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.67/08
Between:
B. Kesavaiah, S/o.Late Thirupahiah, Agriculturist,
R/o Iskala Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District. ..…Complainant
-Vs-
1) M/s Syngenta India Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,
1170/27, Revenue Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005.Having its Registered Office At Royal Insurance Building 14-5, Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020.
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 Sateesh Traders, Represented by its Proprietor,
K.G. Road, 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.67/08
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.2,45,000/- 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 08-06-2006 ,21-06-2006 10 and 5 packets of said seed each containing 10 grams @ Rs.170/- per packet and sowed it in last week of June in his land Ac.60 cents in Sy.No. 217 /1A of Iskala 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 viguor 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 A8 , Ex.X1 toX3 and the evidence of PW. 1 to 3 , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and 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 08-06-2006 , 21-06-2006 . It envisages the sale of 10 and 5 packets of Hybrid Chilly of Roshini Variety for a sum of Rs. 1700/- & 850/- /- and bears the signature of the complainant as token of its purchase from 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 C.C. of Adangal for the year 2007 pertaining to Sy.No. 582 Iskala Village. It envisages the cultivation of Chilly Crop by the complainant on an extent of Ac.1.50 under well irrigation as kharif crop . While the complainant alleges the purchase seed was sown on an extent of 60 cents in Sy.No. 217/1A the entries of Ex.A5 and Ex.A7 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and the entries in Ex.X1 and X2 does not lend any support to said contentions as they envisage sowing of purchased seed on an extent of 1.50 cents in Sy.No. 582. As the very contentions of the complainant as to the sowing of the purchased seed on an extent of 60 cents in Sy.No. 217/1A being inconsistent to the record in Ex.A5 , X1 and X2 and sworn affidavit of the complainant the very aspect of complainants case as alleged is remaining in doubt and there by holding any liability of the opposite parties for the seed purchased under Ex.A4.
9. As the very cultivation by complainant of purchased seed as alleged being quite inconsistent to the record placed and there by casting a shadow doubt on the genuineness of the complainants claim the material in Ex.A1 to A3 and X1 to X3 , B1 and B2 and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 remains with any relevancy for its appreciation.
10. A question has been raised by the leaned counsel for the complainant during the arguments that OP’s were not properly represented and so the material adduced for OP’s side carry any weight and in the absence of any such cogent material from the OP side , the case is to be held in favor of the complainant alleging that while the OP.No. 1 is M/s. Syngenta India Limited represented by its Managing Director – 1170/27 – Revenue Colony , Sivaji Nagar, PUNE – 411005 having its registered office at Royal Insurance Building – 14-5 , TATA Road Church Gate – MUMBAI – 400020, the vakalath and written version of the OP.NO. 1 was executed and singed by one Danam Siva Prakash – Territory Sales Manager, Kurnol with an authorization dated 25-07-2007 of Syngenta India Limited to execute vakalath , appoint lawyers to defend the case , sign papers and writings required jointly and severally as may be necessary on companies behalf. Even though the said authorization dated 25-07-2007 being having any force for want of its issaual by described OP.NO. 1 but as the verified affidavit enclosed to the written version of OP.NO.1 says the said deponent who has executed vakalath and written version of OP.No.1 acquainted with the facts of the case and the order 29 Rule I CPC permits the signing of pleadings and any verification on behalf of the corporation by the officers of said corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case , there appears any much merit and force in the said contentions of the complainants counsel , especially when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs Narendra Kumar and others reported in AIR 1997 SC Pg.3 holds that it would be traversity of justice if the plaintiff is none suited for a technical reason which does not go to the route of the matter.
11. In the absence of cogent material in support of cultivation as alleged in complaint averments and on the other hand the material adduced through sworn affidavit of the complainant , entries of Ex.A5 , Ex.X1 and X2 and A7 being quite inconsistent to the complainants case and the opposite parties cannot be made liable for complainants claim merely because the Ex.A4 envisages the purchase of seed from opposite party NO. 3 , there appears any merit and force in the case of the complainant creating any of the opposite parties liability to the complainants claim the complaint is 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.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
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.07-08-2008
PW.2 Deposition of PW-2 (Dr.G.Narasimha Rao)
Dt.26-08-08.
PW.3 Deposition of PW-3(B.Srinivasa Murthy)
Dt.06-01-09.
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. 08-06-2006 & 21-06-2006..
Ex.A5. Adangal for the year 2007 for Iskala Village, Survey No.
582.
Ex.A6. Letter dt.18-11-2008 of selection grade secretary
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dt.02-04-2007
Ex.A8. Reply dt.13-04-2007 by OP’s to Ex.A7.
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:
Ex.B1. Brochure pertaining to Roshini Hybrid Varity.
Ex.B2. Literature pertaining to Chilly verities published by
Acharaya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra
Pradesh.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
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 :
