BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

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

Monday the 20^th day of December, 2010

C.C.No 06/10

Between:

T. Dhavaleswaraiah,  S/o. T.Anjanyulu,

H.No.1-200 , Chinna Tekuru Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District- 518 201.                  

    …Complainant

                             -Vs-

1. M/s.New Sree Venkateswara Fertilizers and Seeds ,Rep. by its Proprietor,   

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

2   M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director,

Regd., Office 905, Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamaba Road, Connought Place, New Delhi - 110 001.                         

…Opposite  ParTIES

          This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. J.P.Basava Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 06/10

1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying  

1. to pay a sum of Rs.91,480/- towards the expenditure ,
2. to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,999/- towards the crop loss,
3. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards  compensation for

causing mental agony and hardship

1. to pay the costs of this complaint,
2. to pass any other relief or reliefs that are deem to be fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2)   The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is an agriculturist. On 05-06-2009 the complainant purchased four packets of BT Hybrid Cotton NCS-145 variety from OP.No.1. The said seed was produced by OP.No.2. The lot number of said seed is 4937128. The complainant sowed the said seed in his land bearing survey No.156 to an extent of 1.77 cents and the lease hold land of 40 cents covered by Sy.No.153. The complainant spent huge amount of Rs.91,440/- for purchasing fertilizers, manure and pesticides. OP.No.1 and representative of OP.No.2 assured the complainant that the crop would give minimum 22 quintals of yield per acre. The prevailing rate of cotton was Rs.3,142/- per quintal.

        The normal crop period is 150 days. 60 days after sowing of seed there was no proper flowering and the said flowers were falling. The boll present is very less. On 24-09-2009 the complainant gave a complaint to Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kallur to find out defect in the seed and asses the crop loss. On 09-11-2009 Dr.Y.Rama Reddy, Senior Assistant (Cotton) RARS , Nandayl along with MAO , Kallur and other concerned agriculture officials have visited the land of the complainant . On 10-11-2009 MAO, Kallur sent the leaf samples to the Assistant Director of Agriculture , DNA Finger Print & Transgenic Crops Monitoring Laboratory, Hyderabad in lot wise for analysis of BT-2. The DNA report dated 01-12-2009 reveals the Bunny BG-II, lot No.4937128 is substandard.  The Senior Scientist, RARS, Nandyal gave his report stating that the farmers may get poor yield. The complainant got total loss of yield due to the defect in the seed. The complainant approached the OP.No.1 and requested to pay the loss but they refused. Hence the complaint.

3.     OP.No.1 remained ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The Agriculture Officer and the Scientist who inspected the field of the complainant did not inform to OP.No.2 company about their visit. No complaints were filed by other farmers regarding the germination of the seed is concerned. The complainant did not give legal notice to OP.No.2 before filing the complaint. The complainant filed the complaint with false allegations to gain wrongfully. The bills and rates filed by the complainant are created. Some times farmers may not get good yield due heavy rains or floods. In the present case also the complainant might have sustained loss due to floods.  The loss of crop to the complainant is not due to defect in the seed. OP.No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.           

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A16 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Ex.X1 to X5 are marked.  On behalf of the OPs no document is marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are      

(i)     whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

(ii)    whether the  complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(iii)    To what relief?

7. Point No.1 & 2:   It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist and that on 05-06-2009 he purchased four pockets of BT Hybrid Cotton NCS 145 from OP.No.1. To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A1 cash receipts issued by OP.No.1. It is also mentioned in Ex.A1 that the lot number of the seed purchased by the complainant is 4937128. OP.No.2 in his sworn affidavit also clearly stated about the purchase of the above said seed from OP.No.1 on      05-06-009. It is also stated by him that the said seed was produced by OP.No.2. According to the complainant he sowed the seed purchased from OP.No.1 in an extent of Ac.2.17 cents and that there was loss of yield due to the defect in the seed.

