BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE : 20^th February 2015

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

1. Complaint No.:146/2014
2. Complaint No.:147/2014
3. Complaint No.:148/2014
4. Complaint No.:149/2014
5. Complaint No.:150/2014
6. Complaint No.:151/2014
7. Complaint No.:152/2014

Complainant/s:       Kallayya s/o. Channayya Vibhuti,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/146/2014

Ravindra Vasudevappa Deshpande,

Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/147/2014

Basappa Basavantappa Munavalli,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/148/2014

Shankrappa Basappa Sunkad,

Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/149/2014

Mehaboobsab s/o.Nabisab Nadaf,

Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/150/2014

Basappa Bhimappa Julpannavar,

Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/151/2014

Gurappa Adiveppa Karennavar,

Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kusugal village, Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad.                     …in CC/152/2014

        (By Sri.B.S.Hoskeri, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1.     Netra Enterprises Pvt Ltd., No.1, First Stage, Health Layout, Srigandha Kavalu,  Magadi Road, Vishwaneedum Post, Bengaluru 560 091.      

(By Sri.V.B.Malannavar, Adv.)

2.     Shri Tirumala Agencies, Dealers in Seeds, Fertilizers & Pesticides, No.9, Kavali Complex, New Cotton Market, Hubli 580 029. R/by its Proprietor.

(By Sri.S.N.Patil, Adv.)

3.     Netra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Sy.No.123,38 B, Ward No.44 A, Jain Temple Road, Opp: Canara Hotel, Second Cross, Hosur, Hubli 580029. R/by its Branch Manager.

(By Sri.V.B.Malannavar, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Smt.M.Vijayalakshmi, Member

1. Complainants are the agriculturists and residents  of Kusugal and Byahatti villages owning lands.
2. R1 is manufacturer, R2 is seller & R3 is local representative of R1 at Hubli. The complainant and other farmers approached the R2 seeking information for high yield onion varieties. R2 recommended seeds to N53 Onion Seeds in complainant area & saying that these seeds will give 80-100 quintals per acre. The complainants purchased some quantity of N53 Onion seeds from the respondent.2 in the month of July 2013 Kharif season and sown them as an inter crop in their lands after few days. The complainant being experience farmer has followed the standard package of practice for growing respondents N53 Onion variety while sowing and prior to it. Complainants have prepared the lands for sowing seeds. The complainant as usually did not preserved some seeds they never know that. There was good growth of the leaves, but even after 3 to 4 months 95% of plants there were no bulbs.5% of the crop formed small size bulbs. They contacted respondent-2 & 3, in turn R3, by name Mr.Kishan only visited their lands at the time of inspection and after seeing the crops stated & assured that he will convey the problems in the crop to its head office, but his promise is went in vain. Lateron, complainants gave an application to Horticulture Officer, who in turn deputed some experts to their lands who have visited the fields on 07.01.2014 inspected the crop &  given report, stating that those seeds may be due to defective seeds due to which there were no bulbs. Even after that report the complainants contacted respondents to compensate them. After receiving legal notices reply is given by R1 & denying its liability. Since respondents have sold defective onion seeds by which the complainants have sustained monetary loss, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents, so they are entitled to loss of crop, compensation apart from cost of the litigation.
3. Respondents are appeared and filed their written statements. 
4. Written version in brief is that, the complainants have not produced any documents/receipt to show that they have purchased seeds from respondent and they have not produced R/R to show that they have grown onion crop during the relevant period. Hence complainants are not a consumer. Complaints are not maintainable on any grounds. Description of the lands owned and cultivated by the complainants has not been explained. There is no clarity as to the extent of the cultivation and exact usage of the land. As a matter of fact prescribed quantity of seeds are required to be sown in one acre of land, every 1 acre of land require minimum 4 kg onion seeds for sowing, duration of the crop is about 90-100 days. So according to specification those seeds are not sown. The sowing of seeds should not be done immediately after the first rain.  Moreover, there are other various factors in growing onion crop such as soil, type of land, its surface, moisture, rain fall, climate conditions, pests, irrigation, quantity of fertilizer and pesticides, spacing intercrop and system of sowing etc. There was insufficient rainfall in the region where complainants reside and due to natural calamity i.e. the yield may be less. The complainants had sown those seeds very deep into the soil which has ultimately resulted not realizing the moisture for the proper growth. Moreover, that crop was taken as an inter crop which is not permissible. Even weeds in the field has not permitted to grow such crop well. Onion is four months crop. If those seeds were sown in the month of July 2013, crop could be expected latest by 1^st week of October 2013. No notices were sent to the respondents about the visit of the Horticultural Officers to their lands. Other farmers and R3 Mr.Kishan are present on that day is denied by the respondents. Moreover, that report does not state the result and report in respect of defective seeds. Merely designations are enumerated but there are no names, seal, date & inward seal of that officials. In that report survey numbers are not mentioned including the extent of the lands. The seeds sown by the complainants have been tested in the labs, only after certification they are released to the market.  There is no definite and certain report by the Horticulture Officers. In the absence of any expert report and finding based on scientific and technical basis it cannot be proved that the seeds are defective and only on inference, it cannot be ascertained that the seeds are defective. The officer of horticulture department have not followed the mandatory provisions of the Seeds Act 1966. Complainants have not sent any sample of onion seeds for testing they have not preserved any onion seeds and covers. These respondents have sold such seeds more than 2000 kgs., during 2013-14 in north Karnataka to number of farmers but there are no complaints from any one except these complainants. There is no deficiency in service on their part, so complaints are to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
5. R2 also filed his written version contending that R1 is manufacturer R2 is only seller of seeds. R2 is noway concerned to compensate for the defective seeds manufactured by R1. The grown of onion bulbs depends on fertilizer of land and rainfall, chemicals etc. But the expert have not considered these aspects & have given false report. Hence no deficiency in service.

6. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainants have proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainants are entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainants are entitled ?

Sworn to affidavits of complainants, respondents are filed apart from documents. Argument was advanced for both the parties along with citations.

Finding on points is as under:

1. In Positive
2. In Positive but accordingly
3. As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1&2

7. The complainants have filed these complaints against respondents for a direction to pay for onion crop loss with interest to complainants along with cost of the proceedings.
8. Complainants have alleged that respondents have sold onion seeds are of inferior quality and defective, no formation of bulb. Therefore no yield. Due to which complainants have sustained heavy loss. Hence, these complaints are filed. R1 is manufacturer. R2 is seller. R3 is representative of R1 at Hubli.
9. Details of purchase of seeds, area, receipt number, paid amount& claimed amount mentioned in below:

10. By producing record of rights survey number, extent of the land , situation of the land, owner of the land, name of the cultivator, nature of the crop grown, variety of the land, source of rain, year of crop grown etc., could be known. When complainants claim to be the owners of those lands what had prevented them from not producing record of rights of their lands, has not been explained. In some cases relevant year R/R produced but in the R/R not shown the grown onion crop but complainants names are there in cultivation column and owners column. However, only on that ground the whole contention of the complaints cannot be said either false or created, only to gain money from the respondents. Because the respondents casually have denied the allegation of the complaints but at the same time respondents have also contended that if there was failure of crop it was due to some other reasons but not due to defect in the seeds.
11. In the complaints and affidavits though complainants have stated that they have purchased onion seeds N53 bearing no.Lot / Batch No.JSC-20160 from the respondent.2 in the month of July 2013 and sowed them few days thereafterwards. Onion crop is said to be of a period of 4 months. That is the approximate period. After sowing to get crop few days more or less may be required. It was argued for respondents that if complainants had sown those seeds in the month of july 2013 at the most by first week of October 2013 they could have got the crop. It shall not be forgotten from stating that, firstly. There may be some variation, so only by taking the period, a conclusion cannot be made to state that no inspection was made by the horticultural officers and their report is false and created only to help the complainants.
12. The respondents have produced some documents i.e. report of the Metrological Report for Dharwad district for the period of October 2013-14 and another was July month weekly rainfall during the year 2013-14, Analysis report by the Seed Testing Laboratory, some bills and vouchers for having sold onion seeds to other farmers and a data in respect of damages caused due to less rainfall. The first  document shows October 2013-14 less rain fall, but complainants sown onion seed in the month of July 2013 last week. Another document July month weekly rainfall shows due to moisture stress caused adverse impact on onion crop. But moisture stress occurred whole village. But expert report shows neighbouring farmers onion crop grown bulbs are proper. Why only complainants onion crop damaged.    
13. Though the respondents have produced July month weekly rainfall in Dharwad district by which if all the crops of agriculturists of that area were damaged then the respondents would not have taken a different contention that, other farmers who had grown similar onion seeds had taken good crops. If there was less rainfall, it must have caused loss to the entire agriculturists of that locality, as such only by seeing that data it cannot be concluded to state that, even if complainants had sown and grown onion crops but they were damaged in less rain fall.
14. If there was less rainfall at the most the bulbs if formed would have been damaged or rotten, but as per the complainants there were not at all any bulbs in their onion crops. Onion plants or trees may have grown well but it does not lead to conclude that equally bulbs were also formed. Because vegetation is different from forming bulbs, grains etc. Complainants are not alleged for germination of seeds, main allegation of complainants are onion crop grown well vegetatively but 95% of the crop formation of bulbs not there.
15. The respondents have produced box of onion seeds, in this box mentioned germination report. Referring to such report it was argued that, there was cent percent actual purity in seeds and germination, as such the allegations of the complainants are false. As per a decision 2009 CTJ 280 NCDRC, wherein their lordships have held that, the producers and sellers of the seeds are legally bound to get the seeds certified and tested from appropriate laboratories before being put for sale.
