Date of filing : 11 -05-2012
Date of Disposal : 16-04-2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2013
C.C.NO.20/2012
Between:
L.Madhusudhan Reddy
S/o L.Gangi Reddy
D.No.1-191,
Kondamanayunipalyam Village & Post
Kadiri Rural Mandal,
Anantapur District. …Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s Sri Sairam Fertilizers
Rep. by its Proprietor
D.No.1-81-B, College Road,
Kadiri Town, Anantapur District.
- M/s Ajeeth Seeds Ltd., rep. by its
Managing Director, Regd. office,
2nd floor, Tapadiya Terraces,
Adalat Road,
Aurangabad – 431 001
Maharashtra. … Opposite partaies
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri L.Narasimha Reddy, advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri A.Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of complainant’s side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of expenditure (Rs.15,000/- x Acs.2.00), Rs.70,000/- towards loss of one year crop (Rs.35,000/- x Ac.2.00), Rs.2,550/- towards cost of seeds and Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony in total Rs.2,52,550/- with future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of seeds till realization and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is resident of Kondamanayunipalyam Village, & Post, Kadiri Rural Mandal, Anantapur District and he is an agriculturist. The 1st opposite party is the proprietor and running the Fertilizer Shop in the name
and style of Sri Sairam Fertilizers at Kadiri and used to sell the Seeds and Fertilizers . The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Hybrid Maize Seeds, other products and distributing the same to the 1st opposite party. The 1stopposit party has canvassed and lured the ryots in the Villages to purchase Hybrid Maize Seeds variety stating that the said seeds will yield 40 quintals per acre. On believing the words of the 1st opposite party, the complainant has purchased 3 packets of Hybrid Maize Seeds, which contains 5 kgs., packet by paying a sum of Rs.2,550/- under bill No.97 dt.25-01-2012 from the 1st opposite party. After purchasing Hybrid Maize Seeds the complainant raised Maize Seeds Crop in Sy.No.83-2 in Ac.2.00 out of Acs.2.67 cents in his fields. The complainant applied manure and pesticides upto the standard as directed by the 1st opposite party by spending Rs.15,000/- per acre. It is submitted that after 2 ½ months the complainant came to know that Hybrid Maize Seeds supplied by the 1st opposite party are inferior quality and the complainant did not get the crop as canvassed by the 1st opposite party. The crop has been grown well, but there is no seed formation. Then the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and requested him to inspect the land in the 1st week of April, 2012and they stated that after 10 days the crop will be formed the seeds and yield will become out. As stated by them the complainant waited up-to 10 days. Even then also there is no formation of seeds and kanki and the same was published in newspapers i.e. Sakshi Newspaper on 18-04-2012 and in Andhra Prabha on 16-04-2012. The complainant approached Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri on 16-04-2012 to request him to inspect the schedule land and the Mandal Agricultural Officer inspected the schedule land on 18-04-2012 and gave opinion that there is no formation of the crop. Due to inferior quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties, the crop is failed. The complainant has taken photographs of the standing crop . It is submitted that the entire land is fertile land and red soil irrigated by bore-well water and the complainant has taken all precautions as per the directions of the 1st opposite party, but the crop is not yielded. Hence the complainant claiming compensation of the Rs.2,52,550/- under different heads.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant is not a consumer. The maize seeds are not purchased by the complainant for his personal consumption. The maize is not the staple food for the people of this region. It is a commercial crop. Hence the complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this dispute because this is not a consumer dispute. There is no defect in the maize seeds purchased by the complainant from
the 1st opposite party and the real defect lies with the farming practices of the complainant himself. The yield of any crop depends on many factors like fertility of the soil, irrigation facilities, farming practices, vagaries of nature etc., If at all these conditions are good, then only the good seeds would yield a good crop. The yield does not solely depend on the quality of the seeds. In all the pamphlets of the opposite party No.2, the qualities and expected results of the seeds are described with a caution as follows:
The information furnished above is based on the study and experiments conducted at our research form. It has to be taken into account based on irrigation practices, soil type, usage of fertilizers, pest control measures, climate, farming practices etc., which are not in our control. The crop management practices are not under the control of the company and hence the farmers have to undertake the total responsibility.
