BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION- HYDERABAD
F.A.No.249 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.160 OF 1999 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KURNOOL
Between
1. C.Venkat Subba Reddy
S/o Pulla Reddy, Aged 45 years
2. D.Venkat Subb Reddy
S/o Bali Reddy, aged 45 yrs
3. Chatla Daveedu S/o Devosohayam,
Hindu, Agriculture
4. Paradasi Seelamma W/o Chinna Sundaram
Major, Hindu, Agriculture
5. Arika Devadanam
S/o Yelisa, Agriculture
All are residing at Maddur (V), Nandyal (M)
Kurnool District. Appellants/complainants
A N D
National Seeds Corporation
Rep. by its Area Manager,
Noneepalli, Ryot Nagar,
Nandyal
Respondent/opposite party
F.A.No.250 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.161 OF 1999
Between
1. Annapureddy Subba Reddy
S/o Subba Reddy
2. Sannala Seshadrireddy
S/o Hussainreddy, aged 45 yrs,
3. R.Chandra Mohan Reddy
S/o Suryachandra Reddy, Hindu, Agriculture
4. G.Rama Subba Reddy S/o Pedda Narayana Reddy
Hindu, Agriculture
5. K.Chinna Subba Reddy S/o Ramireddy
Hindu, Agriculture
All are residing at Maddur (V), Nandyal (M)
Kurnool District.
Appellants/complainants
A N D
National Seeds Corporation
Rep. by its Area Manager,
Noneepalli, Ryot Nagar,
Nandyal
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri M.Ramgopalreddy
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.K.Chakravarthy
QUORUM- SMT M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER
and
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order ( As per the Smt M.Shreesha, Member)
---
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.160 of 1999 and C.D.No.161 of 1999 the complainants preferred appeals F.A.No.249 and 250 of 2006 on the file of the District Forum, Kurnool. Since both these C.Ds deal with common facts against a common opposite party with a common prayer they are being disposed of by this common order.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants purchased sunflower seed in October 1998 from the opposite party and sowed in their fields in Sy.Nos.678/2, 687, 716, 639, 409, 410/1, 132, 131/1, 560, 639, 601, 26/I of Maddur Village and the said seed did not germinate and thereby they have lost yield of 6 to 7 quintals per acre which valued at Rs.1300/- to 1500/- per quintal. The complainant reported this matter to the Assistant Director, Agriculture, Nandyal and Assistant Agricultural Officer inspected their fields and observed the non-germination on account of the substandard and defectiveness in the seeds supplied by the opposite party. The complainant submits that they lost yield at Rs.8000/- per acre and Rs.1,000/- per acre towards the cultivation and the opposite party is the supplier of the seeds is responsible for the loss and therefore they seek reimbursement of their loss.
Opposite party filed written version and denied the very purchase of the sunflower seeds and disowned any liability with respect to the alleged defectiveness in the seeds. Opposite party also contend in their counter that the revenue records of the said seeds show raising of different crops by the complainants in their fields and some of the said Sy. Nos are not cultivatable lands at all. Therefore they seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs.A1 to A10 and Ex.B1 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay to the complainants Rs.6,636/- per acre towards loss of the yield in pro-rata to the extent of their cultivation and Rs.1000/- towards costs and Rs.1500/- towards mental agony to each of the complainants.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainants preferred these appeals.
The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that the District Forum ought to have seen that they awarded compensation after 8 years without awarding interest and this is not justifiable. He submitted that interest ought to be granted from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of disposal.
We have gone through the material on record.
Both these appeals F.A.No.249 and 250 of 2006 have been preferred by the complainants only. It is pertinent to note that no appeal has been preferred by the respondent/opposite party against the orders of the District Forum. The brief point that falls for consideration in these appeals are that the interest was not awarded by the District Forum while disposing of the complaint. The District Forum while dealing with the aspect of deficiency in service with respect to defective seeds allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainants Rs.6636/- per acre calculating the yield at 6 quintals and awarded RS.1500/- towards loss of yield to each of the complainant and Rs.1000/- towards costs. We find force in the contention of the complainant that the District Forum ought to have awarded interest since the amounts were invested by the complainants in the year 1998 when they purchased the said seeds form the opposite party and prayed for other reliefs as the forum may deem and proper in the circumstances of the case. We are of the considered view that the interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum can be awarded from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum.
In the result both these appeals F.A.NBo.249 and 250 of 2006 are allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by awarding interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance 4 weeks.
LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
11.06.2008
KMK-