16. Such being the verdict of their lordships, merely some germination report is produced by the respondents, but not clarified that they were tested by the appropriate and recognized laboratories. Moreover, when some seeds are tested by some labs it does not mean entire quantity or a lot is of such purity, because only some samples will be tested in the labs. Moreover, if complainants had got yield of that onion crop there was no necessity for them to approach the Forum by spending money and time. Even their complaints cannot be said false, unless proved. It was argued for respondents that though they have sold such onion seeds to number of farmers but there are no complaints from other farmers except these complainants. Due to so many reasons other farmers even if they had sustained loss may not have ventured to approach the court or Fora to claim compensation, so merely others have not complained does not mean, these complaints are false.
17. The respondents have produced quite number of receipts for having sold onion seeds to other farmers. It may be a fact.
18. One more contention taken by the respondents is that, growing of such crop depends on other various factors such as soil, type of land, moisture, rainfall, climate condition, pests, irrigation, quantity of fertilizer and pesticides, the package, spacing, intercrop, system of sowing etc. As per the respondents if they were the factors for growing such crop and if there was failure of crop due to those reasons then growth of plantation with leaves etc., cannot be expected. On the other, there could have been complete failure and damage of crop. Whereas in these cases there is well growth of plants but without bulbs. In expert report also says that crop was grown well but no formation of bulbs further says that no disease and not pests of crop, no grass field is clean.  Moreover, if the seeds themselves are defective, all other factors as stated by the respondents will be of little consequence.
19. Except mere contention of the respondents absolutely no material is produced before the Forum to state that the complainants had sowed those seeds very deep into the soil resulting not releasing the moisture and proper growth. One more contention taken by the respondents is that, there is no acceptable material and evidence to state that the complainants had sown onion seeds purchased by them. Whether respondents had seen the complainants about sowing of onion seeds, is not stated. Without any acceptable material such contention cannot be accepted. The farmers have produced receipts for having purchased onion seeds. Only to file complaints or to claim compensation, complainants would not have ventured to sow some other onion seeds incurring loss to their crops and loss of nearly 5 to 6 months time. Moreover, when the Horticultural Officers had visited the lands of complainants their reports should have been in different way if something else was sown and grown by the complainants.
20. All the complainants had given a letter to the Horticulture Officer, Hubli with a request to inspect their lands. Such letter was given in the month of November 2013. For having received that letter there is seal and signature of that office. The complainants have also produced report of the horticulture officers. As per that report on 7/1/2014 the team headed by Dr.H.P.Patil, Head Horticulture Research Center, Bijapur, Dr.Basavaraj, Assistant Professor, Kittur Rani Channamma Horticulture College, Arabhavi, Dr.Ravindra Mulagi Assistant Professor Kittur Rani Channamma Horticulture College, Arabhavi, Dr.J.B.Gopali Asst. Professor, Horticulture Research Center, Kumbapur, Dharwad, and 2 other scientists  have visited the affected lands of agriculturists of Kusugal and Byahatti villages and they have given some report. Farmers had purchased onion seeds of N53 Onion seeds from R2 and that report also states that at the time of inspection of crop, crop was 5 months 20% of onion crop small size bulbs and formation of excess flower/stem and putting up very small size bulb & 80% of crop was no bulbs, but in the neighbouring fields planted with their own saved seeds of local varieties there was good bulb formation apart from stating so their report is also that usually when defective seeds are used to grow commercial onion crop, failure of bulb formation is observed.
21. It was argued for respondents that, that report is not given to specific instances and it is the general observation. While reading or considering a document its contents as a whole has to be seen for what reason such report is given. On the other, the whole document has to be seen, so if at all that report is given is in relation to the onion crop of affected farmers of Kusugal and Byahatti villages in the year 2013.
22. Merely name of the officers and seal of their office is not found on that report by itself cannot be said, it is a false report. Even nothing is before the Forum to state that, such report has been given by those officers only to favour the complainants. Moreover, whatever report is given by those officers is in the official capacity while discharging their duties, so unless contrary is proved that report need not be disbelieved. 
