BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. PRESIDENT (FAC)
Smt: Meena Ramanatham, B.Com., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 11th day of August 2010
CC. No. 30 of 2009
Between:
Burjikindi Muthyam Reddy S/o Yetta Reddy,
Aged: 56 yrs, Occ: agriculture,
R/o dilalpur (v), Mandal Gajwel, District Medak.
.... Complainant
And
1 M/s Mahyco Seeds Limited
Through its Manager, Marketing
Re-named as Maharashtra Hybrid seeds
Company Ltd., Resham Bhavan,
78 Veer Nariman road, Mumbai - 20 M.S.
2. M/s Koramandal Fertilizers Ltd., Seeds,
Through its Manager, Opposite party: Court Building
Pregnapur Road, Gajwel town, District Medak.
3. The Asst.director, Agriculture, Gajwel,
District Medak. ... Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri. Y.Rajeshwar Reddy and Ambarish, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri G.Hanmantha Reddy advocate for opposite party No.2, on hearing arguments and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following :
O R D E R
(Per Sri. Mekala Narsimha Reddy, FAC President/Senior Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the seeds of Rs.2,560/- and award damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of the this proceedings and any other relief's the Hon'ble Forum may deem fit.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is the owner and possessor of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.57 admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas, situated at Dilalpur village, Mandal gajwel, District Medak. The Complainant was intending to raise watermelon in his land, had approached the opposite party No.2 and purchased 10 pockets of watermelon seeds at Rs.256/- per pocket6 i.e. total for Rs.2,560/- on 27.11.2008. After purchasing the seeds the complainant has raised the same in his land, but the complaint has not getting proper yields and the entire crop was damaged. The complainant had invested huge amount in raising the crop.
The complainant had informed the same to the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 with his associates visited the field and admitted the fault and agreed to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- by 11.2.2009. They also admitted that the seeds were not germinated and there is fault of manufacturer i.e., opposite party No.1.
It is further stated that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 and complained about the damages of the corp, upon that they visited the field and admitted the fault of germination of seeds and also agreed to provide the damages. But they did not keep their words. Upon that the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and complained, the opposite party No.3 visited the field, enquired and noted down and assured to compensate with the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite party No.3 also gave statement to the Reporter of a Andhra Jyothi daily news paper and the said statement also published in daily News paper Andhra Jyothi on 20.2.2009 of Medak District edition. The entire incident was occurred before the surpach and other village elders who certified the same and the complainant also contacted with opposite party No.1, but even there was no proper response. Due to the non germination seeds of water melon supplied b the opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1 the complainant have suffered much mental pain and agony and sustained heavy loss. Neither the opposite party No.2 nor the manufacture i.e. opposite party No.1 did not respond properly and there was any proper response. The complainant approached the opposite parties number of times and made representation but they did not hear. It is the duty of the opposite parties to solve the problem.
It is further submitted that the complainant is entitled for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and also costs of the seeds of Rs.2,560/- and costs.
The opposite party No.1 filed his version and stated that for claiming compensation for damage of Watermelon crop i.e., due to non-germination of seeds of watermelon supplied by opposite party No.2. The same is manufactured by opposite party No.1. On 5.2.2009 coramandal staff along with TFA M.Rajender Reddy have attended the complainant. That the farmer/complainant has forcible taken away two motor cycle belonging to coramandal staff and asked to bring the higher officials from Mahysco to their village and to pay the compensation from Mahyco to the complainant. Then only complainant will release the Motor cycle belong to the cormandal staff. The behavior of the complainant towards the official was very rough and used unparliamentary language.
It is further submit that thereafter again our TBM Mr.M.Nagi Reddy and coramandal staff Mr.Sampath from Hyderabad have visited the field. But the farmer was not in a position to listen to the words and threatening the officials and staff and forcing to agree for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by using all filthy language and threatening them of not to allowing to go out of the village. The farmer complainant along with other villagers group of people and followers of the complainant, threating and used filthy languages.
