BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 24^th day of September, 2009

C.C. 26/09

 Between:

Polkal Ramanjaneyulu alias Anjaneyulu,  S/o. Anjaneyulu,

D.No.3/17, Boya Gari, Nayakallu (V) , Kallur Mandal , Kurnool District.

                                                …Complainant

-Vs-

1.M/s. New Sree Venkataramana, Fertilizers  and Seeds,Represented  by its Proprietor,

Shop No.51-8C, Mubarak Complex, Opp. Market yard, Kurnool 518 003.

2. M/s. Devgen Seeds and Crop Technology Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director,

7C, Surya Towers, 105, S.P.Road,  Secunderabad - 500 003.           

          …Opposite Parties

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. A.Anil Kumar,  Advocate for opposite parties  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)

C.C.26/09

1.     Complaint filed under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant purchased  3  packets   of   Sun  Flower   Seed SH 3322  variety on 22-05-2008 from opposite party No. 1 manufactured  by opposite party No. 2 @ Rs.600/- per packet  and paid Rs.1,800/-  to opposite party No. 1. The lot number of the seed was 020003 .The complainant spent huge amount to prepare the land for cultivation of the crop.

3.     The complainant had 3 acres of land in Sy.No.322.

4.     After sowing  the seed , by spending  huge amount  for manure,  fertilizers  and pesticides  such as Rs.1,800/- for seed , Rs.4500/- for animal manure  , Rs.6,500/-  for sowing seed removing  the weeds  towards labour charges,  Rs.3,000/- towards tractor  rent , Rs.3900/- towards fertilizers  totaling Rs.16,700/-.

5.     The complainant  expected 8 quintals  of yield per  acre. The prevailing  rate of the  crop was Rs.3,000 per quintal .

6.     The complainant expected  24 quintals  of sun flower totaling Rs.72,000/- towards yield . He had not received such yield. He sustained  a loss of Rs.16,700/- and Rs.72,000/- .

7.     The normal crop  period was 90 days  but even after 60 days  there was no flowering and seed setting was improper . The other variety  of Sun Flower seed  gave good yield to other agriculturists.

8.     On  18-08-2008 the  complainant  gave a  representation  to  the Mandal    Agriculture  Officer ,  Kallur  to   asses  the crop loss. On 22-09-2008  Dr. S. Saralamma ,the Principal Scientist and Co-Ordinator  , DAATT Centre , Kurnool  along with Mandal Agriculture Officer , Kallur   and other officials visited the land  and observed  poor seed setting  and 10 to 15%  of   grains. She   submitted  the   report  on 22-10-2008 to the Joint Director of Agriculture , Kurnool.  The opposite party No. 2 did not represent  at the time  of inspection. The report  was clear that  the crop management  was good  but there was poor seed setting and 10-15% of filled grains and the loss was 85-90%  . The complainant contacted the opposite parties  and requested to pay the compensation  for loss , but they refused. Therefore  the complaint was  filed for Rs.16,700/- towards expenditure , and Rs.72,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation  together with costs.

9.     The written version of the opposite parties  1 and 2 in brief is as follows :- It was not known whether the complainant was agriculturist  and spent  huge amount to prepare the land  and it was an imaginary  that he  expected 8 quintals  of yield  per acre and the rate of sun flower  crop was Rs.3000/- per quintal  and he sustained a total loss of Rs.88,700/-.

10.    The duration of crop was 90 days. It was not correct  that even  after 60 days there was no flowering  and seed-setting  was  improper  . It was not known  whether  a complaint was given  to Mandal Agriculture Officer , Kallur  to assess the loss . The Principal Scientist & Co-Ordinator  of the DAATT Centre  , Kurnool  had not  visited the crop  on 22-09-2008  at the stage of Grain Hardening and therefore the reasons  were alleged  improper  seed setting  could not be ascertained  . The land of crop was due to various factors . It was  not correct that the complainant requested the opposite parties  to pay the loss and same was refused . The documents  filed by the complainant  for fabricated .There was no occasion  of any complaint  regarding seed quality produced by  opposite party No. 2. Some formers  used same seed and got good yield . They gave the facts in writing . The good crop yielding  was depending  on nature of soil , application  of proper manures , fertilizer and pesticides  at appropriate stage and  proper  irrigation and climatic  conditions  . The opposite parties  had no knowledge above poor yield . The Principal Scientist  & Co-Ordinator  had visited  the crop without intimation . The seeds were sown  on  06-06-2008  and it  would  be   ready for  harvesting  on 04-09-2008 .  The visit of the Scientist  was on 22-09-2008  i.e, 18 days  after maturity  of the corp. Thus , it was difficult to assess the seed setting . The report  was not supported by any proof. Thus the complaint may be  dismissed with costs.

11.    On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are

(i)     Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on  the part of  the opposite parties .

(ii)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(iii)  To what relief ?.

12.    On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A15 were marked  and on  behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B18 were marked. The complainant examined  PW.1 to 4 and also marked Ex.X1 to X3.

