S/o Subba Reddy
Aged 48 years, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District
Respondent/complainant
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
M.Chinnaka W/o Subbaiah
Aged 60 years, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandalam
Nellore District
Respondent/complainant
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. M.Suseelamma S/o John
aged 50 years, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandalam
Nellore District
2. M.John S/o Jakraiah
Aged 52 years, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandalam
Nellore District
Respondents/complainants
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. B.Rami Reddy S/o Gopi Reddy aged 70 yrs, Agriculturist
2. B.Peddakka W/o Rami Reddy aged 60 yrs, Agriculturist
3. B.Rajasekhar Reddy S/o Rami Reddy 49 yrs, Agriculturist
4. N.Konda Reddy S/o Malakonda Reddy 62 yrs, Agriculturst
5. M.Rajamma W/o Balarami Reddy aged 42 yrs, Agriculturist
6. M.Ramana Reddy S/o Subba Reddy 50 yrs, Agriculturist
7. M.Sraswathi W/o Rangareddy 41 yrs, Agriculturist
8. N.Venkata Reddy S/o Venkataramireddy 40yrs, Agriculturist
9. K.Venkatarami Reddy S/o Subba Reddy 50 yrs, Agriculturist
10. P.Venkatakonda Reddy S/o Konda Reddy 56 yrs, Agriculturist
11. G.Venkataramireddy S/o Subba Reddy 70 yrs, Agriculturist
12. N.Lakshmidevi W/o Rami Reddy 50 yrs, Agriculturist
13. N.Yelisemma W/o Sundaraiah 50 yrs, Agriculturist
14. K.Lakshmamma W/o Subba Reddy, 78 yrs, Agriculturist
15. K.Moulali S/o not known aged 56 yrs, Agriculturist
16. N.Sreedhar Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy, 40 yrs, Agriculturist
17. N.Eswar Reddy S/o Konda Reddy, 41 yrs, Agriculturist
18. N.Viswanath Reddy S/o Obul Reddy, 49 yrs, Agriculturist
19. B.Dasaratharami Reddy S/o Rami Reddy 42 yrs, Agriculturist
20. M.Subba Reddy S/o Rami Reddy aged 75 yrs, Agriculturist
21. M.Venkateswarlu S/o Rami Reddy, 40 years, Agricutlurist
22. N.Sreenivasulu Reddy S/o Venkataramireddy, 50 yrs
All are R/o Kampasamudram Village, Marripadu Mandalam
Nellore District
Respondents/complainants
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
Syngenta India Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division, Seeds Home
1170/1/27, Revenue Colony
Shivaji Nagar, Pune, having its
Regd. Off: at Royal Insurance Bldg.,
Church Gate, Mumbai-020
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. P.Chinnaiah S/o Guravaiah
aged 57 yrs, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandalam, Nellore Dist.
2. P.Seethaiah S/o Guravaiah
Aged 60 years, Agriculturist
R/o Kampasamudram Village
Marripadu Mandalam, Nellore Dist.
Respondents/complainants
6. The District Manager (Seeds)
The A.P.State Seeds Development Corp. Ltd.,
Poalakur Road, Dargamitta, Nellore
( the appellant omitted to mention the opposite
party no.1 in the cause title)
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellants Sri V.Ravindranath Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents Smt Suguna
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE ELEVANTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The appeals are filed by M/s Syngenta India Limited which is a common opposite party in all the complaints and in view of involvement of common question of fact and law in all the appeals, we propose to dispose of the appeals by a common order. F.A.No.593 of 2008 is taken as the lead case.