It is further submitted that the opposite party company sold 208 kgs in entire A.P. of this lot i.e. WKB 100001.S from September 2008 and there is no complainant from any where. So it is clearly shows that the complainant intentionally harassing and to defema the company by using this type of filing false complaint by black mailing the Mahyco.
It is further submitted B.P.M/s Jyothi Fertilizer have sold 2 Kgs and Coramandal out let in Gajwel have sold 1 kg, as there is no complaint about the seed. That the opposite party Mr.Nagi Reddy, Mr.Sampath and out TFA Mr Rajender Reddy have visited the fields of the same lot No.WKB 100001.S. The crops in there fields in between 15 to 25 days duration and the creeping stage is not yet started. The opposite parties noted from the coramandal staff that the farmer gave the complainant on 16.01.2009 that the fruits are cracking and the fruits weight is not more than 2 Kg and different type of fruits and appearing, but have not brought to out notice till 05.2.2009.
It is further stated that the farmer/complainant had purchased the seed on 27.11.2008 and sowed the seed on dt.3.12.2008. So on 16.1.2009 the crop stage should be 43 days and this time crop will be under growing stage, and the complainant not genuine as our crop duration is 90 days and especially in winter it will be 100 days. The farmer sowed the seed is not our company. The allegation against our company is false.
It is further submitted that farmer have purchased watermelon sees of cogent seeds company Hybrid 507, 20 packs in subsidy in November 2008 and gave the same complainant to cogent seed company and showed the same field and claiming compensation. So it is clearly shows that the farmer intentional filing the complainant and claiming compensation. That as per my inspection of the filed of complainant.
The opposite party No.2 filed his version that the opposite party is not aware that the complainant is the owner and possessor of agriculture land bearing Sy.No.57 extent 1.10 guntas situated at Dilalpur village, Gajwel mandal, Medak District. It is a fact that the complainant purchased 10 packets of watermelon seeds @ Rs.256/- packet for a total sum of Rs.2,560/-. The opposite party is not ware that the complainant did not get proper yield and the entire crop was damaged and it is also incorrect to say that the complainant has invested huge amount in raising the crop. The complainant taken dual pleas saying that he is not getting proper yield and also taken the plea entire crop was damaged. The complainant plea is not consistent and he is trying to complainant may be put to strict of the same.
It is further submitted that the complainant has informed the same to opposite party with his associates visited to the filed and admitted the fault and agreed to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- by 11.2.2009. It is also incorrect to say that this opposite party admitted that the seeds were not germinated and there is fault of manufacturer i.e. the opposite party No.1.
It is further submitted the complainant approached the OP.No.2 and complained about the damages of crop and upon which this OP visited the fields and admitted fault of germination of seeds and also agreed to provide the damages. It is also incorrect to say that the OP did not keep up the words. The OP is not ware that whether complainant approached the OP.No.3 and complained and the OP.No.3 visited the filed and enquired and noted down and assured to compensate with this OP.No.1. The OP is not aware about the statement given by OP No.3 to the report of Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper and the same is published in Andhra Jyothi in 20.2.2009 of Medak District edition. It is fact that the watermelon seeds were manufactured by OP.No.1 and the OP.No.2 only a dealer who sold to this complainant.
It is further submitted that the complainant is not entitled for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental, pain and agony and also costs of Rs.2,560/- and costs.
The Complainant has filed Chief affidavit written arguments along with document which is marked as Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed counter affidavit along with documents.
The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for the crop damage against the opposite parties ?
The contention of the complainant is that the owner and possessor of agricultural land is Sy.No.57, extent AC.1.10 gts situates in dilal pur villae in Medak District and the complainant raised water melon crop in the above said land and he purchased (10), pocket of with OP.No.2 by the consideration of Rs.2560/- on dt.27.11.2008 each and sowed the same by investing huge amount but did not got proper yield and the entire crop was damaged, the complainant intimated the same to OP.No.2 subsequently visited the field with his associates and admitted the fault, further submitted the seeds were not germinated fault of OP.No.1 is manufacture.
