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
Thursday the 14th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 84/06
Between:
N. Hanumantha Reddy,
S/o. Pedda Reddy,
Agriculture,
R/o. Nayakallu (V),
Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Western Agri Seeds Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
802/11, Western House, GIDC (Engg) Estate,
Sector No.28 , Gandhi Nagar- 382 028.
Gujarat.
- M/s. Omkar Agritech,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Magna Chambers,
Room No.8,
IV Floor Lenin Estate,
Abids,
Hyderabad.
- M/s. New Sri Lakshmi Seeds and Pesticides,
Represented by its partner Y. Ramprasad,
51-916B-47-A-3, Shop No.1,
S.V.R.Complex, Opp. New Bus stand,
Kurnool. … 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. P.V. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties 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.84/06
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him the loss of yield , seed cost , incurred expenditure and compensation of Rs.48,000/- Rs.3,800/-, Rs.22,645 & Rs.20,000/- respectively totaling to Rs.94,445/- as damages with interest 24% p.a and cost of the case alleging purchase from opposite party No.2 , on 3-1-2006 , three bags of western 44 variety ground nut seed produced by the opposite party No.1 , on the assurance of yield of 25 quintals per acre and high potentiality of oil to said variety and sowing them in his land of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No. 5/1A of Nayakallu Village incurring in its cultivation Rs.3,600/- towards sheep manure, Rs.4,000/- for 2 lorry loads of manure , Rs.2,000/- for leveling the land , Rs.1000/- towards manual labour , Rs.5,995/- and Rs.2,550/- towards chemical fertilizers and pesticides and Rs. 2,000/- for irrigating the land and Rs.1500/- towards weeding and inspite of necessary feild and crop management it has not given assured yield giving only 100 kgs of ground net for acre due to unfilled pods and so sustained loss of investment and of the taking the said state of affairs to the notice of the agents of the opposite party and agriculture officials and their visits to the feilds for observing at the failure of crop and assigning reasons of said failure as that seed is a variety introduced for Gujarat area released for distribution without being tested of its adoptability to other areas and observance of any such aspects such as multi location trials , adoptive minikits and not following the all India co ordinated system for varietal release and the said sale of defective seed amounting to unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and so making them liable for damages as compensation to the complainant loss of yield, investment of agriculture inp-uts etc., and mental agony suffered thereon .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties caused their appearance and contested the case by filling written version of opposite party No.1, and its adoption by opposite parties No.2, 3, denying any of its liability to the
complainant’s claim alleging the failure of the crop was not due to any defect in seed as any complaint was there as to germination and growth of plant and both the loss of crop and incurred expenditure of agriculture simultaneously is not claimable by the complainant and the failure of the crop if any is attributable to lack of field and crop management and in adopting managerial skills and in use of micro – nutrients , required fertilizers and pesticides and processing of the said seed while sowing and continuous cultivation of same kind of crop years together and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint seeking an award of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite parties under Sec. 26 of C.P.Act.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1 , X2, and the evidence of PW. 1 & 2 in addition to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 which lends corroboration to RW.1evidence and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of the opposite parties and their unfair trade practice and thereby their liability to the complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A4 is the seed purchase bill dated 23-12-2005 envisaging the purchase of 3 packings each of 20kgs Western – 44 ground nut seed of lot No. 002 manufactured in 10/2005 expiring by 7/2006 at the rate of Rs. 1220 /- per each bag for a total amount of Rs.3810/- by N. Yugandhar Reddy. But the sworn affidavit of the complainant says that the purchase was made by his son Devendhar Reddy for him. Neither the said N. Yugandhar Reddy nor said Devendhar Reddy were examined by complainant’ side to substantiate the purchase of seed by the complainant through either of them. Hence there appears any proper cause of action to the complainant against opposite parties 1 to 3 from that seed and any loss insured on account of it.
6. The Ex.A5 copy of adangal account of Ac.2.10 cents of land in Sy.No.5-1A of Nayakallu Village envisaging the cultivation of ground nut in the extent of Ac.1.50 by the complainant in the fasli year 1415 (2006 AD) . This fact being not disputed much by the opposite party side by any cogent contradicting material this Ex.A5 stands as evidence as to the fact of the complainant’s cultivation of said land for ground nut crop in said year.