2. The parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainants purchased the Sunflower seed bearing its brand name Sunbred 275 from the opposite party no.1 under government subsidy scheme at the rate of Rs.372 per kg per bag from 1.11.2005 to 19.11.2005 through Department of Agriculture at Udayagiri. The seed was produced by the opposite party no.2. All the farmers of the village along with the complainants transplanted the seed in their fields by spending `6000/- per acre towards fertilizer and labour expenses etc., but the seed was ill filled and chaffy. The symptoms were observed in all fields where Sunbred 275 variety was grown. All the farmers in the said village approached the officials of the Department of Agriculture, Udayagiri and Nellore, a District Level MOU committee visited the fields at Kampasamudram village and confirmed the defect in the Sunbred 275 seeds and opined 50 to 60% loss in yield to the farmers. All the farmers including the complainants harvested the crop and found loss of 75% in their yield. The climatic conditions, water sources are better than previous year. The market value of sun flower seed was `1600/- per quintal. There was no pest attack at any point of time on sunflower crop. The seed supplied by the opposite party no.1 and produced by the opposite party no.2 are defective seeds and are liable to be compensated as follows:
Complainant no.1 `49,600/-
Complainant no.2 `.30,400/-
Complainant no.3 `49,600/-
Complainant no.4 `36,800/-
Complainant no.5 `40,000/-
3. The complainants also prayed to direct the opposite parties apart from the loss sustained and also compensation and costs of the complaint
4. The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the opposite party no.2 is a reputed multi-national company has been producing good seed and supplying to their farmers as such the opposite party no.1 purchased the seed i.e, Sunbred 275 from the opposite party no.2 and supplied the same to the farmers. The opposite party no.2 had made enquiries from different farmers of neighbouring villages about the quality of the seed that was supplied and found that the poor seed setting was not much as submitted by the complainants but it is only a nominal poor setting of seed. There was no defect in the seed produced by the opposite party no.2 but the nominal shortage in the yield that was sustained by the farmers is just because of necrosys disease and also bad weather. The seed that was supplied by the opposite parties is well germinated seed which is also admitted by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainants have filed their affidavits reiterating the contents of the complaint. Exs.A1 to A9 had been marked. On behalf of the opposite parties, B.Satish Babu, Sales Manager of the opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint awarded an amount of `54,488/-, `34,916/-, `54,488/-, `41,636/- and `44,888/- to the complainants no.1 to 5 respectively.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainants have filed the appeal contending that the complainants had not proved any deficiency of service and the reports of the Asst. Director of Atmakur and Asst. Director of Agriculture Udayagiri, Nellore District prove that the complainants had got normal yield than compared to other varieties sown by the farmers. It was contended that the average yield of Sun Flower in the village was from 3.5 quintals to 4 quintals per acre as given by the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Atmakur and that the complainant admitted that crop growth was good and the crop was healthy which prove that there is no germination and no growth problem in the seed. It was submitted that the report of MoU committee is based on assumptions and presumptions which had reported that the loss of the crop was to the extent of 50% to 60% only. Further it was stated that the District Forum has failed to consider the affidavits of the farmers filed by the opposite parties that there was no defect in the seed and the yield loss was due to adverse climatic conditions.
8. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the seeds supplied by the opposite parties to the complainants were defective?
2) Whether the complainants had adopted proper cultivation practice?
3) To what relief?
9. POINTS NO.1 & 2 The opposite party no.1 supplied Sunbred 275 Sunflower seed which were processed by the opposite party no.2 to the complainants. The sale of the seeds under cash bill nos.276151 to 276156 in favour of the complainants no.1 to 5 respectively is not disputed. The label declaration on the seed bags show that the opposite party no.2 is the producer of the seeds. The complainants have stated that each of them spent an amount of `6,000/- per acre on fertilizer, pesticides and labour charges etc. Further, they had stated that the crop was grown up but at the flowering stage it was found t hat some of the heads there was a seed setting and the seed was ill fill and chaffy. It is the contention of the complainants that the other varieties like Monsanto shown in the adjacent field had not exhibited any such symptoms. A District Level memorandum of understanding committee inspected the fields at Kampasamudram and confirmed the defect in the Sunbred 275 seed and that due to the defective seed each of the complainants sustained loss to the tune of `10,000/- per acre as there was loss of 75% yield.
10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the opposite party no.2 is a well reputed multinational company and it has been producing quality seed and supplying it to the farmers for a long time without there being any remarks. The seed development corporation purchased the seed after taking serious checks and measures and supplied the seed to the complainants.
11. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Udayagiri has submitted report to the Joint Director of Nellore on 17.5.2006 that Sunbred 275 variety of sunflower seed was supplied to the complainants on 33% subsidy during rabi 2005-2006 which was reported low yield and in this regard the Jt. Director of Agriculture, Nellore constituted a team of which breeder is a member. The team inspected the fields of the complainants at Kampasamudram village of Marripadu Madal and submitted its report. He has stated in his report that Sunbred 275 variety recorded the same yield as that of the other varieties as there was no germination complaint against the seed in question. The conclusion of the Assistant Director of Agriculture that there was no germination complaint and the quantity of the yield of the seed in question is the same as that of the other variety of the seed, does not help the case of the complainants in any manner. However, the report of the Asst. Director of Agriculture by itself cannot be made a platform by the opposite parties to come to the conclusion that the seed was not defective. The report of MOU Committee which consists of the scientists and the breeder would be the material document that has bearing on the facts of the case in the light of the allegations and counter allegations between the parties in regard to the fact whether the seeds supplied by the opposite parties to the complainants was problem free and not defective.
12. The MoU Team along with the Sunflower Breeder inspected the fields of the complainant in the presence of the representatives of the opposite party no.2 company on 13.3.2006. The committee was of the opinion that sunbred 275 and other varieties such as Monsanto 3322, 3395 were grown in all the villages but sterility, ill filled grains, chaffy grains were observed in sunbred 275 only. In its report the committee opined as under:
“We observed that crop growth was good, crop was healthy without any major pests and diseases except necroysis and alternaria leaf blight here and there. The present stage of the crop is at seed hardening to maturity. The head size is ranging from 15 to 30 cm with flat and irregular shaped heads. On our close observation it was found that there was sterility in the flower heads ranging from 10 to 100% in many fields. In some of the heads there was seed settling but the seed was ill filled and chaffy. This type of symptoms were observed in all the fields where sunbred 275 variety was grown. The other varieties like Monsanto 3322, 3915 grown adjacent to sunbred 275 have not exhibited any such symptoms”. Further, the committee has concluded “there was no pesti incidence in the entire crop period and farmers have not sprayed any pesticides. However, necrosys, alternaria disease symptoms were observed here and there which do not have much impact on yield losses”.