23. Before filing the complaints, complainants have got issued legal notices to respondents. Respondent.1 has replied to the said notice.  
24. Merely a panchanama was not prepared by those Horticulture officer, that report cannot be said non believable one.
25. It was argued for respondents that, four kg onion seeds are to be sown in one acre  of land. In their covers such a fact is printed. Even if complainants had sown less or more quantity of onion seeds there may be less or more growth of plantation with bulbs. But total loss of bulb cannot be expected. Such onion crops can be grown throughout the year in all seasons in all types of lands except in barren and seapage lands.
26. The horticulture officers were not required to issue either intimation or notice to the respondents about their visit to the affected lands. Now argument is advanced stating the horticulture officers had not informed them. The report of the experts cannot be said a hearsay one. Those experts being the officials, some times they may not oblige the request of farmers to come and file affidavits before the Foras, so merely their affidavits are not filed also cannot be said a lacuna on the part of complainants.
27. It was also argued for respondents that, the horticulture officers may have issued such report is not proper. In the said report no seal of the officer. Such contention has no base. Because the presence of all the officers at a time and their signatures on a document cannot be expected. Even same argument can be advanced against the respondents that to avoid payment of compensation they may have produced germination report and other documents.
28. Compt.146/14 complainant, respondents are produced R/R relevant year owner and cultivation column complainant name is there but onion crop not mentioned. In evidence affidavit of complainant mentioned 3 acre of land he sowed onion crop but complaint he mentioned 4 acre.
29. Compt.147/14 complainant purchased 13 packets, complainant in his complaint says that complainant son was purchased seeds 8 packets they are used, 2 packets for B.B.Munvalli taken remaining 3 packets returned to R2 complainant & respondents are produced R/R   relevant year owner and cultivation column complainant name is there but  onion crop not mentioned.  Complainant grown 8 acre of it is considered as per the experts report who visited the complainant’s filed.
30. Compt.148/14 purchase receipt and complainant name is different but complainant in his complaint para.2 mentioned purchased seeds details, complainant produced R/R in this  R/R only complainant name is there in owner column but year, month, onion crop not mentioned.  But respondent has produced relevant year R/R complainant name shows only cultivation column not owner column. Onion crop not mentioned but same Sy.no. 274 another copy produced by respondent it shows complainant name in the owner column but grown onion crop not shows.
31. Compt.149/14 complainant family members purchased seeds, R/R is relevant year. Complainant in the complaint says 1.37 Acre sown onion seeds but R/R shows only 1 acre he grown the onion crop.
32. Compt.150/14 complainant family members was purchased seeds, complainant and respondent are produced R/R. Sy.no.806 shows complainant name is owner and cultivation column but onion crop not mentioned sy.no.36 produced it shows complainant grown onion crop is 1 acre 10 guntas. Respondent also produced same sy.no., it shows that 1 acre 12 guntas.
33. Compt.151/14 Sy.no.61 shows that in cultivation and owner column joint name is there but joint owners not objected. If there is some joint family and one of the family member if cultivating the lands at least an affidavit of the owner in whose name the land stands is required to be filed, but merely that affidavit is not filed the whole case cannot be said a false one. Moreover, other family members of complainants have not filed affidavits denying such fact.
34. Compt.152/14 complainant in complaint says that, last year the complainant has taken agricultural land bearing sy.no.237 measuring 4.4 acres from Sri.Shivappa B.Kamtar, on agreement of sale basis and he has cultivated on that strength. Respondent contended that on that agreement complainant signature not there. Complainant and respondent produced R/R Sy.no.237. In the R/R year and month not mentioned and cultivation column also not mentioned any name only owner column mentioned Sri.Bengeri Kallappa s/o.Danappa. But complainant has produced sale agreement copy it shows S.B.Kamtar sold 2 acres land to complainant on 1/7/13 but respondent has produced sy.no.237 another copy it shows owner column complainant name is there. Sy.no.144 produced by complainant is not a relevant year but it shows complainant is owner of the land. Respondent has produced sy.no.144 in the year 2013-14 in this R/R shows owner column Sri.Ganavudu Lingappa adopted father, but cultivation column complainant name is there he grown onion crop 1 acre only not 3 acre 25 guntas.