The 1st opposite party has no control over the quality of seeds. They are packed in sealed packets by the 2nd opposite party and those sealed packets are sold to the customers without opening the seal. Hence, the 1st opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd opposite party company has taken all the care in supplying quality seeds to the farming community. It has well developed laboratory and research facilities. Each and every lot of seeds undergoes strict quality control measures, which are scrupulously followed by the 2nd opposite party. There is no iota of lapse on their part regarding the quality control. The seeds of the 2nd opposite party are widely acclaimed by the farming community trough out the country. The 2nd opposite party is a reputed company marketing its seeds throughout country. Without strict quality control measures, the company could not have grown to such an extent. The 1st opposite party has sold many packets of seeds to the number of persons. There is no whisper of complaint from any other farmer in the region covered by the 1st opposite party. This clearly shows that the complaint is filed with malafide intention to defame the opposite parties. The Commissioner report along-with the photos furnished by him and the photos filed by both parties reveal that the soil is not black soil and it is saline soil, which is not congenial for a good crop. There was a heavy growth of weeds throughout the field of the complainant. He has not taken minimum care to remove the weeds. A good farmer will never allow the weeds to crop up in his field. This clearly depicts the lethargy of the complainant even in his normal farming practices. The crop was attacked with wilt disease. TAhe complainant has not taken even a semblance of care to prevent the spread of the wilt disease or to curb it with suitable pesticides and other suitable framing practices. This is the main reason for the absence of cob (Kanki) formation or defective cob formation. The complainant himself is solely responsible for the poor yield and he can not make the opposite parties as cape goats for his defective farming practices. The complainant failed to use required manure and fertilizers to cover up the salinity in the soil. It is false that the complainant spent Rs.15,000/- per acre for applying manure and pesticides for raising the crop. Even the Mandal Agricultural Officer, has not complained in his report regarding the quality of the seeds. In fact, he suggested for the inspection by the Agricultural Scientists. Conspicuously the complainant has not taken any steps to conduct inspection by Agricultural Scientists, because he very well knows that his defective forming practices, attack of wilt disease, growth of weeds and poor nature of soil will be reported. It is not true that after 2 ½ months of sowing, the complainant went to opposite party No.1 and that opposite party No.1 and agents of opposite party No.2 inspected the land in the 1st week of April, 2012 and that they stated that seeds would be formed within 10 days. The columns in news papers did not report correctly. A perusal and comparison of the report of Mandal Agricultural Officer and the columns in newspapers would reveal the falsity of the latter. The Mandal Agricultural Officer never complained about the quality of seeds. He only suggested inspection by scientists which never took place. The land of the complainant is not a fertile one. It is false that there is plenty of water in his bore-well. It is false that the complainant has taken all the required care and precautions. The opposite parties never promised 35 quintals of yield per acre and the claim made by the complainant is very high and not tenable and not entitled any compensation as claimed by him. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs of the opposite parties.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant comes under the definition of consumer and this
Forum has got jurisdiction?
2. Whether the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective seeds?
3. Whether the complainant followed the procedure to get good yield?
4. To what relief?
6 To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked ExA1to A6 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B3 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, no evidence on affidavit of 2nd opposite party has been filed. On behalf of Forum Ex.C1 to C10 are marked.