8.     It is stated by the complainant in his sworn affidavit that after noticing that flowers were falling from the cotton plants he gave a complaint to the Mandal Agriculture Officer,  Kallur. P.W.1 Mandal Agriculture Officer in her evidence deposed that on 24-09-2009 the complainant presented Ex.X1 to her and on the said representation given by the complainant she visited the land of the complainant on 14-10-2009 and found flower dropping and there were less bolls found. It is also stated by her that she submitted her report to ADA ( regular) Kurnool to depute the Scientist to find out the reasons for failure of the crop in the land of the complainant . It is further stated by her that Dr. Y. Rama Reddy, Senior Scientist (cotton) RARS visited the land of the complainant and submitted his report Ex.X2. P.W.2 Senior Scientist RARS, Nandyal in his evidence stated that he along with P.W.1 visited the land of the complainant on 09-11-2009 that at the time the crop in the land of the complainant is in boll bursting stage and that the boll was damaged due to boll warms because of non expression of BT BG II Gene. According to P.W.1 leafs samples collected by them were sent to DNA, Fingerprint Lab, Hyderabad for analysis . P.W.3 Assistant Director ,Agriculture DNA Finger Print Lab, Hyderabad in his evidence stated that after analysis they found that the samples received are substandard and not meeting the prescribed minimum seed quality standards as per seed Act 1966. Ex.X5 is the analysis report. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.X5 that the samples received do not prescribe minimum standards of 90% Cry 2abs. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 to 3 it is very clear that the seed sold by OP.No.1 i.,e  Bunni Busy II, Lot not No.4937128 is substandard. It is clear in the evidence of P.W.3 that due to sub standard presence of genes the cotton crop suffered from infestation of boll warms resulted in crop loss to the farmer. In the light of evidence of PWs 1to 3 and in the analysis report Ex.X5 we have no hesitation to hold that there is a defect in the seed sold by OP.No.1 and produced by OP.No.2. The complainant sowed the seed purchased by him in his land and got poor yield. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.     It is the case of the complainant that he got 1.77 cents in Sy.No.156 and that he took 40 cents in Sy.No.153 on lease from one Balaramdu and that he raised cotton crop in entire extent of 2.17 cents (1.77 + 40 cents). The complainant filed Ex.A14 copy of the adangal to show that he got an extent of 1.77 ½ cents in Sy.No.156. It is for the complainant to show that he also took an extent of 40 cents on lease one Balaramudu. The complainant  filed Ex.A15 lease   agreement said to have been entered in between him and Balaramdu. The complainant did not choose to file sworn affidavit of Balaramudu in support of his contention that he his cultivating an extent of 40 cents of Balaramudu on lease. Admittedly the complainant  on 24-09-2009 gave Ex.X1 report to P.W.1. Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kallur . In the said report given by him it is no where stated by the complainant that he was cultivating 40 cents of Balaramudu on lease. If there is truth in the contention of the complainant he would have mentioned the same in Ex.X1. The complainant did not choose to file any revenue  record to show that he cultivated the land of Balaramudu on lease during 2009. In the absence of the satisfactory evidence the contention of the complainant that he took the land of 40 cents of Balaramudu on lease can not be believed.

10.    According to the complainant he raised the cotton crop in his land of Ac.177 cents during the year 2009. There was partial failure of the cotton crop in the land of the complainant was spoken by P.WS 1 and 2 who visited the land. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that normally the farmers would get 12 to 18 quintals of cotton per acre and there might be loss of 6 to 10 quintals per acre in the land of the complainant . He also stated that there might be 50 to 60% damage of crop in the land of the complainant. According to the complainant that his neighbors who raised cotton crop got good yield of 20 quintals per acre. P.Ws 1 and 2 did not say that the yield of cotton per acre would be 22 quintals. The normal yield  of cotton crop per acre is 20 quintals.  50% comes to 10 quintals. The complainant must have sustained loss of 10 quintals of cotton per acre. The loss of yield from the land of the complainant must be 17.70 quintals (1.77 x 10).

11.    It is the case of the complainant that the rate of cotton per quintal was Rs.3,142/- at the relevant time. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that the rate of quintal of cotton was Rs.3,142/-The complainant filed Ex.A16 bill dated 07-12-2005 issued by Dhanalaxmi Trading Company , Adoni. The rate of cotton per quintal in the year 2009 must not be less than Rs.3,142/-. The value of the loss of yield @ Rs.3,142/- per quintal comes to Rs.55,613/-. The complainant also claims Rs.91,480/- being the expenses incurred by him for raising the cotton crop. The complainant is not entitled to the expenses incurred by him for raising the crop and also the value of the loss of the yield. According to the evidence of P.W.2 who is an expert the loss of the crop from the land of the complainant would be 50% due to the defect in the seed. Therefore the complainant is entitled to Rs.55,613/- being the loss sustained by him due to the defective seed produced by OP.No.2 and sold by OP.No.1.        

12 Point No3:   In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OPs 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.55,613/- to the complainant with subsequent interest at 9% p.a from the date of the complaint i.,e 04-01-2010 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.500/-.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20^th day of December, 2010.

Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

          APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :                For the opposite parties : Nil

Pw.1. Deposition of PW-1

(A.Tejeswari Devi, MAO, Kallur) dt.26-07-2010

PW.2 Deposition of PW-2

(Dr.Y.Rama Reddy, Senior Scientist,)  dt. 17-08-2010.

PW.3 Deposition of PW-3

(G.Vidyasagar, Asst.Director of Agriculture,

DNA, Finger Printing Lab, Hyderabad) dt. 20-09-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Seed purchase bill bearing No.47 issued by OP1

dt. 05-06-2009, for Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.A2.       Fertilizers and pesticides bills No.297, 298, 295 issued by Sri Vinayaka Agro Agencies, Kurnool

Ex.A3.       Animal Manure Bill issued by R.Seshi Reddy

dt. 05-05-2008 for Rs.1000/-

Ex.A4.       Tractor bill issued by K.Kamal Basha dt. 10-05-2009 for Rs.4000/-.

Ex.A5.       Labour charges bill issued by Shepherd K.K.Murali for stopping the sheep in the land dt.10-05-2009 for Rs.13,600/-.

Ex.A6.       Bill issued by K.Jaganadham for sowing the land

dt. 15-05-2009 for Rs.4,000/-.

Ex.A7.       Bill issued by M.Attar Basha for planting the seed

dt. 06-06-2009 for Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A8.       Bill issued by K.Jaganadham for sowing the land

dt. 30-06-2009 for Rs.2000/-.

Ex.A9.       Bill issued by M.Ramakka, labour contractor for employing 40 labours to remove the weeds dt.05-06-2009 for Rs.4,000/-.

Ex.A10.      Bill issued by E.Ramana Goud for spraying panpics

dt. 10-06-2009 for Rs.720/-.

Ex.A11.      Bill issued by K.Jaganadham for sowing the land

dt. 13-06-2009 for Rs.2000/-.

Ex.A12.      Bill issued by M.Ramakka labour Contractor for employing 40 labours to remove the weeds in the land

dt. 25-06-2009 for Rs.4000/-.

Ex.A13.      Bill issued by M.Giddaiah for spraying panpics dt.

05-07-2009 for Rs.2800/-.

Ex.A14.      Adangal/Pahani 1419 phasili issued by the VRO.

Ex.A15.      Agreement of T.Balaramudu dt.20-03-2009

Ex.A16.      Bill No.28 dt. 07-12-2005 issued by Sree Dhanalaxmi trading Company, Adoni.

Ex.X1.       Representation letter dt.24-09-2009 of complainant to MAO, Kullur.

Ex.X2.       Photo copy of Inspection report dt.09-11-2009.

Ex.X3.       Photo  copy of letter dt.26-01-2010 MAO,Kallur to Asst.Director of Agriculture DNA finger printing lab, Hyderabad.

Ex.X4.       Form VII Certificate of test and analysis by the seed Analyst, dt.01-12-2009.

Ex.X5.       DNA Report dt. 01-12-2009

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:  Nil

        Sd/-                                                                  Sd/- 

MALE 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   :