BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 14th day of March, 2006.
C.C.No.167/2005
K.Ranga Reddy,
S/o K.Sunki Reddy,
Aged about 50 years, Agriculture,
Hindu, R/o Jutur (V),
Pamulapadu (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.M/s. Sri Nandi Agencies,
Rep by its Proprietor,
Shop No.A/34, Balaji Complex,
Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
2.M/s. Sumitra Seeds Private Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
Office:17-1-382/B/80, Bhanu Nagar,
Nagarjuna Sagar Road,
Champapet, Hyderabad. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 6.3.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1, Sri.T.Siva Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No. 2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon ble President)
1. The Consumer case of the complainant is filed under the Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.1,14,000/-with interest at 24percent per annum towards the loss of yield of 20 Qtls per acre of cotton on extent of 3 Acres, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony on account of loss of crop due to supply of defective seed, and costs of this complaint along with other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand alleging purchase of M/s Sumitra 207 cotton seed from opposite party No.1 manufactured and supplied by opposite party No.2 and their sowing on extent of 3 Acres of his land in the month of June 2004 and even though his land was fertile and suitable for said crop, the cotton bolls not opened and consequently did not yield and there by he was put to loss of expected yield of 20 Qtls. per Acre besides of agricultural in-puts and expenses worth Rs.45,000/- and the said crop loss was inspected by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu and submitted report to Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance and contested this case proceedings filing their written version denying of any defect in the seed supplied to the complainant and there by any of their liability to the claim of the complainant and alleging further that at no time the complainant ever complained of loss of yield during its relevant season and no value to so called inspection by Mandal Agricultural Officer as it was done after the season and so seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs. The opposite party No.2 has filed its own written version in the same lines.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 besides to his sworn affidavit and the reply of the opposite parties to his interrogatories, the opposite party side has relied upon to the sworn affidavit of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and reply of complainant to its interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the cause of action as to defect in the seed supplied resulting in loss of yield and there by the liability of the opposite parties for making good of the claim of the complainant. While Ex.A1 envisages the purchase of 3 pockets of each of 450 grams of hybrid cotton seed of M/s Sumitra 207 variety of lot Nos.3017 by complainant, on 10-6-2004 at Rs.430/- per each pocket from opposite party No.1, the said purchase envisaged in Ex.A1 being not denied by the opposite parties it remains conclusively proved as to their purchase by complainant from opposite party No.1.
5. The complainant alleges the loss of the crop was brought to the notice of Agriculture Department and the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu submitted its report of inspection to Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool and files Ex.A2 to A6 as correspondence addressed by the complainant to the Agriculture Department and vice warsa in that connection.
6. The Ex.A2 is said to be the office copy of letter dated 24-1-2005 addressed by complainant to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu it alleges the cultivation of 3 pockets of M/s Sumitra 207 hybrid variety cotton seed in his extent of 3 acres land in survey No.808 and 809 of Jutur Village in June month of the year 2004 and the cotton bolls yielded not possessing cotton there in as the seed supplied was spurious and he sustained a loss of yield at Rs.30,000/- per Acre and so requesting action on the vendors of said seed for his compensation.
7. The Ex.A3 is said to be the office copy of letter dated 8-2-2005 addressed by the complainant to Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool taking reference to the letter addressed to Mandal Agricultural Officer. It alleges as to the purchase of Ajith and Supriya seeds from the opposite party No.1 i.e. Sri Nandi Agencies, Nandyal and the loss of yield on account of their spuriousness was at 15-20 Qtls. per acre and of agricultural expenses incurred at Rs.20,000/- per acre and so requesting for necessary action against the said companies which supplied the said seed, for compensating his loss. As the complainant alleges the seed he sowed was Sumitra 207 hybrid variety cotton seed which the Ex.A3 alleges sowing of Ajith & Supriya seed it costs every shadow of doubt on the very bonafide of his case.
8. The Ex.A4, A5 are the letters addressed by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu, to Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool marking its copy to the complainant in reference to Ex.A3 and other references mentioned there in. It says of his observations made on said field of complainant on 28-2-2005. In it he obserbs standing crop having matured bolls, opened bolls and flowering to some extent and on the basis of complainant version the complainant getting an yield of 3-4 Qtls of cotton Ajith-11 variety and 2-3 Qtls. of cotton from Supriya variety and he has rejected once its inspection as not being covered under Memo of Understanding and he has made to said inspection on being insisted by complainant vide his another application dated 1-2-2005. It does not say anywhere as to the defect in the said seed but on the other hand belies the case of the complainant as to total loss of yield alleging the complainant has got some yield by the time of his inspection. The Ex.A6 memo of Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool addressed to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu marking its copy to Asst. Director Agriculture rural Atmakur and the complainant ratifies the observation in Ex.A4 & A5 of Mandal Agricultural Officer. Both these Ex.A4 and A5 besides not finding any defect as to seed and total alleged loss of yield, advising the complainant to report to Fora available for legal recourses for compensation.