35. All the complainants have specifically stated that before sowing such onion seeds they had prepared their lands fit for such cultivation by putting necessary manure apart from cleaning it.
36. As per 2008 CPR 134 NS wherein their lordships have held that, alleging defective growth of plant, an experts report in favour of complainant but no expert report to counter the report of horticulture officer, complaint has been rightly allowed.
37. In the instant case also the respondents have not produced counter report to the report of the horticulture officer. Germination report is different from experts report.
38. As per 2009 (3) CPR 292 NCDRC, a farmer is not expected to conserve portion of the seeds and therefore cannot produce seeds from somewhere to get them tested to meet the requirements of Sec.13 (1) of CP Act.
39. On the other, respondents being the Dealer and Manufacturer of such seeds in the seeds box not printed farmers have to preserve some seeds if the problems in the seeds to send it for laboratory tests.
40. As per 2008 CPR 60 NC, if there is manufacturing defect in a vehicle or machinery or defects in production of seeds, it is a settled law that producer, manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally responsible.
41. In the instant case respondent-1 may be a dealer but there being manufacturing defect in the seeds all the respondents will be liable.
42. As per decision 2011 (4) CPR 3 NC, wherein their lordships have held that, adulteration cannot be negatated only on ground that part of sample was not subjected to full skill laboratory tests. In this decision stating that appreciation of the report of the Seeds Committee which had inspected filed of the petitioner with standing soyabin crop. Variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. Farmers are not expected to assume that seeds supplied by the petitioner would be defective or adulterated. Normally they rely upon the brochure and advertisement. Hence, before sowing the seeds they would not keep some seeds preserved for their testing. In the instant case also complainants also not preserved the seeds but experts team inspected the standing crop of 5 months that time also no bulb formation. Hence, contention that the DF ought to have sent the seeds for testing to laboratory is of no substance. In this decision nearly applicable to complainant case.
43. Respondents have contended that complainants are not consumers. But complainants have produced seeds purchased bills in this receipt complainants names are there. Some cases complainants relations are purchased seeds through complainants hence, in that cases complainants are mentioned purchaser name and relation to complainant. Hence complainants are paid amount to the respondents hence complainants are consumers. Another contention contended that, expert team only visited to Kusugal village lands, not Byahatti village. But document C4 & C5 says that letter issued by Hubli Horticulture Officer to Regional Horticulture Research and Extension Kumbapur Farm Officer. In this letter shows that ““ F ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ MlÄÖ 8 d£À gÉÊvÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj vÀ½AiÀÄ UÀqÉØ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV DUÀzÀ PÁgÀt £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ & vÀdÕgÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¹ ¸ÀzÀj UÁæªÀÄzÀ FgÀÄ½î ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃQë¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ” Ex.C6 shows that agriculture name and village, Sy.No., Area & shows that Kusugal and Byahatti village it shows that on 07.01.2014 expert team visited the lands. 
44. Ex.C8 shows that, expert committee visited the lands of complainants on 07.01.2014 at the time of onion crop was 5 months and chilly and cotton inter crop grown with onion crop, 80% of onion crop grown only flower, 60% of onion crop small size bulbs are there and no disease and pests fields are clean 80% of onion seeds grown only flowers and 60% of onion crop was small size bulbs it is due to defective seeds. This report shows seeds are defective. This document shows expert team signed and seal is there. In Ex.C10 shows on 07.01.2014 expert committee visited only selected lands of Kusugal village and received seeds purchased receipt and in this letter says that said seeds used and loss was caused to villagers same report is applied. Considering that respondent contended only 3 complainants lands visited the expert team not visited Byahatti village lands but this document shows same report is applicable to that farmers land.