13. The committee has considered the climatic conditions and cultivation practice adopted by the complainants in raising the crop and concluded that certain defects such as irregular size of the heads of the flowers and ill filled seed in sunbred 275 variety only. There was reportedly no short coming in the procedure adopted by the complainants in raising the sunflower crop. The contention of the opposite parties that due to adverse climatic conditions the yield might have been low is not sustainable in the light of the observation of the MoU Committee that there were no irregular shape heads or ill filled and chaffed grains in other varieties such as Monsanto 3322 and 3395 except sunbred 275 which would throw any amount of light on the defective nature of the seeds in question. The affidavit of Palasani Veeraiah filed by the opposite parties would show that the yield of other varieties and sunbred 275 is almost equal in quantity. He has stated that compared to other varieties sunbred 275 is somewhat defective. Conspectus of the findings of the MoU committee, affidavits of the farmers filed by the complainants and the affidavits of Palasani Veeraiah and Martharla Narasa Reddy establish that the seed sunbred 275 supplied by the opposite parties to the complainants is defective.
14. POINT NO.3 The complainants claimed different amounts in proportionate to the extent of land in which the sunflower seed was raised and proportionate expected yield vis-à-vis the yield obtained by each of them. The opposite party no.2 has challenged the quantum of yield and the amount claimed by the complainants and it was contended that the loss stated in the report at 50 to 60% by the MoU committee was only raised on assumptions and presumptions. The complainants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim that 10 -12 quintals per acre is the optimum expected yield. The MoU committee has not specifically stated the extent of expected yield except expressing its opinion that the yield loss may range from 50% to 60%. In the absence of evidence to the effect, it is difficult to come to the conclusion as to the quantum of expected yield and the yield obtained by each of the complainants. The complainant no.1 has statedt hat she had received 17 quintals of the yield in an extent of 5 acres of land and she has claimed `49,600/- @ `1600/- per quintal which again is not supported by any positive evidence. The complainants ought to have filed the certificate from the market committee concerned show the market value of the seed for the relevant period In the absence of these documents, the claim of the complainant for `1600/- per quintal and award for the same by the District Forum is not sustainable.
15. Admittedly, the complainants have got more than average yield as seen from the letter dated 17.5.2006 and 18.5.2006 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Udayagiri and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Atmakur respectively. The complainants have not filed any receipts to show that they had incurred certain amount for purchase of pesticides. However, the MoU committee has expressed its satisfaction to the application of fertilizer by the complainants and in the light of report of the MoU committee it cannot be said that the complainants had not purchased any fertilizers or pesticides. The application of the pesticides and fertilizers by the complainants precede the purchase of them which, however, could not be quantified in the absence of concrete proof in this regard.
16. In the absence of any evidence as to the expected yield and the actual yield obtained by the each of the complainants, the only source to come to a picture of both the yield i.e., expected yield and the actual yield obtained by the complainants is the statement of the farmers in the shape of affidavits filed by the opposite party no.2. Dhani Reddy Lakshma Reddy has stated that he had obtained 3 ½ quintals of yield per acre. Govilla Chinna Sura Reddy has stated that he got 5.6 quintals per acre. Bovilla Pratap Reddy has stated that he had obtained 21 quintals in 3.84 acres whereas Adiparti Mallikarjun Reddy has stated that he has obtained 4 ½ quintals in per acre and Kaku Raghava Reddy has stated that the yield was about 4 quintals per acre. Therefore, on an average the yield in terms of the statements of the witnesses would be 6 quintals per acre and 50% of yield from it has to be deducted in view of the findings of the MoU committee that the loss of yield would be to the extent of 50% and the net yield thus would be 3 quintals per acre. Therefore, if we consider the market value of the seed in question during 2005-2006 at `1400/- per quintal against the amount of `1600/- per quintal as contended by the complainants, each of the complainants is entitled to the amount of `1400/- per quintal for the yield of 3 quintals per acre on all counts, in proportionate to the extent of the land cultivated by them. The impugned order is liable to be modified accordingly.
17. In the result the appeals F.A.No.593 to F.A.No.601 of 2008 are allowed. The order dated 11.1.2008 of the District Forum is modified. Each of the complainants is entitled to the amount of `1400/- per quintal for 3 quintals per acre in proportionate to the extent land cultivated by him. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.11.11.2010
KMK*
