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
Friday the 13th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 54/07
Between:
S. Laxminarayana
S/o. S. Hanumantha Rao,
- Sivaramapuram Village,
Julepalli Post,
Nandyal Mandal,
Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
- Narayana Reddy
S/o not known,
As a Manager/incharge of National Seeds
Corporation Limited,
Nandyal.
- Managing Director, National Seeds, Corporation Limited, Regional Office,
Lalaguda, Secunderabad-500 017.
- Chairman, National Seeds Corporation Limited, A Government of India Undertaking,
BEEJBHAVAN , Pusa Complex, New Delhi … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. K. Kapileswaraiah, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.54/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 11 & 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,70,200/- with interest to the complainant towards loss arising out of crop failure, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he purchased on 25-7-2006 paddy seeds of BPT 5204 from opposite party No.1 to whom opposite party No.2 and 3 are the Managing Director & Chairman respectively and cultivated the said seeds over the total 28 acres in July, 2006. After passing of 70 days the complainant observed some extra growth i.e., Dubbalu, and found seeds are defective and the same was informed to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 asked to wait up to cut off stage. There after, the complainant approached District Collector and filed a complaint and the Agricultural Joint Director along with Associate Director of Research, RARS inspected the standing crop, taken photographs, collected samples and sent it to Senior Scientist (G & PB) Rice I/c RARS, Nandyal for inspection and the Senior Scientist stated in his report that 8% to 10% varied type found , but after harvesting the crop, the complainant got only 12 to 15 bags per acre, if the seeds are original and genuine the complainant has to get more than 46 bags per acre. The yielding crop also was mixed with red seed paddy more than 55%. The complainant raised the crop in 28 acres, 10 acres his own land and 18 acres taken on lease for Rs.6,000/- per acre, the complainant used fertilizers and pesticides as per the field assistants to NSC, besides incurred expenses for plantation. The yield which he got from the said crop are mixed with red rice and no body is coming forward to buy the same. The said contingency occurred at the defective seeds supplied by opposite parties and the opposite parties has to re-imburse the loss occurred to the complainant.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties caused their appearance into this case and contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No.1 and OP.No. 2, and 3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1
4. The written version of opposite parties besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case in facts and law requiring the strict proof of the complaint averments and submits that the seed produced by opposite parties in scientific manner and it was tested in their well established and advanced laboratory. The seed was also tested by A.P.Seed Certification agency, both the reports clearly show that there is no defect in the seed and the seed sold by opposite parties did not contain 8% to 10% of varied type. It further submits that excessive varied type of seed is possible in regular paddy fields, as paddy fields contain the seed of previous year and the field of complainant’s is a regular paddy field. It also submits that the complainant purchased 480 kgs of paddy which is sufficient for 16 acres to 20 acres as each acre requires 25 to 30 kgs as per practices and Vyvasaya Panchagam published by Aacharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University and lastly submits that expiry to this lot No. sold to the complainant was 2-4-2007 and the opposite party were unable to send the seed for testing and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. In substantiation of the above contentions while the complainant’s side had taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A8 and the evidence of L. Kailashnath Reddy (PW.1) and Ex.X1 to X5, besides to the sworn affidavit of himself and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite parties side has placed reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and that of two third parties and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out that there is defect in the seeds supplied to him and there by the liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim.
7. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 25-7-2006. It indicates the purchase of 480 kgs of paddy–BPT–5204, there under by the complainant for a total of Rs.6,240/- on 25-7-2006 from opposite party No.1. This being not rebutted by the opposite parties, the purchase of seed mentioned there in by complainant remains established.