45. respondents have produced citations i.e. (4) 2009 CPJ Pg.98, Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1961 Sec.133, Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1961 Rule.1974, Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, (2) 2012 CPJ 373 NC, (2) 2012 CPJ 297 NC, (2) 2012 CPJ 436 NC, (4) 2005 CPJ 47 NC, (2) 2005 CPJ 13 SC, (2) 2005 CPJ 94 NC, (3) 2012 CPJ 99 NC, 2013 CPR 703 NC. All these decisions held that in case of defective seeds no germination at all possible sample of seeds not sent by complainant to scientific analysis no defect is proved. Crop was failed become several reasons no following proper agriculture practices no evidence produced that seeds had any genetic defects no credible evidence for defective seeds, variation in crop condition clause not and could not be attributed to quality of seeds. investigation done after harvesting of crop which is not possible defect cannot be deducted through visible inspection need to be tested in laboratory and no notice was given to respondent for alleged inspection of team seeds not tested from any laboratory.
46. Complainant also produced citations i.e. (2) 2010 CPJ 516 PSCDRC, (3) 2002 CPJ 283 NC, (2) 2008 CPJ 496, (3) 2003 CPJ 151, (1) 2008 CPJ 158 NC & 2012 (4) SCCC 506. All these decisions held that less production attributed to inferior quality of seeds not any diseases. Poor quality of seeds proved compensation awarded by forum. Farmer not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds and get it tested. Disorderly plant growth & poor branch of plants enough proof to conclude that seeds used is of poor quality. Non standard of seeds for laboratory test not fatal. Government company seeds sub standard and defective seeds causing loss to farmers, said farmer held covered under definition of consumer & Forum cannot be expected to retain any part of eye value seeds get tested in case of unforeseen contingency seeds produced has some quantity of seed left which they could have got tested.
47. One more contention taken by the respondents is, no action was taken under Seeds Act. Taking an action under Seeds Act is different from filing a complaint before a Fora, because under CP Act the remedies available being in addition to the remedies available under any other law for the time being in force.
48. It was argued for complainants that, there can be average yield of 80 quintals per acre and average rate ranges from Rs.2,000/-. But in the legal notice of complainants says that average of yield 40-50 quintals per acre so, it shall not be forgotten from consideration that, there may be difference from one land to another land, their fertility, source of irrigation, quantity of yield to be grown etc. Moreover, as already stated some cases complainants are produced R/R relevant year 2013-14 and some complainants have not produced record of rights. Moreover, if any income is derived from crops out of which some percentage of amount goes towards cost of cultivation including labour charges etc. Sometimes yield of crop also depends on variety of factors as per a decision 2009 (4) CPR 10 NCDRC. In these cases defect in seeds may be a major factor but other reasons also cannot be ruled out. While considering the case on hand what is to be decided as just and reasonable has to be considered from the pleading, evidence and documents of both the parties. It means, a complainant who has approached Forum shall not feel that, he is either benefited monetarily easily or unjustice caused to him. At the same time the opponent shall not feel that he has been unnecessarily financially burdened and such burden is unnecessarily excessive, so there shall have to be just and reasonable compensation. Considering all these facts the Forum is of opinion that, there is defect in the seeds purchased by complainant for which they are to be reasonably compensated. Complainant is entitled to loss of onion crop compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre. If such compensation is assessed and calculated on the basis of the number of seeds packet purchased, area of sowing etc., may not be improper and unjust. If it is considered, separate order for compensation may not be necessary. However, the complainants will be entitled to cost of the litigation.
49. In view of all these reasons the point.1 is answered in positive and point.2 in positive but accordingly.
50. Point:3: In view of finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

Complaints are allowed in part.

Complainants are entitled to loss of onion crop compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Compt 146/14 complainants sown 3 acres. Compt 147/14 complainants sown 8 acres. Compt 148/14 complainants sown 1 acre 20 guntas. Compt 149/14 complainants sown 1 acre. Compt 150/14 complainants sown 5 acre 13 guntas. Compt 151/14 complainants sown 4 acre. Compt 152/14 complainants sown 3 acre along with cost of the proceedings Rs.1,000/- in each case. 

Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally payable to within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which that amount shall carry interest @6% p.a payable from the date of order till its realization.

Original order be kept in CC/146/2014 & its copy in other connected cases.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 20^th day of February 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                  (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                  President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR