BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 15th day of July , 2009
C.C.No.122/08
Between:
Alikonda Jayanna Alies Mala Jayanna, S/o. Nadipti Gurappa, Agriculturist,
H.No.47/6, R/o Iskyala(V), Pamulapadu(M), Kurnool District. ..…Complainant
-Vs-
1) M/s Syngenta India Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,
1170/27, Revenue Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005.
2) M/s Sai Agro Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor,
D.No. 25/1-3, P.P Sesha Reddy Complex, Opp to R.T.C., Bus-stand,
Nandyal, Kurnool District.
3) M/s Sree Rama Seeds Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor,
H.No.1/115/8, Shop No. 20, Maram Complex, Near Andhra Bank,
Atmakur, Kurnool District. ……Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri.B.Jangam Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.122/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2,70500 - as damages and cost of the case alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in selling the defective seed which on its cultivation in complainants land resulted in loss of yield .
2. The case of complainant is that while the opposite party No. 1 is producer of Hybrid Chilly Roshini Variety Seed , the opposite party No. 2 is its distributor or and opposite party No. 3 as the retailed dealer of those seeds and the complainant’s purchasing on 30-06-2006 12 packets of said seed each containing 10 grams @ Rs.170/- per packet and sowed it in last week of June in his land Ac.200 cents in Sy.No. 997 of Dudyala Village and transplanted it in the last week of July and in spite of taking all necessary precautions and measures in cultivation of land and its crop management expending Rs.25,000/- per acre , it has resulted in loss of total yield and when the said state of affairs was taken to the notice of Joint Director Agriculture ,Kurnool a Senior Scientist , Regional Research Agriculture Office, Nandayl was deputed and the latter has inspected the said field on 04-02-2007 and observed the said poor growth of production of plants and less pod productive plants and poor hybrid vigour and the said variety where ever has been sown in that year has resulted to the same on account of defect in said seed and on account of said observed features the
complainant sustained loss of expected yield of 30 to 35 quintals valuing at the relevant period @ Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per quintal and there by was put to a loss of Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre and the opposite parties by selling said defective seed practiced un fair trade practice on complainant and so the opposite parties are liable to pay damages besides to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony .
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notices of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying its liability for complainants claim filling a written version of the opposite party No. 1 and a memo of its adoption by the other opposite parties.
4. The written version of the opposite party No. 1 totally denies any of its privy to the complainant denying the very sale of seed and as to the alleged crop and field management and precautionary measures taken and as to the reporting to officials of Agriculture Department for want of notice to it and relevant detailed particulars. It questions the competency of the said Scientist as breeder to certify as to any disease /defect in seed and the observed sucking pest being to the plant occasioning on account of environmental circumstances cannot be attributed to the seed as any defect . It further alleges that there being any approach of the complainant to the opposite parties for any service the opposite parties are at any deficiency at the complainant and there by to any of its liability to complainants claim and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint with cost for want of proper cause of action .
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 , Ex.X1 toX3 and the evidence of PW. 1 to 3, the opposite party side has taken reliance on its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any un fair trade practice and deficiencies of the opposite parties for holding their liability to complainants claim .
7. The Ex.A4 is the seed purchase bill dated 30-06-2006 . It envisages the sale of 12 packets of Hybrid Chilly of Roshini Variety for a sum of Rs. 2040 and envisage the purchase of seed mentioned therein by the complainant form the opposite party NO. 3 In the absence of any contradictory material to it from the opposite party side , it goes to say of the purchase of said hybrid chilly Roshini Variety by the complainant for a valuable consideration .
8. The Ex.A5 is the copy of adangal of Sy.No. 997 issued by V.R.O.Dudyal but it does not envisage to which year and village it pertains to nor the said Ex.A5 was proved by ;any person having privy to it on those aspects. Hence the entries of Ex.A5 on its own legs or not remaining sufficient to believe the alleged cultivation of land by the complainant to hold the liability of the opposite parties for the seed purchased under Ex.A4 .
9. When the alleged cultivation of land by complainant is not substantiated the mere purchase of seed under Ex.A4 does not create any liability on the opposite parties towards the claim of the complainant . Hence there appears any relevancy of the material in Ex.A1 to A3 and A6 and Ex.X1 to X3 for its appreciation in this case of the complainant.
10. consequently there being any bonafidies in the claim of the complainant creating any liability on the opposite parties for the claim of the complainant the complaint is remaining devoid of merit and force and so dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of July, 2009.
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :Nil
PW.1 Deposition of PW-1 (Dr.Y.Rama Reddy )
Dt.7-8-2008
PW.2 Deposition of PW-2 (Dr.G.Narasimha Rao)
Dt.26-8-08.
PW.3 Deposition of PW-3(B.Srinivasa Murthy)
Dt.6-1-09.
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Inspection report dt.17-02-2007.
Ex.A2. Covering letter dt.17-02-2007 of Senior Scientist to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool
Ex.A3. Field inspection report dt. 02-01-2007.
Ex.A4. Seed purchase bill dt.30-06-2006.
Ex.A5. Adangal for the year 2007 for Iskala Village, Survey No.
997.
Ex.A6. Letter dt.18-11-2008 of selection grade secretary
Ex.X1 Office copy of final yield data particulars along with covering letter dt.26-03-2007.
Ex.X2 Representation letter dt.NIL. to District Collector, Kurnool
Ex.X3. Xerox copy of letter dt. 22-01-2007 by Joint Director of Agriculture Associate Director of Research ,RARS, Nandyal.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
