Date of filing : 19-07-2011
Date of Disposal: 03-09-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 3rd day of September, 2012
C.C.NO. 119/2011
Between:
T.Sreedhar Reddy
S/o T.Rami Reddy
Agriculturist,
r/o Tadimarri Village & Mandal,
Anantapur District. …. Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s Veerabhadra Reddy & Co., rep.by
its Proprietor Sri G.Kavinath Reddy
D.No.13-720-3, RTC Bus Stand Road
Anantapur.
2. Syngenta India Ltd.,
Seeds Division rep. by
Authorized Signatory, Seeds House,
1170/27, Revenue Colony,
Shivaji Nagar
Pune – 411 005. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Vidhyapathi, advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Sarath Babu, advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is absent and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.1,950/- towards costs of the seeds, Rs.12,000/- towards costs of manure, Rs.13,376/- towards costs of Fertilizers, Rs.1,20,000/- towards crop loss, Rs.6,000/- towards Pre-agricultural operation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony in total Rs.1,63,326/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :-The complainant is permanent resident of Tadimarri Village and Mandal, Anantapur District and he is an agriculturist and completely depending on the agriculture. The 1st opposite party is the distributor of the seeds situated at Anantapur and selling various seeds including the seeds produced by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the producer of the seed “ SUNBRED 275 Hybrid Sunflower Seed alongwith other products and distributing the same to the various retailers including the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had canvassed in the Villages about the said product that the said seed will give high yield more than 15 quintals per acre. Believing the words of the 1st opposite party, the complainant purchased 3 packets of 2 Kgs., each of SUNBRED 275 Hybrid Sunflower Seed on 09-04-2011 from the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party issued bills to that effect. The complainant purchased 3 packets with batch No.10166993 for Rs.1,950/-. After purchase of the seed, the complainant has raised the crop in Acs.3.00 in Sy.No.583-2E. The complainant prepared the land suitable to the Sunflower crop to water it through drip system and to that effect he spent about Rs.6,000/-. The complainant after making necessary pre-agricultural operations and following the instructions of the 1st opposite party sowed the seed on 21-04-2011. The complainant also applied 15 carts of manure to the field which costs about Rs.12,000/- and applied fertilizers and pesticides worth Rs.13,376/-. Though the germination of the seed is good, when the crop flowered and at the time of seed setting it was observed that the grain was not setting and the plants are with multi-flowering. The same was complained to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Tadimarri by the complainant. The Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the fields on 09-07-2011 and observed the crop loss incurred by the complainant at 12.14 quintals per acre and incurred a loss of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre and submitted his report to Joint Director of Agriculture,Anantapur. The complainant incurred loss of Rs.1,50,000/- as the seed is defective in nature. The complainant was expecting yield of 40 to 45 quintals and marketing price of Rs.1,35,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant and his family members spent huge labour and suffered mental agony due to the failure of the crop and due to supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence, the complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony. Therefore, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in supplying the defective seeds. Hence the complainant claiming total sum of Rs.1,63,326/- towards compensation from the opposite parties 1 & 2.
3. Both opposite parties 1 & 2 called absent. Even though the counsel for the opposite party No.1 filed vakalat on behalf of the opposite party No.1 but he has not filed any counter.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
3. To what relief?
5. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents.
6. Heard on behalf of the complainant.
7. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased SUNBRED 275 Hybrid Sunflower Seed on 09-04-2011 from the opposite party No.1 as the opposite party No.1 canvassed in the Villages that the seeds will give high yield more than 15 quintals per acre. The complainant raised the crop in Acs.3.00 in Sy.No.585-2E on 21-04-2011 after making necessary pre-agricultural operations, the complainant applied fertilizers and pesticides.
8. Though the germination of seed is good, the grain was not setting and the plants are with multi-flowering. The complainant reported the same to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Tadimarri and the Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the field on 09-07-2011 and observed that crop loss at 12-14 quintals per acre and a loss of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued that the Advocate-Commissioner also visited the field and filed his report. The Mandal Agricultural Officer also assisted the Advocate-Commissioner at the time execution of warrant and he filed his report. Both reports of Advocate Commissioner and Mandal Agricultural Officer clearly shows that the seed-setting is not good due to defective seeds and the complainant incurred loss though the complainant has taken all precautions. Hence, the complainant is entitled the claim as the opposite parties supplied defective seeds.
10. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have not filed counters and absent.
11. On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, it shows that the complainant purchased SUNBRED Sunflower Seeds from the 1st opposite party on 09-04-2011 (Ex.A1) and Ex.A2 are Fertilizers bills to prove that he used the seeds in his land. Ex.A4 is the Pattadar Pass Book to show that the complainant is having land in Sy.No.583-2E at Tadimarri Village.