7. POINT NO.1 :- The complainant raised Maize Crop in his Acs.2.00 of land. The seeds were supplied by the 1st opposite party. After getting the crop he may sell the same in the market and he gets income from the same. The opposite parties argued that the maize is not staple food for the people of this region. It is a commercial crop. The farmers generally used to sow crops basing on the yield of other farmers or on the opinion of Agricultural Experts. In the present case also the farmer may opt to raise maize seeds instead of general paddy and groundnut crop, because in this region the people are not getting much income in paddy and groundnut crop. So the farmers used to sow different crops. Maize is also that type of crop. He just put the seeds in Acs.2.00 only. In that Acs.2.00 he can not get some crores of rupees after selling it. If the crop is in good condition, he may get Rs.30,000/- per acre as per the complaint. So it is not a commercial crop. About the consumer, the opposite party argued that the complainant is not a consumer. As per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act the complainant also hired services of the opposite party after paying consideration (Ex.A1). Purchase of seeds under bill from the 1st opposite party is not disputed. The complaint is maintainable as the seeds were purchased for his livelihood and not for commercial purpose. Hence, the complainant is a consumer and this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. POINT NO. 2 - The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased maize seeds from the 1st opposite party on 25-01-2012 by paying Rs.2,550/-. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer. He raised the maize crop in his Acs.2.00 of land as per directions of the 1st opposite party and incurred Rs.15,000/- per acre towards pesticides. But even after 2 ½ months there was no seed formation though the crop grown well. About the same the complainant informed to the 1st opposite party and 1st opposite party inspected the filed in the 1st week of April, 2012. The opposite party people informed that he has to wait for 10 days for formation of seeds, but no seeds even after 10 days. Then the complainant requested the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri on 16-04-2012 to inspect his field. The Mandal Agricultural Officer inspected the field on 18-04-2012 and gave opinion that due to inferior quality of seeds, the crop failed and the same news published in Newspapers (Ex.A4) also. The counsel also argued that the land is fertile land and red soil irrigated by bore-well and there is plenty of water. Due to defective seeds the seeds were not formed, hence the complainant is entitled the claim.
9. The counsel further argued that the Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the Forum and he inspected the field on 16-05-2012. At the time of inspection all the parties and Mandal
Agricultural Officer was present. The complainant raised maize crop in Sy.No.83/2 an extent of Ac.2.00. In the report the Commissioner stated that the crop is grown well and in the crop no cob formation. At the time of Commissioner’s visit it was completed the yield time of 3 months. The Mandal Agricultural Officer opined that crop failure due to defective seeds and he has already given his report on 19-04-2012 as there was no cob formation. The counsel argued that basing on the report of the commissioner and Mandal Agricultural Officer, the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective seeds; hence the complainant entitled the claim.
10. The opposite party argued that there is no defect in the maize seeds, the real defect lies with the farming practices of the complainant, the yield of any crop depends on many factors like fertility of the soil, irrigation facilities, farming practices, vagaries of nature etc., If all these conditions are good, then only the good seeds would yield a good crop. The yield does not solely depend on the quality of the seeds. In all the pamphlets of the opposite party No.2 company the qualities and expected results of the seeds are described as follows:
The information furnished above is based on the study and experiments conducted at our research form. It has to be taken into account based on irrigation practices, soil type, usage of fertilizers, pest control measures, climate, farming practices etc., which are not in our control. The crop management practices are not under the control of the company and hence the farmers have to undertake the total responsibility.
11. The 2nd opposite party has taken all the care in supplying quality of seeds to the farmers, and it has well developed laboratory and research facilities. The 2nd opposite party has got good reputation and after taking all quality control measures, then only they used to release the seeds in the market. The counsel argued that the report of the Commissioner clearly reveals that the farmer has not taken any precautions to protect his crop. At the time of inspection of Commissioner, the crop was attacked with wilt disease; the complainant has not taken any precautions to prevent the diseases. This is the main reason for the absence of Kanki formation.
12. The counsel argued that the Mandal Agricultural Officer never complained in his report about the quality of seeds, he suggested for the inspection of Agricultural Scientists. But the complainant failed to take steps to conduct inspection by Agricultural Scientists. Hence the seeds are not defective one. The complainant solely responsible for the poor yield and he is not entitled any claim.
13. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of maize seeds from the 1st opposite party by the complainant and the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed Ex.A1 to A6 documents and the opposite party field Ex.B1 to B3 documents. The complainant filed the bill about the purchase of seed on 25-01-2012. But in the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned when he sowed the seeds in his field, for the first time it was mentioned that he sowed the seeds on 26-01-2012 when the Advocate-Commissioner visited. The complainant stated that he followed the procedure according to directions of the 1st opposite party (dealer of 2nd opposite party) and he used pesticides. But the complainant has not filed any document to show that he incurred Rs.15,000/- per acre towards pesticides. The crucial document to decide about the defective seeds, i.e. Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri report (Ex.A5 dt.19-04-2012) “ he stated that crop aged 80 days and crop condition drying stunted. But no cob formation was observed. “ Further he stated that as the complainant alleged in his complaint dt.16-04-2012 cob formation was not found due to inferior seeds, hence to depute Agricultural Scientists. Whereas in Ex.C1 alongwith Commissioner Report the same Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri stated in his report that “ it was observed that the yield of maize crop was not upto the mark, cobs are very small “ and he already given previous report to the Joint Director of Agriculture. The two reports of Mandal Agricultural Officer do not disclose the inferior quality of seeds supplied by the 2nd opposite party.
14. In the other hand the Commissioner inspected the land of the complainant and stated in his report that the entire crop grown well, but in the some places he observed that cob formation is small one. In some places cobs formed seeds and in some plants cobs not formed. The Commissioner is also not come to conclusion about the defectiveness of seeds because he is not the expert. The Mandal Agricultural Officer stated in his report he referred to Agricultural Scientists.
15. The complainant also never made any attempt to send seeds to the Agricultural Scientists at any point of time. Whether the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri suggested to the complainant or not there was no evidence because the farmers may not have idea to send it to Agricultural Scientists. The Agriculture Officer may educate the farmers on this aspect.
16. The counsel for the complainant submitted that AIR (SC) 2012-1-60:
National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madusudhan Reddy. In this case the Hon’ble National Commission observed that:
“ There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which can not be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector Company dealing in seed production and sale the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the respondent/complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of petitioner – NSC and sent for analysis . Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the petitioner company which failed to comply with the provisions of section 13(c) of the Act. Since the petitioner-company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner-company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory. “
In the above case one expert by name Sesha Reddy visited the fields of the complainant and gave his opinion that the crop failure is due to defective seeds. Whereas in the present case no expert was visited the field of the complainant though the Mandal Agricultural Officer suggested for Agricultural Scientists opinion. The Mandal Agricultural Officer and Advocate commissioner are not come to a conclusion to decide about the defectiveness of seeds.
17. The opposite party submitted a ruling that reported in 2009(1) CPR 182 (NC) - Maharashtra Hyrid Seeds Company Vs. Paruchuri Narayana – Section 13(1)(c) “ Question regarding quality of seeds is to be determined following the procedure contemplated under section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not on the basis of assumptions or presumptions. “
2010(3) CPR 340 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. Mohanlal and others “ Non-germination by itself can not lead to presumption that seed was defective. “
2010(1) CPR 19 – M/s Kisan Beez Bhandar, Gur Bazar, Malout, through its Proprietor Baldev Raj Vs. A.Chaudhary Amar Kumar & another “ Defect in seeds has to be proved by specialist opinion. “
2004 (2) CPR 62 - Basanta Kumar Panda @ Batakrushna Panda Vs. Prafulla Kumar Das – Whenever an allegation as to defective commodity made, same to be proved by way of a laboratory test. “
All the above citations states the complainant must send the seeds to Laboratory Test to prove the defect in the seeds, if the same was not followed the Forum could not come to a conclusion mere basing on the report of Agricultural Officer that the seeds are inferior quality. In the present case also the complainant has not made any attempt to send the seeds to Lab Test.
18. The complainant submitted that Section 13(a)(b) is not mandatory as per observation of National Commission in 2012. In this case, the National Commission reported that Lab Test may be could have sent the sample test for laboratory but both parties failed to follow the procedure laid down u/s 13(c) of Consumer Protection Act.
19. The opposite party also argued that the complainant has not cared about the crop and he has not followed any suitable farming practices. Crop was attacked with wilt disease. Crop loss is only due to sole responsibility of complainant not for the defective seeds.