The complainant has approached the OP.No.3 and made a complaint and the OP.No.3 visited by the field and assured to compensate with OP.No.1 & 2 same was published in Andhra Jyothi paper, who certified the same is filed before forum, and later on complaint approached the OP.No.1 for damage but no response from them, the complaint further agreed them OP.No.1 & 2 supplied non germination of seeds of water melon due to loss effect sustain much mental pain as agony and heavy loss.
Opposite party No.1 council argued that Ex.A.1 to A.7 are not at all issued by the OP.No.1, the Hon'ble Forum may be consider the counter filed by the OP.No.1 same may be read as part and parcel additional counter. Ex.B.1 regarding germination purity report which is prepared by manager. Further argued that the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is related to seed act of 1966 is an act, the complainant has not mentioned lot number of in this complaint and fabricated and concocted further case and also not filed any expert's report to prove the said not seeds is defective, one report prepared by officer without following any procedure, the OP.No.1 denied of not get proper yield and not disclosed the received by him.
It is denied by this opposite party that the complainant had informed the same to the OP.No.2 visited the field and admitted agreed to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- the opposite party No.1 never informed regarding the pure germination, which are tented and conforms to the prescribed quality standard, if there was non germination of seeds than the question of fruit cracking does not arise. It is clear that the complaint had sown the other company's seeds, the complainant stated in complaint flowers started within 30 days of sowing. But crop duration of our crop in 80-85 days does not relates to our watermelon seed.
The complainant has not taken any step's to analysis as per section 13 (1) (c) of CPA, the yield depends upon may factors like fertility of land, type of soil use of measures and fertilizers, agro climatic factor proper rain, agricultural practices, sowing time etc., the forum ward any compensation without providing negligence as per the Section 14 (d) of C.P.Act.
The opposite party No.2 alleged that sold out number of packets which was supplied by opposite party No.1 but none of the farmer complained that the seeds was not germinated and proper yield was received by them, if there is any fault on the part of germination of the seed the opposite party No.1 is any liable to pay the compensation.
We gone through the perusal of the records and arguments of both sides the opposite party No.1 & 2 accepting the purchase of seeds but denied germination of seeds and yielding the contention of opposite party No.1 the complainant is not a consumer. As per the seeds act. No defect is proved as no material is placed on record regarding defect. Ex.B.1 shows that seeds was tested with the purity control laboratory prior to its marketing, the complaint has not taken steps, regarding the 13(1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act and not filed any expert report. Ex.A1 to Ex.A.7 as per report filed by the Joint director of agriculture office without followed the procedure of laid down the seeds Act. The Opposite party No.2 replied in his arguments. None of the purchased consumer are not complaint to regarding the defective seeds. The above facts circumstance the complainant is not produced any records to proved his allegation against the opposite parties for claim of compensation, the crops depends upon various factors like Fertility of land. Nutrient, proper rain agricultural practices sowing time and agro climatic facts but in this case germination is recorded up to level. We relying upon citations filed by the opposite No.1 judgements i.e., 1) 2005 II C.P.J 13 Supreme Court, Haryana Seeds development Corp Ltd Vs Sadhu & ANR, 2) 2005 II C.P.J 94 (N.C) SONEKARAN GLADIOLI GROWERS Vs BABU RAM, 3) IV (2005) CPJ 47 (NC) HINDUSTYAN INSECTICIDES LTD., Vs KOPOLU SAMBASIVA RAO & Others 4) 2007 CPJ 148 (NC) DO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS & ANR VS WAYAKUMAR RAO & ANOTHER AND 5) IV (2009) CPJ 98 CHENNA RAYUDU Vs PRABHAT AGRI BIO-TECH LTD & Another. Therefore the complaint is liable for dismissed without compensation.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 11th day of August, 2010.
FAC PRESIDENT/ LADY MEMBER
SENIOR MEMBER
Copy to
1) The complainant copy delivered to the complainant/
2) The opposite parties opposite parties On _______
3) spare copy dis.No. /2010, dt.