12. Ex.A3 is the report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, Tadimarri. The Mandal Agricultural Officer has mentioned in his report that multi-flowering is due to the seed crossing problem. In the report the said Mandal Agricultural Officer has mentioned that the farmers used recommended dose of fertilizers etc., and seeds were sowed at right time and grain filling is very poor.
13. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner is also similar that of the Mandal Agricultural Officer. In the report it is mentioned that the representatives of the opposite party No.1 and Mandal Agricultural Officer were present at the time of execution of warrant. In the report, it is mentioned that entire crop failure observed multi-flowering with strong stems of the plant. Source of water is sufficient and the complainant has taken all precautions for sowing of seeds. It is mentioned in the report that Mandal Agricultural Officer assessed the multi-flowering is about 60 to 70 per cent and multi-flowering is caused due to mutation, seed defect. The Mandal Agricultural Officer also assessed that the age of crop was about 90 days and it was sowed in the right time. Yield of present crop is about 1 quintal per acre. Flowers are dried up and very small. The Mandal Agricultural Officer also opined that crop is not affected from any decease and no pest was observed in the crop and the plants are only 1 ½ or 2 feet, but normal growth of plants about 4 ½ to 5 feet and he opined that grain setting is very poor and loss of the crop is 80 to 85%.
14. The opposite party No.1 who was present at the time of execution of warrant not raised any objection or filed any objections for Commissioner’s report about the alleged supply of defective seeds by the opposite party No.2 as the opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer. Basing on the available documents, the supply of seeds to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 is no dispute, about the defectiveness we have to rely on the report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, who is an Agriculture Expert and the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. Mandal Agricultural Officer gave two separate reports about the defectiveness. In both reports he clearly mentioned that the complainant followed every precautions at the time of sowing crop and multi-flowering is only due to the defective seeds.
15. The opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer did not take any steps to show that the seeds were sold in conformity with all standards. We are relying on a decision reported in 2011(11) CPJ 426 (A.P.State Commission) P.Chowdaiah & ors Vs. Sai Agro Agencies.
16. In the above batch cases the Agriculture Officer opined that seeds defective, manufacturer did not take any steps to send the seeds to the laboratory test - Agriculture Officer did not find fault with complainant in their agricultural practices etc.,
17. By relying the above decision, we are of the opinion that the seeds supplied by the opposite party No.2 are defective seeds and there was deficiency in seed manufactured by the opposite party No.2. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party No.2 who was manufacturer of seeds.
18. POINT NO.2 - The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased 3 packets of 2 Kg., each of seeds and he raised the crop in Acs.3.00 in Sy.No.583-2E after taking all precautions and sowed on 21-04-2011, he incurred much amount for fertilizers, pesticides etc., But the germination of the seed is good, the grain was not setting and plants are with multi-flowers. The Mandal Agricultural Officer visited the field of the complainant and observed the crop loss is 12 – 14 quintals per acre and loss is Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Hence, the complainant is entitled the claim amount.
19. As per Ex.A3, Mandal Agriculture Officer, Tadimarri report, the complainant will not receive the yield 1 to 2 quintals per acre. The complainant stated that he purchased the seeds on the canvass of the opposite party No.1 that the seeds of opposite party No.2 will give high yield more than 15 quintals per acre. But the case in hand the complainant not filed any document to show that the seeds will give high yield. The Mandal Agricultural Officer also not mentioned in his report that how much yield will get per acre if crop growth is good. The Mandal Agricultural Officer simply stated that growth is very poor and complainant will not get 1 to 2 quintals per acre. The Mandal Agricultural Officer estimated the loss of crop is 80 to 85% per acre and the opposite party No.1 who was present at the time of execution of warrant not disputed about the loss and estimation of loss by the Mandal Agricultural Officer.
20. Basing on the Mandal Agricultural Officer and Commissioner’s reports the loss approximately estimated as 10 quintals per acre and cost per quintal is fixed as Rs.35,000/- per acre. The complainant filed the bills pertains to purchase of Sunflower Seeds and Fertilizers. But no documents filed for manure and pre-agriculture operations. Hence, the complainant is entitled compensation estimated as :
Loss of crop 10 quintals per acre
Cost fixed as Rs.35,000/- per acre ….. Rs.1,05,000/-
Cost of seeds ….. Rs. 1,950/-
Cost of Fertilizers ….. Rs. 13,376/-
This point answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party No.2 as the opposite party No.1 is dealer and no liability is on the opposite party No.1.
21. POINT NO.3 – In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, a sum of Rs.15,326/- towards cost of seeds and fertilizers and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint and the opposite party No.2 has to pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 3rd day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Bill No.150 dt.09-04-2011 for Rs.1,950/- issued by the opposite party
No.1 in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 – Original Cash bills dt.28-05-2011 issued by Sri Venkateswara Fertilizers,
Tadimarri in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3 - Preliminary Inspection Report filed by the Mandal Agricultural Officer,
Tadimarri.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Pattadar Pass Book relating to the complainant issued by the
Tahsildar, Tadimari.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- NIL -
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