20. Hence, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any expert opinion we should not come to a conclusion that the seeds are defective seeds and the complainant failed to establish the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective seeds. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
21. The counsel for the complainant argued that after sowing the crop, the complainant has taken all the procedure suggested by the opposite party and he used pesticides and manure and when the cob was not formed he stopped cultivation under the depression of loss sustained by him.
22. The opposite party argued that the yield depends on the so many factors like fertility of the soil, irrigation facilities, farming practices, vagaries of nature etc., If all these conditions are good, then only the good seeds would yield a good crop. The yield does not solely depend on the quality of the seeds. The complainant failed to follow normal farming practices to get good yield, due to no kanki formation in the crop. It clearly shows that the photographs filed by the opposite parties that the complainant allowed the weeds to crop and disease to crop. These are the poor practices on the part of complainant. Hence, he is not entitled any claim.
23. As per the commissioner’s report, the crop was aged about more than 3 ½ months by the time of his inspection. Photographs show that Maize Crop was grown well and samples taken by the Commissioner in different rows at request of both parties. It shows that some cobs are formed in the crop and in some plants no cob. We are of the opinion that if the complainant failed to take minimum care, the formation of cob does not arise. The Mandal Agricultural Officer also opined that cob formation is not up-to the mark. So we are taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner that the farmer followed the procedure to good yield. The opposite party contended that there was a heavy growth of weeds throughout the field of the complainant. It is general attitude of the farmers that if they failed to get crop up-to the expected levels, they are not used to general farming practices like watering, removing of diseases and using of pesticides etc, in this case also it may happened by the time of inspection of the Commissioner.
So we feel that the complainant followed all farming practices until he found that the reason for cob formation in the crop. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
24. POINT NO.3 - The complainant stated that he incurred Rs.15,000/- per acre for pesticides and manure and he incurred crop loss of Rs.30,000/-.
The complainant has not filed any document to show that he incurred Rs.15,000/- per acre towards pesticides and manure. Hence, he is entitled a sum of Rs.2,52,500/- towards compensation under different heads.
As the complainant failed to establish about the defectiveness of seeds and the opposite parties also failed to establish that the complainant has not followed the farming practices, we are allowing this complaint partly as either the Commissioner or Mandal Agricultural Officer estimated the loss. It is a fact that the complainant sustained loss and he has not taken any yield. Considering the farmers situation allowed the complaint partly.
25.POINT NO.4 - In the result, the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.2,250/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure, Rs.1,500/- towards Commissioner’s fee, Rs.30,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay jointly and severally within one month from the date of this order other-wise interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 16th day of May 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 – Original Bill No.97 dt.25-01-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour
of the complainant.
2. Ex.A2 - Empty bag of Hybrid Maize Seeds of the opposite parties.
3. Ex.A3 – Photo copy of Pattadar Pass relating to the complainant issued by the
Thasildar, Kadiri
4. Ex.A4 – Paper Publication relating to Hybrid Maize Crop.
5. Ex.A5 - Photo copy of report dt.19-04-2012 sent by the Mandal Agricultural Officer,
Kadiri to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur.
6. Ex.A6 - Photographs relating to Hybrid Maize Crop alongwith C.D.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 - Pamphlet relating to Hybrid Maize Seeds issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B2 - Photographs relating to Hybrid Maize Crop .
Ex.B3 - C.D.relating to Hybrid Maize Crop.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF FO THIS FORUM
Ex.C1 - Original Commissioner Warrant issued by this Forum.
Ex.C2 - Notice issued by the Advocate-Commissioner to the complainant and opposite
parties.
Ex.C3 - Fax message sent to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.C4 - Postal acknowledgment signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.C5 - Work memo filed by the complainant.
Ex.C6 - Work memo filed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.C7 - Photographs alongwith C.D. relating to Hybrid Maize crop.
Ex.C8 – Sample of cobs selected by the complainant in one plastic cover 20 Nos.
Ex.C9 - Sample of cobs selected by the opposite parties 1 & 2 one plastic cover
20 Nos.
Ex.C10 – Report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kadiri.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