Both parties filed written arguments.

13.    Point No. 1 & 2:    The complainant  purchased  3 packets  of Sun Flower  Seed  SH 3322 variety with lot No. 020003 from opposite party No. 1 , on 22-05-2008 @ Rs.600/-  per packet totaling Rs.1,800/- manufactured  by opposite party No. 2 to cultivate  the sun flower seed  in his land  of 3 acres in Sy.No. 322 of Nayakal  (V) Kallur (M) . The Ex.A4 was Xerox copy of the bill issued by opposite party No. 1. The normal  crop period was 90 days . Even after  60 days after sowing there was no flowering . The seed setting  was improper . The complainant  expected  8 quintals per acre  in his cultivatable  land of 3 acres out of 4 acres totaling 24 quintals  . He filed Ex.A2  a certificate issued by AP State  Irrigation Development Corporation  Limited , Kurnool  regarding his  extent of Ayacut covered under Nayakal  Infiltration Well No. 7 . Ex.A3 was the  covering letter  to Ex.A2.  He filed  Ex.A5 a bill purchasing  fertilizers  on 25-06-2008  for Rs.3,900/- from Sri Ramanjaneya Traders   , Kallur (Mandal) . Ex.A6 was  stamped receipt  issued by a tractor owner that the  tractor  was used by the complainant  for agricultural purpose  and paid  Rs.3000/- towards the tractor rent . Ex.A7 was the stamped receipt for purchasing  animal manure  for Rs.4,500/- and paid to the person who sold away the manure  on 20-05-2008 . Ex.A8 was unstamped  receipt for payment of Rs.6,500/- towards labour charges.

14.    After raising  the crop there was no  flowering  and there was no proper seed setting . The complainant made representation  to the Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kallur about the crop  and assess the  crop loss . The Mandal Agricultural Officer  addressed  a letter to Joint  Director  of Agriculture , Kurnool who requested the  Associate Director  of Research , RARS  Nandyal   on 12-09-2008 to depute  a Scientist  for inspection of the crop  in Nayakal (V) Kallur (M) . The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex.A10. On its  baiss Dr. S. Saralamma Principal Scientist and Co-Ordinator  , Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University , Hyderabad , District Agricultural Advisory & Transfer of Technology Centre ,  Kurnool conducted inspection on 22-10-2008 at the grain hardening stage  and submitted report  to Joint Director of Agriculture , Kurnool on 22-09-2008 that she visited the   crop  on  22-09-2008 and found crop growth was good and uniform but there was  poor seed setting and observed 10 to 15% of filled grains. But the other variety by Kaveri  & SB 275 had good seed setting under same situation and even though  the  farmers  maintained  the field in proper way then got 10-15% of yield and thus the loss around  85 to 90% . The Xerox copy of the report  was Ex.A1. Ex.A9 was the copy of the adangal extract for 71418.

15.    The complainant filed a bill issued  to some other former  for Kaveri Variety  of sun flower  seed under Ex.A11 and the extent  of land of the other  farmer under the Adangal  under Ex.A12 belonged  to Boya Talari   Nagendra . He filed the bill of another  farmer namely  N. Sankar Reddy under Ex.A13 . His extent of land was shown  under Ex.A14 by way of copy of Adangal   . Ex.A15 was the minimum and maximum  rate of sun flower  in October 2008 issued by  Agricultural Market Committee , Kurnool ranging from Rs.1410/- per quintal to Rs.2,979 per quintal  on different  dates in October, 2008.

16.    On the other hand the opposite parties  filed Ex.B1 a copy of the seed test report that the purity was 98% and  the genetic purity was 95% . They filed Ex.B2 a Xerox copy of the  bill of one Dastagiri  purchased the same  variety  of sun flower seed on 05-06-2008 and Ex.B3 a Xerox copy of the statement of Dastagiri that he had good seed setting and good yield  . Ex.B5 was the copy of Adangal extract of Dastagiri  and Ex.B4  was Xerox copy of house hold  ration card of Dastagiri . Similarly  the opposite parties  filed Ex.B6 Xerox copy of the bill in the name of K. Narayana  purchasing same variety  of seed on 30-05-2008  and Ex.B7 xerox copy of Pattadhar Pass book   and Ex.B10  the copy of the  Adangal  extract  of Naryana  and Ex.B9 a statement  of Narayana that he got good yield of sun flower . Ex.B8 was the Xerox copy of ration card  of Narayana . on the same line  the opposite parties filed Ex.B11 a Xerox copy of the bill of one Peddaih  of  same  variety  of  sun  flower  seed   purchased on 24-05-2008 under Ex.B11 and Ex.B12 xerox copy of his Pattdhar pass book and Ex.B13  xerox copy of house hold ration card  . Ex.B14 a statement of Peddaiah that he got  good yield  of sun flower and Ex.B15 copy of the adangal  extract of his land. They filed Ex.B17 xerox copy of bill . Ex.B16 a statement of Nagaraju  regarding good yield of the same  variety of sun flower  seed. Ex.B18 was Xerox copy of the statement  of one Venkata Swamy that he had good yield of sun flower crop. The opposite parties  filed Ex.B2 to Ex.B18 to prove that the same sun flower seed of SH 3332 variety manufactured   by opposite party No. 2 gave good yield with good germination  and seed setting and there was no defect  in  the seed and it was not  in poor quality. In view of  Ex.A1 , who was not concerned  either to the  opposite parties or the  complainant  it was clear that  the yield was only 10-15% and loss of 80 to 95%  and there was poor  seed setting with 10-15% filled grains.

17.    The complainant examined  PWs 1 to 4 and filed  Ex.X1 to X3 . PW.1 was Tahasildar , Kallur filed Ex.X1. copy of rain fall statement of Kallur (M) . It showed  that there was no heavy rain fall in the entire year 2008 . On the basis  of Ex.X1 it could not be said  the rain  fall of each village . It was the normal  rain fall in the  entire kallur  (M) during 2008. The PW.2 was Mandal Agricultural Officer , Kallur  (Nayakal) (V) that he received  Ex.X2. A Xerox copy of the representation  dated 18-08-2008 sent  by the complainant  regarding  loss  of the crop. Ex.X3 was the requisition of  P.W.2  of Joint Director of Agricultural to depute an expert  committee. Because he conducted preliminary inspection and found certain observations. So  Dr.Saralamma  was directed  to inspect the crop and filed the report  . The Scientist visited the land and observed the physical  features  of crop and details of irrigation  and type of soil and enquired farmers about the date of sowing , use of fertilizer and pesticides  and rain fall  particulars  . The P.W 2 visited the land 4 days after receipt  of Ex.X2 . at the grain hardening stage and found poor seed setting. He made his observations  in Ex.X3 submitted to the  Joint Director of Agriculture  . He could not say the age of the crop. According to P.W. 2 ,the duration of  crop  was 90 to 115 days .The PW.3 was the Principal Scientist  and Co-Ordinator , DAATT Centre ,Kurnool  who filed  Ex.A1  on conducting  inspection on 22-09-2008 . She did not mention in Ex.A1  that poor seed setting was  on account of defective seed. The poor seed setting could be possible by rain during the flowering period and high temperature  at that time and attack of test and defective seed. The PW.3 assessed the crop loss would be 85% to 90% . PW.4 was the Executive Engineer  A.P. Irrigation Development Corporation , Kurnool issued Ex.A2 and A3. Thus on the whole it was clear a case that the poor seed setting and crop without flowering was due to defective seeds manufactured by opposite party No. 2  . The opposite party No. 2 filed Ex.B1  regarding test of the seed  conducted  in May 2008 . The  seed was sold to the complainant  in May 2008. It was not mentioned  when the seed was packed  . Ex.B1 was a self testing report . The seed was not sent to any Government Analysis for seed testing. Before packing the seed the opposite party No. 2 had to get the Government Analysis Report of seed testing and it was not done so. In its absence it was clear  that the seed was defective and Ex.B1 need not be considered.

18.    In view of Ex.A15 the rate per quintal of sun flower crop in October 2008 ranging  from Rs.1410/- as minimum 2979/- as maximum price. The maximum price  would depend upon the variety of the  crop and quality of the crop. So there was no proof to it . As per  Vyavasaya Panchangam  2008-2009 published by Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University , Hyderabad . The yield per acre was 3 to 4 quintals under rain fed lands  and in case of rainy season it would be 4 to 6 quintals  and during summer and winter season  under irrigation facility ,it would be  8 to 15%  quintals . The land of the complainant was a rain fed land but under Ayacat of Nayakal Infiltration Well No. 7 . Therefore  the yield was about 8 quintals  per acre. Thus the complainant is entitled  at 8 quintals per acre totaling 24 quintals to the entire the total loss of yield 3 acres of land at the rate of Rs.1400/- per quintal totaling Rs.33,600/- and total expenditure  of Rs.16,700/-  would amount to Rs.50,300/- with Rs.1,000/- towards costs and without compensation  of interest .Thu there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

19.    In the result , the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally  liable to pay Rs.16,700/- towards expenditure , and Rs.33,600/- towards crop loss and Rs.1,000/- towards costs without interest  and compensation  payable within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24^th day of September, 2009.

         Sd/-                                 Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                 PRESIDENT FAC)        MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :                             For the opposite parties :Nil

PW.1 Deposition of 1^st witness for complainant

, dt:04-05-2009 (G.V.Venkateshan)

PW.2 Deposition of 2^nd witness for complainant

, dt:01-06-2009 (A. Tejeswari Devi)

PW.3 Deposition of 3^rd witness for complainant

, dt:01-06-2009 (Dr.S.Saralamma)

PW.4 Deposition of 4^th witness for complainant

, dt:10-07-2009 (S. Lakshmi  Narayana)

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

 List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:   

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)               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 parties      

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :