BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the 22nd day of June, 2007
CC.NO.146/2006
Between
Abdul Khadeer,
S/o Jabbar Mia,
Musali Madugu Village,
Kothapalli Mandal,
Kurnool District. ... COMPLAINANTS
Verses
1) M/s Sree Rama Seeds Agency,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Shop No. 20, Atmakur.
2) M/s Ankoor Seeds,
Rep. by its Manging Director,
New Cotton Market Layout,
Nagaput.
3) The Manager,
M/s Ankur Seeds Pvt., Ltd.,
Vipanchi Estate,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad. .. OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for hearing of the case and upon the counsel for complainant, Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, and Smt.V.Naga Lakshmi Devi, Advocate, Kurnool and for opposite party No.1 Sri.N.Venkata Rao, Advocate, Kurnool and for opposite parties 2 and 3 Sri.S.Narendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool and after perusing the material papers on record the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President)
CC.No.146/2006
1. This case of the complainants is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P. Act seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay them Rs.1,26,000/- towards loss of the yield at the rate of 10 quintals per acre on a rate of Rs.1,800/- per quintal, Rs.44,204/- towards incurred agricultural expenditure, Rs.50,000/- as compensatory damages for the suffered mental agony and costs of this case alleging the supply of defective, spurious and adulterous Ravi Kiran Sun Flower variety seed of three packets of opposite parties 2 and 3 by the opposite party No.1 vide Bill No.211 dated 26-02-2005 and 17-03-2005 respectively and sowing of the said seed in their land of 7 acres in survey No.198 of Musalamadugu and in spite of its proper field management and crop management by use of necessary fertilizers, manures and fitness of said land with all facilities for cultivation there being no seeds setting to its flower lead to the failure of crop and thereby loss of yield of 70 quintals at the rate of Rs.1,800/- and the visit and inspection of Mandal Agricultural Officer, Assistant Director Agriculture, Atmakur on 19-06-2005 of the lands of the complaints and observing defect in seed and the M.O.U. Committee also feeling defect in the seed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay compensation for loss of yield but none of the opposite parties responded to it and a local variety yielding at the rate of 10 quintals per acre in the neighboring lands of Rajasheker Rao and Chakali Naga Seshulu.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsels and contested the case filing written version denying their liability to the complainants claim and seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 does not sportingly demise the purchase of the seed by the complainant and further denies of the right of the compliant in alleged land and its fitness for cultivation of the Sun Flower crops as the said land is of Government one and submerged land in Srisailam back water and also sowing of said seed and alleged incurred expenditure of the agriculture and the justness in the claim of the complainant.
4. The Written Version of the opposite parties 2 and 3 pleads their ignorance of the complainants as legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Malik and the alleged purchase of seeds and its sowing in their fields and alleged use of manures, submerged lands under Srisailam back water and any loss of yield was an account of adverse agro environmental conditions and not on account of any defect in seed. It alleges the falsity in claim amount and the observation of M.A.O., unsustainable and unilateral and denies the alleged neighboring lands yielding 10 quintals per acre and so seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and Ex.X1 and the evidence of the PWs 1 and 2 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and a replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party side has taken reliance on is pleadings and the sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 3 in reiteration of its written version contents and on the replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the deficient conduct of the opposite party in supply of defective seed leading to the loss of yield was proved by the complainant attracting the liability of the opposite parties to the complainants claim.
7. The Ex.A4 is bill dated 26-02-2005 envisaging there under the purchase of 7 packets of Sun Flower of Ravi Kiran variety for Rs.3,360/- by the complainant Abdul Khader of Musalemadugu from Sri.Ram Seeds Agencies, Atmakur (OP.No.1). As the written Version of the opposite party No.1 admits the purchase of seed the Ex.A4 does not require any further proof in that aspect for believing the said purchase of seeds mentioned in Ex.A4.
