BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member.
AND
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Friday the 23rd day of May, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 105/2002
Between:
Jatoth Sarya, S/o Tukya,
Age: 36 yrs, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o Jatoth Thanda, Elgur Station,
Sangam (M),
Warngal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Mulkanoor Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President A. Praveen Reddy,
Husnabad Road, Mulkanoor (V),
Mulkanoor (M),
Karimnagar District.
2. Madhuri Agencies Pesticides & Seeds,
Station Road, Opp: Sunil Theatre,
Warangal.
Rep. by its Proprietor P.Venkateshwarlu. … Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Smt. A. Vijaya Kumari, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri. P. Sadashiva Rao, Advocate
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant J.Sarya against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.1,05,000/- towards reimbursement.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant is an agriculturist by profession and took the land on lease on crop share basis to an extent of Ac.2-00 from Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy and Ac.2-00 from K.Basva Reddy. The complainant purchased 3 packets of MPF 500 paddy seeds from Opposite party No.2 each bag contain 30 Kgs of seeds produced by Opposite party No.1 vide bill 284, dt.25-5-2001 for Rs.9650/- @ Rs.320/- per bag. The complainant sowed the seeds in his Ac.4-00 of land and used proper fertilizers and pesticides. But to the utter shock and surprise the said crop grown properly, did not yield proper produce. The complainant invested more than Rs.30,000/- towards Pesticides and fertilizers. The complainant several times approached the Opposite parties for reimbursement of loss, but they did not respond. Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice, for which they issued reply with false and baseless allegations. As such he filed the present complaint before this Forum.
The opposite parties filed the Written version contending in brief as follows:
The seeds are of good quality. They are not at fault and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of Opposite party No.1 Sri V.Ravinder Reddy, and on behalf of Opposite party No.2 Sri P.Venkateshwarlu, filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation from Opposite parties and also sum of Rs.1,05,000/- towards reimbursement of amount incurred by the complainant to using the fertilizers and pesticides Rs.15,000/- per acre and to with costs.
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
The version of the complainant is that he took lease the land and raised the crop in his agriculture land to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.753 of Jatoth Thanda of Elgur Station, Sangam Mandal, Warangal District from Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy to an extent of Ac.2-00 inSy.No.842 of Jatoth Thanda of Elgur Station, Snagam Mandal, Warangal District from Sri K.Basva Reddy @ 13 bags of paddy per acre. The complainant with a view to raise crop purchased 3 packets of MPF 500 paddy seeds from Opposite party No.2, each bag contain 30 kgs of seeds produced by Opposite party No.1 vide bill No.284 dated 25-5-2001 for rs.960/- @ Rs.320/- per bag. The complainant believed the assurance of opposite party No.2 purchased the said seeds. Thereafter the complainant sowed the seeds in the entire 4 acres of land and used proper fertilizers and pesticides as per guidelines of Opposite party No.2. But to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant, the said crop though grown properly, did not yield proper produce, for the reasons not known to him. The complainant doing agriculture since long time and having lot of experience in agricultural operations. The complainant invested more than Rs.30,000/- towards Pesticides and fertilizers. When the complainant sowed the same seeds in the market he got only Rs.400/- per bag. The other neighboring farmers of the complainant sold the same in the market, got Rs.700/- per bag. The complainant not only deprived of his earning on the crop to the tune of Rs.75,000/- but also his entire service and investment were in went vain. Thereafter he issued legal notices to opposite parties. They replied with false and baseless allegations. Then he filed this case before this Forum.
Opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that the seeds are of good quality. They are not at fault and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
We have to decide whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation because he himself admitted that he got the land from 2 persons they are one Mr.K. Sanjeeva Reddy and K. Basva Reddy from them the complainant took the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 on lease basis. First of all, he is not the owner of the said land. No doubt the complainant is saying that he is a lessee. For this there is no document to prove that there is an agreement in between Saneeva Reddy and Basva Reddy show that he got the Ac.4-00 of land from them on lease basis or commission basis, if there is an agreement from them, the complainant certainly file, and the Forum will believe that he is the owner of the land. First of all he has to prove he is the owner of the land. For this our answer is that he is not the owner of the land because no documentary proof filed by the complainant. He simply filed only Exs.A-4 and A-5 they are the white papers something is written i.e., he took the land from the above persons. These documents are not valid under law because the documents are not registered and not at all stamped papers. So the Exs.A-4 and A-5 are not at all valid under law it shows that the complainant is not the owner to the extent of Ac.4-00 and further it clearly goes to show that the complainant has not taken the land on lease basis from Sanjeeva Reddy and Basva Reddy. If he is the owner of the land he will have the right to ask compensation from the Opposite parties. But there is no document to show that he is not owner of the land. Another point is that
Opposite party No1 stated that their society started around 50 years back and it is not out of place to mention that most eminent persons such as Sri P.V.Narsimha Rao Ex. Prime Minster of India acted as chairman of the said society. Right from the first day of the inception, the society is rending a quality service to the agriculture fore front by supplying un compromised quality seeds pesticides etc and obtained irrevocable confidence from the society at large. With the above background the Opposite party No.1 has entered into Memorandum of Understanding with State Bank of Andhra Pradesh vide memo No.SP33/FP.I(1)2000-5, dt.21-12-2000 which is marked as ex.B-1. The State and Central Governments under section 8 of Seeds Law empowered to appoint self certifying agencies with regard to seeds through official Gazette publications. And it is further admitted that section 8 b of seeds law the state and Central Government are empowered to appoint other committees through their Agencies. Accordingly Opposite party No.1 elaborately written in Written Version with regard to history of the said society. And further Ex.B-2 is only with regard to State and Central Government to appoint other committees and Ex.B-4 list of Seed producers and Marketers and Ex.B-3 circular memo by Commissioner of Agriculture and further the complainant is not having any adequate knowledge of agriculture and cultivation techniques, started cultivation. He did not follow the proper agricultural methods and he did not pluck out the weeds properly. Due to which 15% of the off-types grown in the field. Inspite of this the loss is very much negligible or no loss to be considered.
After receiving a complaint from the complainant the District Level Committee visited the crop field of the complainant on 31-10-2001 and noticed the stage of crop and unequivocally gave its findings that there is no loss either in yield or any poor or mal-germination of the seeds supplied by the opposite parties. When Opposite party he himself stated that there is no loss either in the yield or poor or mal- germination of the seeds supplied by Opposite parties, certainly Opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or any damages to the complainant. Ex.B-5 clearly goes to show about the notice and further the photographs filed by the complainant i.e., Ex.A-8 the yield of crop was in a good manner and we saw our naked eye that the crop is in a good manner. As per Ex.A-8 also we can say that the crop is in a good manner and when the complainant is not the original owner and crop is in a good manner we disbelieve that the complainant sustained heavy loss. When we disbelieve the complainant sustained heavy loss the complainant is not entitled to get anything from Opposite parties. Opposite parties are not liable to pay anything to the complainant.
If really the complainant sustained loss the Government liability is to pay something to losers the persons who sustained loss on the crops but here the Government paid some amount to the farmers. When Government paid some amount to the farmers the complainant is not entitled to get anything.
For the foregoing reasons given by us it is clear that the complainant is not entitled anything from the Opposite parties. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of Opposite parties against complainant.
Point NO.2 To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant this point also decided in favor of opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 23rd May, 2008)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed. Affidavit of O.P.1 filed.
Affidavit of O.P.2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Bill issued by Opposite party No.2 to complainant, dt.25-5-01.
- Ex.A-2 O/c of legal notice issued to Opposite parties, dt.7-2-2002.
- Ex.A-3 Acknowledgment due.
- Ex.A-4 letter of Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy
- Ex.A-5 letter.
- Ex.A-6 Reply Notice to counsel for complainant, dt.25-2-2002.
- Ex.A-7 Letter from Opposite party No.1 to counsel for complainant, dt.18-2-2002.
- Ex.A-8 Photos along with negatives.
On behalf of Opposite Parties.
- Ex.B-1 is the Memo from Principal Secretary to Govt. to Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, dt.21-12-2000.
- Ex.B-2 Draft Memorandum of understanding for self certification.
- Ex.B-3 Circular Memo, dt.30-4-2001.
- Ex.B-4 List of Seed Producers and Marketers who have signed on 30-04-2001.
- Field Inspection report of cotton hybrids issued by Joint Director of Agriculture.
Sd/-
President.