9. While such is so with the above said pre complaint material, the complainant who resorted to this legal recourse in this Forum for compensation neither endeavoured for the assistance of Section 13 1(c ) of Consumer Protection Act by placing any residuary samples of the said purchased seed with him or sought for a direction on the opposite parties to furnish the sample of seed of said lot for analytical test and report of approved laboratories as to their alleged spuriousness or substandedness of said seed which could lead to reasonable conclusion as was resulted into loss of yield.
10. The complainant except placing Ex.A7 a bunch of 20 bills as to purchase of pesticides and fertilizers did not place any such positive material any C.C of adangal as to cultivation of hybrid cotton in his filed and as to the suitability of said of his land for raising cotton crop and material as to its fertility and favourable environmental conditions, field management and crop management to exclude all other possibilities except alleging the defect in seed remitted to alleged loss of yield. Hence, the mere Ex.A7 is not going to add any clear material holding the defect/substandedness/ spuriousness in said seed supplied to the complainant to believe it as one of such substandedness which resulted in loss of yield especially when the alleged total loss of yield is also remaining doubtful in the light of the observations made in Ex.A4 and A5 as to the quantum of crop fetched by the complainant in his field.
11. In absence of any clear material or report as to the defective quality of seed supplied to the complainant, the non standardness in the quality of seed remains not proved and the Hon ble National Commission in Sone Keran Gladioli Growers V/s Babu Ram reported in II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) upheld the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum setting aside the order of the State Commission which reversed the Forum order in appeal. Hence in inspiration of the above said decision of the Hon ble National Commission, in the circumstances of the non availability of any material as to the defect in seed supplied to the complainant, the reason for alleged total loss cannot be attributed to the seed said to have been supplied by the opposite parties and there by for holding any of the opposite parties liability to the claim of the complainant.
12. The decision of the Hon ble National Commission in Bejo Sheetal Seeds V/s Balla Vaenkateswarlu and Others reported in 2001 (3) CPR 126 (NC) exempting the complainant from the compliance of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act for sending the seed for test and analysis and the decision of Hon ble National Commission in National Seeds Corporation Ltd., V/s M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Other reported in 2003 (2) CPR page 15 (NC) giving excuse to the complainant in non compliance of Section 13 1(c ) of Consumer Protection Act in sending this seed for analytical test is not finding much relevancy for their appreciation in this case in the light of the supra stated recent decision of National Commission as to guiding factors (i.e. II (2005) CPJ 94) and in the second case (i.e. 2003 (2) CPR page 15 (NC)) as there was a report of Commissioner for reliance in said case as to quality of said seed, and in the present case there is nothing of that sort.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No.1 - dealer, who was said to have supplied the seed to the complainant, cites a decision of Hon ble A.P. State Commission reported in 2004 (1) CPJ page-161 and urges that the liability of the dealers is exempted when seed was supplied to the Consumer in the same position as a dealer he received from its manufacturer. But in the light of the observations made in earlier paras as to the absence of any clear material or proof to hold the defect in said seed supplied to the complainant and its exclusive responsibility for alleged total loss of yield and there by to any liability of the opposite parties for the claim of the complainant, the appreciation of this decision cited canvassing the exemption of liability of dealer finds little relevancy for appreciation in this case.
14. Hence, in the conclusion of the above discussion as there being no material to hold the defect in said seed supplied to the complainant and its exclusive contribution for the alleged total loss of yield, the opposite parties cannot be held liable for the claim of the complainant.
15. Consequently the case of the complainant being devoid of merit and force is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 14th day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Seed purchased bill issued by opposite party No.1, Dt.10-6-2004 for
Rs.3,240/-
Ex.A2 Office copy of letter, Dt.24-1-2005 complaint given to MAO,Pamulapadu.
Ex.A3 Office copy of letter, Dt.8-2-2005 complaint given to J.D.A.
Ex.A4 Attested copy of letter, Dt.1-3-2005 of MAO addressed to J.D of
Agriculture.
Ex.A5 Letter, Dt..23-3-2005 addressed to J.D of Agriculture, Kurnool.
Ex.A6 Letter, Dt.8-6-2005 addressed to MAO
Ex.A7 Bills (Number in 20) Fertilizers & Pesticides.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. M.Shivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Sri. T.Siva Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