8. The Ex.7 is the certificated copy of No.2 Adangal SyNo.198 of Musalimadugu Village for the Falsi-1414. It envisages their possession and enjoyment of said Abdul Khader and cultivation of sunflower copy theirin. The report of Mandal Agriculture Officer in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 also finds the fact of raising of sunflower in land of complainant. There being any cogent rebuttal to it from the opposite party side the alleged cultivation of Sunflower by the complainant in those S.Nos., is remaining established.
9. As entries of said adangal envisages the said land either as Government land or submerged land in Srisailam back water there appears any material to hold the said land as alleged by the opposite party No.1.
10. The cash bill in Ex.A4 indicates the seed purchased there under pertains to lot number W/234-5728/605 and the Ex.A9 the empty seed bags bears the same lot number and there by the Ex.A9 is covered under Ex.A4. The report of the M.A.O. in Ex.A1 also take mention of the seed covered under Ex.A4 hence there appears any doubt in the cultivation of said seed in the said field of complainants.
11. Even though the Ex.A1 says the genetic purity of the seed cannot be ascertained at that stage of harvesting, the Ex.A2 inspection report of the said M.A.O. addressed on 19-06-2005 to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool observes uneven flowering in small to medium flowering with closed petals with improper grain setting and symptoms of narcosis infestations in that field in-spite of clean cultivation. The said characters of the standing crop was mentioned in the Ex.A3 report of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kurnool addressed to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool on 24-06-2005. Even though the Ex.A2 inspection report is not clear as to the defect in the seed and recommends for further inspection by M.O.U., the report in Ex.A3 of said M.O.U., observes the flower heads of said standing crop not agreeing to the characters deposited by the Company and recommends for ordering compensation to the farmers who have sustained loss and the Ex.X1 proceedings dated 02-08-2005 of Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool orders the company for payment of compensation of Rs.10,500/- at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre. The evidence of the PW2 Dr.Narendra, Senior Scientist who inspected the said Sunflower field and subscribes Ex.A3 report, says in his evidence that the said state of things to flowers was an account of the “off-type” of the seed and as the Ex.A3 says the said standing crop is not agreeing with the character, it remains without any further say that the said seed is not genuine and so the seed of opposite parties 2 and 3 supplied through opposite party No.1 being not genuine and defective as “off-type” ensured loss of the yield to those who sowed them.
12. As the decision of the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Lakshmi Auto Mobiles -Vs- Lal Kunwar Chowdhary reported in 2006 (1) A.P.L.J.-41 (C.C.) holds the primary liability to reimburse the amount is that of the manufacturer, the opposite party No.1 who supplied the seed of opposite parties 2 and 3 as their dealer, remains exonerated from the liability to the complainants claim.
13. Therefore the opposite parties 2 and 3 hold a liability for reimbursing the loss of yield to the compliant on account of supply of such off-type non genuine seed to the complainant.
14. The particulars of the expenditure mentioned in complaint, claim Rs.44,204/- towards the details of particulars mentioned their in.
- It claims as the cost of the seed Rs.3,360/- while the Ex.A4-Bills of purchase envisages a total investment of Rs.3,360/- towards the cost of the purchased seed. As the said claim of Rs.4,800/- as is agreeing to the bill No.221 dated 26-02-2005 of Ex.A4 the said claim of Rs.3,360/- towards the cost of the seed claimed by the complainant is held genuine to the entitleness of the complainant at the liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
- An amount of Rs.10,500/- in said particulars of claim was the claimed towards the expenditure incurred in having 21 tractors load of dung manure at the rate of Rs.500/- per tractor load. Even though the Ex.A5 receipt dated 10-02-2005 says as to purchase of 21 tractors loads of dung manure for being used to 7 acres of land of the complainant, as it takes the mention of the rate of tractor load of dung manure at Rs.500/-, in the absence of any rebuttal to said rate, the said claim of incurred expenditure of Rs.10,500/- towards the purchase of dung manure is held bonafied to the entitlness of the complainants at the liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
- An amount of Rs.8,344/- was claimed by the complainant under said particulars of said expenditure towards cost of fertilizers i.e., 28 X 28, Complex Urea etc., But no bills evidencing their purchase is filed to believe the genuineness in the said claim. Hence it is rejected for want of cogent substantiating material.
- An amount of Rs.7,000/- is claimed in the said particulars of expenditure towards the tilling charges of 7 acres at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per acre. Even though the Ex.A6 receipt dated 10-02-2005 says the receipt of Rs.7,000/- for tilling with tractor 7 acres of complainants father but as it takes mention of the rate charged per acre at Rs.1,000/- and extent said to have cultivated in this case being 7 acres there appears genuineness in the said claim of Rs.7,000/- towards tilling charges of 7 acres extent and thereby it is remaining entitled to the complainant at the liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
- An amount of Rs.8,400/- and Rs.7,000/- is mentioned in said particulars of claim towards the agricultural labour expenditure and pesticides. But any cogent substantiating material being placed for appreciation of said claim, the complainant is not remaining entitled to said claim at the liability of opposite parties 2 and 3 and so said claim is rejected.
- Consequent to the above discussion, the complainant entitleness for the incurred expenditure at the liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3 limits to Rs.20,860/- (i.e., Rs.3,360/- Plus Rs.10,500/- Plus Rs.7,000/-).
16. The complainant claims an amount of Rs.1.26 lakh towards the crop loss at the rate of 10 quintals per acre to his 7 acres extent valuing the rate of yield at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per quintal. But no cogent substantiating material is filed as to the said rate of Rs.1,800/- per quintal or as to loss of yield at 10 quintals per acre. While such is so, the Ex.A2 inspection notes of M.A.O., (PW1) says the probable yield expected by complainant as 1 to 2 quintals per 10 acres and the yield of neighboring fields as 4 to 5 quintals per acre and Ex.A3 and Ex.X1 recommends compensation for loss of yield at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per acre. Hence in the above state of circumstances the entitleness of the complainant for crop loss remains at Rs.1,500/- per acre and so the claim of Rs.1.8 lakh towards the crop loss is rejected limiting the entitleness of the complainant to Rs.10,500/- (i.e., 7 X Rs.1,500/-) towards the loss of the yield at the liability of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
17. As the opposite parties 2 and 3 by their indifferent conduct towards the complainants loss of yield an account of seed supplied by them not only caused mental agony but also driven the complainants to the Forum for redressal of grievances the opposite parties 2 and 3 are remaining liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs for this case to the complainants.
18. Hence, in the result, of the above discussions the case of the complainants is dismissed against the opposite party No.1 and allowed against the opposite parties 2 and 3 directing them jointly and severally for the payment of Rs.38,360/- (i.e., Rs.20,860/- Plus Rs.10,500/- Plus Rs.5,000/- Plus Rs.2,000/-) to the complaints within the month of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly and severally shall pay the award amount with 9% interest from the date of said default till realization of entire award amount.
Dictated to the Computer Operator, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 22nd day of June, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :Nil
Deposition of PW1 (B.Anjaney)
Dated 24-07-2007
Deposition of PW2 (Dr.B.Narendra)
Dated 24-07-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Proforma part-A of Memorandum of fields observation of Mandal Agricultural Officer (FAC), Kothapalli, Kurnool District, dated 19-06-2005.
Ex.A2 Inspection Report to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool dated 19-06-2005
Ex.A3 Report of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kurnool to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool dated 24-06-2005.
Ex.A4 Seed purchase bill dated 26-02-2005 for Rs.3,360/-.
Ex.A5 Receipt dated 10-02-2005 for Rs.10,500/- towards Manure Charges of tractors load.
Ex.A6 Receipt dated 10-02-2005 for Rs.7 ,500/- towards tractor loads manure.
Ex.A7 No.2 Adangal of Sy.No.198 of Musala Madugu Village for the Fasali 1414.
Ex.A8 Attested Xerox copy of Legal Notice, dated 24-08-2005.
Ex.A9 Empty seed bag with truth fruitful lable.
Ex.X1 Proceedings of Joint Director of Agricultural
dated 02-08-2005.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties : NILL
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, and Smt.V.Naga Lakshmi Devi, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.N.Venkata Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri.S.Narendranath Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