7. The Ex.A6 is a Xerox of representation, said to have been given by the farmers of several villages, to the Western Agri Seeds Private Limited , Gujarat as to yielding of western 44 ground nut crop in less than 10% in their fields inspite of their best efforts in crop and field managements . But the name of the complainant is not in the list of formers who set those grievances in Ex.A6. The Ex.A1 is the letter of the Mandal Agriculture Officer , I/C. Kallur Mandal addressed to the Joint Director of Agriculture , Kurnool as to the observations made in the fields of Bollavaram , Pusulur , Remadur and Nayakal Villages where western 44 variety of ground nut was cultivated . It observes that crop at drying stage with mortality percentage gradually increasing and crop at semi spreading having more branches not seen bunch type as given by the company and flowering even at maturity stage i.e., 120 days to sowing and pegs along with branches with average of 5-6 in filled pods for plant excepting poor yield of 2 to 3 quintals per hectare . Instead of assigning any reason for such state of circumstance to the crop it recommends for deputation of scientist to investigate the reasons for such state of affairs to the crop . From the Ex.A2 covering letter addressed to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool it appears that those fields were visited by Dr. K.S.S.Naik - Senior Scientist ( plant breading ) of Agriculture Research Station, Kadiri and it prepared diagnostic field report studying the performance of ground nut variety western 44 . The Ex.A3 is said diagnostic field report as to performance of ground nut western 44 variety grown in the fields of various mandals of Kurnool District. It besides observing the age of crop as 113 – 136 days after to sowing the germination and crop growth as normal , undermined flowering , free from pest and diseases as the plant protection measures were taken with pesticides such as Eklaux , Chlorpyriphos , Asiphate , Confidor , Dithone M 45 , Roxil etc., and adoption of cultivation practices recommended for Rabi season crops and on its basis expects yield of 3.5 bags to 7 bags, each of 40 kgs weight , per acre and thereby a poor yield in all inspected areas inspite of congenial management practices and concludes the reason for said state of things to the crop on accounts of its poor adaptation to this tract as introduced without being tested for its adaptation under multi location trials and adoptive mini kit trials which is warranted for release of any variety for general or commercial cultivation to a particular area and non follow up the established procedure of all India co-ordinated system incase of western 44 variety and not even furnishing any such data in release proposals of said variety and of any material as to its notifiedness with reference to any particular area and as this variety was bread for Gujarat conditions introduced to Andhra Pradesh without being tested for its adaptation under A.P. conditions. By the above observations as to the cause for failure of crop what appears is that the seed at the stage of research was released without holding proper test as its adoptability to the A.P.conditions and thereby the said seed being not suitable to A.P. ecological conditions contributed the failure of crop and its yielding if any is far less than expected yield mentioned in Ex.A7 broucher of the western agri seeds for western 44 variety. The evidence of PW.1 - Dr. K.S.S.Naik – lends corroboration in all material aspects to the above said observation report and nothing much to discredit the worth of his evidence and said observation report comes forth in his cross examination.
8. The Ex.A8/B1 is the Xerox of the license dated 17-10-2002 to dealer to deal in seeds . It was a license in form – C issued to carry on business of a dealer in seeds for sale and storage at the addresses in Hyderabad mentioned therein to opposite party No.2 . It licenses to handle various seeds among which one is western 44 ground nut under the head seeds of private varieties / hybrids for marketing . It was license to handle under the head of seeds of private research variety / hybrids for trial marketing the western HB 55 ground nut . It was also licensed to handle the seeds of all crops of notified variety and hybrids. No where it empowers to handle western 44 research stage seed that to sell any such varieties out side the premises for which the license was given under Ex.A8/B1.
9. The seed in Ex.A4 was said to have been purchased from opposite party No.3. From the Ex.X2 - application to obtain dealers license – the opposite party No.3 does not appear to have applied for license to handle ground nut seed . Nor any annexure -1 to Ex.X1 – license to carry on the business of a dealer in seeds pertaining to opposite party No.3 , is placed to know for what kinds of seeds business the opposite party No.3 was given dealer license . Further the evidence of RW.1 N. Venkatesham, Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool – competent authority to issue license – says under Ex.X1 no license was granted to opposite party No.3 to deal with western 44 variety . Hence the very sale of western 44 variety seed under Ex.A4 by opposite party No.3 and the release of western 44 research variety ground nut seed by the opposite party No.1 & 2 beyond the territorial limits of the license in Ex. A8/B1 appears to be without any validity.