8. The Ex.A2 are the bunch of 12 tags issued by NSC where in the paddy BPT 5204 was certified on 3-7-2006 and valid up to 2-4-2007. The Ex.A3 are the bunch of 11 truth full labels of NSC as to the paddy BPT- 5204 variety certified seed, it holds the percentage of germination, physical purity and genetic purity to 80%, 98%, 98%, respectively. Even though the Ex.A3 holds the percentage of the purity and germination of seed to 98% and 98% respectively, the Ex.X4 & X5 inspection report of L. Kailashnath Reddy and Dr. Narendra discloses off types varied to the extent of 8% to 10% only, in the complainant’s field, hence the Ex.A3 is remaining with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
9. The Ex.A4 is the office copy of the letter dated 12-10-2006 of complainant addressed to Joint Director Agriculture, Kurnool as to the cultivation of BPT 5204 certified paddy in his land purchasing 16X30 kgs=480 kgs at a rate of Rs.390/- per kg from OP.No.1 on 25-7-2006 vide bill No.2693 and lot No.16970. After 70 days of sowing the complainant found other varieties i.e., Dubbalu. The complainant gave complaint to OP.No.1, survey officer - Chandra Mouleshwar Reddy & Dr. Narendra, RARS breeder and they inspected the field and found off type plants and requests to direct the opposite parties for payment of compensation. There being any rebuttal to it from the opposite parties side, the Ex.A4 remains established as letter of complainant to Joint Director of Agriculture. The Ex.A5 is the letter dated 18-11-2006 of Joint Director of Agriculture, instructing the Assistant Director of Agriculture ® & Dr. B. Narendra, Scientist to inspect the complainant’s field and submit report and inform the complainant to approach consumer’s forum. The Ex.A6 are the bunch of 32 bills as to the purchase of fertilizers and pesticides by the complainant for Rs.3,27,364/-. The Ex.A7is the certified copy of adangal for the year 2006 relating to Sy.No.81,80,96 of Mitanala (V) of Nandyal (M) Kurnool Distrct. The entires there in envisages cultivation of paddy in kharif season by the complainant to an extent 10 acres only. While such is so the complainant alleges that he has sowed the said paddy to an extent of 28 acres. The Ex.A7 adangal shows the extent of cultivation to 10 acres only and the observation of PW.1 Kailashnath Reddy confines to 18.5. acres only. As the complainant has not substantiated his alleged extent of 28 acres of cultivation, to come across the above material, the extent of cultivation by the complainant is not going beyond 18.5 acres. The complainant in his complaint averments alleges that he has take the remaining 10 acres of land on lease, but no cogent material is filed by the complainant when the said cultivation is specifically denied by opposite parties. The extent of cultivation by the complainant is confined to 18.5 acres only.
10. The Ex.A8 are the photographs taken at the time of inspection of the field.
11. The Ex.B1 is the certificate dated 3-7-2006 issued by A.P.State Seed Certification Agency as to the paddy BPT 5204 variety with lot No.16970.Even though they hold the percentage of purity and germination of seed beyond 99.& 91.0 respectively, the inspection report in Ex.X4 & X5 shows 8% to 10% varied other plants. Hence, the said Ex.B1 is remaining with any relevancy for its appreciation in this complainant’s case.
12. The PW.1 L. Kailashnath Reddy says that he inspected the fields of the complainant to the extent of 18.5 acres only, wherein paddy BPT 5204 was sowed and off type plants are found and on observation it was found that the complainant’s field was having 8%to 10% of off type plants and its effect on the yield accordingly and also grain admixture problem on the probable yield and the said state of affairs to the crop of the complainant was on account of adulteration of seeds. In the Ex.X4 report of L. Kailashnath Reddy , Assistant Director of Agriculture & Ex.X5 report of B.Narendra also says that 8% to 10% off type plants admixture was observed, what implies is that the loss of yield to the complainant to that extent only. But the complainant in his complaint averments alleges that he lost total yield , but it is not substantiated by him. Therefore, the loss of yield if any to the complainant is to be only to the extent of 8% to 10% on account of off types.
13. As per the complainant the expected yield per acre was 46 bags neither the opposite parties nor the Ex.X4 & X5 nor the evidence of PW.1 specifically denies said quotation of probable yield. Hence, the probable yield is accepted being not discredited.
14. Therefore, the entitleness of the complainant for the loss of yield remains at 5 bags per acre i.e., 10% of the expected yield of 46 bags per acre. On a total extent of 18.5 acres as the contingency of less yield occurred on account of the defect seed i.e, as seed is containing 8% to 10% of off types admixture. The liability of opposite parties is remaining for the said loss of 5 bags per acre, as the said seed was furnished by them to the complainant.
15. The complainant alleges the rate of the paddy at Rs.650/- per bag which is not rebutted by the opposite parties and there by the complainant is remaining entitled to the said amount of Rs.650/- per bag towards loss of yield occurring on account of 8% to 10% admixture , besides to the incurred expenditure.
16. The two III party affidavits filed on behalf of Ops side as to the purity of the seed appears to be of any avail as presumptions have no avail over the real observations. The complainant in support of his case relied on the decisions reported in 2008 I CPJ Pg 158 (NC) & 2004 I CPJ 122 NC, which have no applicability to the facts of this case of the complainant.
17. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.8,37,200/- in the complaint towards the loss of expected yield at 46 bags per acre at a rate of Rs.650/- per bag, as the loss to the expected yield was confined to 5 bags per acre, the entitleness to the complainant for the loss of expected yield remains to 5 bags per acre for 18.5 acres totally about 90 bags at Rs.650/- per bag totally to Rs.60,125/-.
18. An amount of Rs.6,21,500/- was claimed toward pesticides and fertilizers and plantation charges. No detailed particulars are filed as to the plantation charges, hence the said claim is rejected. Regarding pesticides and fertilizers the complainant relied on Ex.A6 bills 32 in number. These 32 bills covering purchase of pesticides and fertilizers totally to Rs.3,27,364 only which were said to have been used for alleged 28 acres and the cultivation of 18.5 acres only is made out. The entitleness of the cost incurred for fertilizers and pesticides is to be reduced proportionately to the extent of substantiated cultivation i.e., 18.5 acres which comes to Rs.2,16,302/-
19. An amount of Rs.1,08,000/- is claimed in the complaint toward lease (Mundasthu Gutha). For want of their detailed particulars and substantiation with cogent material it does not stand to the liability of opposite parties.
20. An amount of Rs.4,000/- is claimed toward godown rent per month, in the absence of any cogent material, the said claim remains not established to the liability of opposite parties and it is rejected.
21. The Opposite party.No.1 being a seller of the seed and opposite parties 2 and 3 producerss and marketer of the seed all of them are equally liable to make good of the justifiable loss of the complainant occasioned on account of the seed furnished to him.
22. Therefore, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.60,125/- , Rs.2,16,302 towards the costs incurred for fertilizers and pesticides and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the above award with 9% interest 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 13th day of June ,2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
P.W.1. Deposition of 1st witness for complainants side,
dated 12-9-2007 (L. Kailashnath Reddy,
Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandyal)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Seed purchase bill, dated 25-7-2006 for Rs.6,240/-.
Ex.A2. Bunch (12) of seed tags.
Ex.A3. Bunch (11) of seed truth full labels.
Ex.A4. Xerox copy of letter, dated 12-10-2006 addressed by complaint to Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool.
Ex.A5. Copy of letter, dated 18-11-2006.
Ex.A6. Bunch of (32) bills relating to purchase of
Fertilizers and pesticides.
Ex.A7. Adongal.
EX.A8. Three (3) photographs.
Ex.X1. Office copy of the letter, dated 18-11-2006 from
Joint Director, Agriculture, Kurnool.
Ex.X2. Letter, dated 12-10-2006 of complainant to
Assistant Director, Agriculture, Nandyal.
Ex.X3. Letter, dated 18-10-2006 of Joint Director
Agriculture, Kurnool.
Ex.X4. Office copy of the report submitted to Joint Director
of Agriculture, Kurnool.
Ex.X5. Inspection Report dated 8-11-2006 on paddy BPT-5204 field at
Panyam (V), A. Sivaramapuram of Nandyal (M) issued
by B.Narendra. Senior Scientist (G & PB) – Rice I/c
RARS, Nandyal.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Certificate issued, dated 03-7-2006 by A.P.
State Certification Agency.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. K. Kapileswaraiah, Advocate, for the complainant.
2. Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for the opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
