F.A. No. 1090/2005 against C.D No. 9/2004,  Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad

Between:

Ambari Ramulu

S/o. Pentaiah

Age: 62 years,

Agriculturist

R/o. Bhanoor (V)

Patancheru Mandal

Medak District.                                           ***                           Appellant/

            Complainant 

                                                                    And

1. M/s. Srikanth Reddy  Seeds & Pesticides

3-5-839/6/6, L. R. Plaza

Hyderguda, Hyderabad-500 029.

2. M/s. Rajitha Crop Care Pvt. Ltd.,

6-3-712/117, Flat No. 202

Near Durga Bhavani  Temple

Punjgagutta Colony

Hyderabad-500 082.                                   ***                         Respondent/

Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:                         Mr. S. Ramachandraprasad

Counsel for the Respondent:                       Mr. A. Karunakara Rao

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                          &

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE  NINETH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER  TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

          The unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum  in dismissing his claim.

          The case of the complainant in  brief is that  he is an agriculturist, purchased 10 Kgs of  caster seed of Kranthi  variety  on 30.6.2003 from R1 at Rs. 600/-  and obtained  Ex. A1 receipt.   It is in fact R2 who actually purchased  the said seed  and marketing under the brand name of  Rajitha Seeds, and supplied it to R1.   He  sowed 8 kgs of seed in an extent of 7 acres of  his land on  10.8.2003, applied fertilizers by engaging 20 workers.  However, the said seed was not germinated.  He informed the said fact to the respondents.  The Field Officer  Sri M. M. Reddy  of R2  inspected the field, took 500 gms  from out of remaining seeds.  Since the respondents did not respond, he approached the Agricultural Officer, Patancheru on 28.8.2003  and requested him to enquire.  Accordingly, the Agricultural Officer visited the  field on 1.9.2003, found that seedlings were very weak and reported the same to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sangareddy under Ex. A3.   He sustained loss of Rs. 1,25,000/-.  He issued notice under Ex. A4 for which  the respondents did not reply.   Since he had sustained loss of crop  due to defect in the seed he claimed Rs.1,25,000/-towards damages with interest @ 24%p.a and  Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.

          R1 resisted the case.  He alleged that the complaint was not maintainable.  However, he admitted that  the  complainant has purchased 10 Kgs of Castor seeds of Kranthi  variety  on payment of Rs. 600/-.  He himself purchased the said castor seed from R2 the manufacturer under sale invoice Dt.  26.6.2003.  He further alleged that the complainant never informed that he was having 7 acres of land nor applied fertilizers.  In fact as per specifications  he had to sow 2 Kgs of seed per acre.   8 Kgs of seed purchased by him was sufficient for four acres only.  The complainant has no basic knowledge of these aspects.  When the complainant informed about the poor germination, he in turn informed R2.  An authorized person also inspected the field.  The seeds kept by him should have been deposited before the Dist. Forum in order to send them for analysis. 

The field officer who visited the fields found the land was already tilled.    Even the Agricultural Officer  in his report  has stated that the land was tilled  for the purpose of sowing tomato and maize crops.   The complainant being the Ex-Vice President of  Mandal  Parishad  misused his position  and obtained report from the Agricultural Officer.  At any rate, even the Agricultural Officer  did not state that there was poor germination.   Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          R2 filed separate counter almost  reiterating the facts alleged by  R1.  It alleged that when it received information from R1  it has sent  its Field Officer  who after visiting the land  informed that the complainant had already  tilled   the land for raising tomato and maize crops.  They did not receive any  complaint from any other farmer that the quality of the seed was poor.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and  Exs. A1 to  A7.   The respondents did not file any evidence.  The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not show either from the Agricultural Officer or from any other evidence that the seed purchased by him was of inferior quality, and as such  did not germinate.  He did not hand over the samples to the Agricultural Officer for sending them to experts.   Since no evidence whatsoever was forthcoming, the complaint was dismissed. 

          Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the law or facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that Ex. A3 report of  Agricultural Office discloses that the  seedlings were very weak.   He has made all efforts by informing  the Assistant Director of Agriculture to prove that the seeds that were supplied were defective, and prayed that the appeal be allowed and consequently grant compensation.

          It an admitted fact that R1 a dealer in seeds purchased Castor seeds from R2 the manufacturer and sold 10 Kgs of  castor seed of  Kranthi variety for Rs. 600/- on 30.6.2003 evidenced under Ex. A1.   According to him, he sowed  8 Kgs of see in an extent of 7 acres of his land  on  10.8.2003  by engaging 20 workers. He also applied fertilizers.  When the seeds were not germinated, he informed the said fact to R1 on 22.8.2003 as well as to R2.

          Admittedly, when the complainant approached the   Agricultural Officer , Patancheru on 28.8.2003 and requested to enquire into his complaint about the  non-germination of seed, he visited the field on 1.9.2003. and submitted his report under  Ex. A3 to the Assistant Director of Agriculture.   While reporting about the said fact he mentioned that the Field Officer of R1 Mr. M. M. Reddy visited the field on 24.8.2003.   He mentioned that he has taken 500 gms of seed from the farmer for seed testing.  However, this was disputed.   Finally, he mentioned that “I have inspected the castor field today, i.e., on 1.9.2003 of Sri Ambari Ramulu and found (1) or (2)  seedlings here and there scattered and the seedlings were very weak.   The farmer has taken up tomato crop in the part of the field and maize crop in part of the field.”  This is what he reported.  In other words by the time the Agricultural Officer visited the land, the complainant has ploughed  the land and sowed the seed for raising tomato and maize crop.  He could not have known as to the quality or the quantity of the castor seed crop raised by the complainant.  Despite the complainant was having  2 Kgs of castor seed with him  he  did not  obtain any sample or send it laboratory for testing.    The complainant for the reasons best known did not invoke Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act  by depositing the seeds before the Dist. Forum with a request to send them to a laboratory for analysis.  

The complainant could not even show that the very seed that was purchased by the other agriculturists were not germinated, and therefore they had also sustained loss.   He could have filed the affidavits of those farmers.   He did not file any village record to show that the crop was failed.  Since there was no  evidence, whatsoever, the Dist. Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint.  Absolutely, there are no merits in the appeal.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, without costs.

                    PRESIDENT                                               LADY MEMBER

                                                Dt. 09.09.2008.

*pnr

CORRECTED – O.K.