10. From the above circumstances the release of a variety of seed still under the stage of research without any test of adoptability to A.P.conditions and sale of said seed to complainant without any license for its sale at Kurnool and the said seed on account of its non adoptability to A.P.conditions resulting in loss of yield , is clearly amounting to an unfair trade practice as selling of a defective non standard goods would be doing an unfair trade practice if permitted to continue such sale and if some one is manufacturing and selling goods in contravention of its control order it would be defect within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (f) of C.P.Act, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahamadabad in National Consumers Protection Samithi Vs.Chief Electrical Supervisor and others reported in CPR 2 (1991) 191 , CPJ 1 (1992) 398 . Such an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is making them liable for consequence of loss of expected yield to the complainant .
11. If there is no inherent defect in the seed complained of except a technical defect of its release without any required test of its adaptability to A.P. Agro environmental conditions the opposite party would have invoked the powers of this forum U/S.13 (1) ( C ) of C.P.Act to get tested the residuary samples of said seed to establish the genuineness of the seed and its free from any defect and their failure to perform said obligation has to be held against them as no buyer of the seed or farmer are expected to set apart some quantity of seed for testing on the presumption of that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing – as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in India seed house Vs. Ramjilal Sarma and another reported in III 2008 CPJ 96 (NC) and in South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs. R.Sekhar @ Sridhar reported in I (2008) CPJ 158 (NC ). In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sonekaran Gladisti Growers Vs. Baburam reported in II (2005) CPJ 94 NC and the decision in Indo American Hybrid Seeds and another Vs.Vijaykumar Sankar Rao and another reported in II (2007) CPJ 148 (NC) have any relevancy of its application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. The Ex.A1 observing the fate of the crop in the lands where the said western 44 variety was cultivated assess a very poor yield of 2-3 quintals per hectare and the Ex.A3 also assess the poor yield in those fields at 3.5 to 7 quintals per hectare or 3.5 bags to 7 bags of 40 kgs each for acre, while the expected assured yield as per Ex.A7 was 40-45 quintals of ground nut for hectare. But as the purchase of seed by complainant from opposite party No.1 & 3 being not proved and the name of the complainant being not in the list of aggrieved farmers considered in Ex.A6 representation the complainant is not remaining entitled for reimbursement of his loss of yield if any, from the opposite parties 1 to 3.
13. When the crop yielded was not as per advertisement /broucher and loss suffered by complainant , the dealer who sold seeds nor personally liable for defective seed is, held not acceptable by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi in M. Subba Rao Vs. Avula Venkat Reddy reported in I (2008) CPJ 269 (NC) .But this decision is having any relevant application to the circumstances of this case as the complainant failed to establish the privy of opposite party No. 1 to 3 to him.
14. consequently, the complaint is dismissed with costs against the opposite parties as the complainant failed to establish the privy of opposite parties 1 to 3 to his cause of action and there by any of their liability to his claim. In the circumstances of the case, as the opposite parties were drawn to this litigation without proper cause of action , the opposite parties are awarded Rs.1,000/- each under 26 C.P.Act, at the liability of the complainant which the complainant has to comply within a month of receipt of this order. In default the above stated award is payable with 9% interest by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 3 from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 14th day of August, 2008.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :
PW.1. Deposition of PW.1 dated RW.1. Deposition of RW.1 dated
21-11-2006 (Dr. K.S.S.N
aik) 26-9-07 (N. Venkatesham, JDA,
Kurnool.
PW.2. Deposition of PW.2 dated
24-1-2007 (Sri. Rajasham)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Attested copy of observation report of Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kallur Mandal
Ex.A2. Attested copy of Agriculture Research Station, Kadiri,
Dated 20-4-2006.
Ex.A3. Attested copy of Inspection Report submitted by Dr.K.S.S.Naik, Senior Scientist (Plant Beeding) A.R.S.Kadiri.
Ex.A4. Seed purchase bill dated 3-1-20006 for Rs. 3,800/-
Ex.A5. Adangal pertaining 1415 fasli – 2006 of Sy.No. 5-1A Nayakallu (V)
Ex.A6. Xerox copy of common representation dated 24-03-2006 given to opposite party No.1
Ex.A7. Xerox broacher of Western Agri Seeds.
EX.A8. Seed license to dealer dated 17-10-2002.
Ex.A9. Certificate issued by market yard, kurnool.
Ex.X1. Attested Xerox copy of license.
Ex.X2. Application to obtain dealers license (seeds) form ‘A’
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested copy License bearing No.112 granted on 17-10-2002.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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
