Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/73

R. Siddi Lingappa S/o R. Nagappa O/c Agriculture - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Srinivas Reddy O/c Govt. Teacher - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R. Siddi Lingappa (InPerson)

17 Dec 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 17^th day of December, 2008

 

                                                              Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                                         C.C.NO. 73  Of   2008

Between:-

 

R. Siddi Lingappa S/o R. Nagappa, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Jurala village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.  

 

                                                                                              … Complainant

And

1.  Palle Srinivas Reddy, Govt. Teacher, P.O. Palem Mandal, Kottapeta

     Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

 

2.  The Manager, Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., 8-1-39, Tolichowki,                   

     Hyderabad – 500 008.

                                                                                          … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 16-12-2008,   in the presence of the Sri R. Siddi Lingappa, complainant in person and   Sri K. Prabhu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the OP.No.2 and the OP.No.1 having been set exparte and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:   

 

O R D E R

 

(Sri M.Rama Rao, President)  

 

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.68,457/- in total towards crop loss and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards other expenses and Rs.5,800/- towards costs of the complaint i.e., totaling Rs.99,250/- to the complainant.        

 

2.     The complaint averments are as follows:-   The complainant and the opposite party No.1 have entered into an agreement.  In terms of the agreement the OP.1 supplied 701 variety Hybrid seeds to the complainant.  The opposite parties agreed to purchase the yield  @ Rs.2,800/- per quintal.   The opposite parties further informed that the said Hybrid seed will give 10 to 14 quintals yield per acre as the seed is free from all types of pests but the complainant could not get the yield as promised by the OPs and got yield of 3.20 quintals per acre as the crop suffered from pests.  Thus the complainant sustained heavy monetary loss as he spent huge amounts on investment.   This Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.   Therefore the complaint may be allowed and OPs may be directed to pay Rs.68,457/- in total towards crop loss and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards other expenses and also to pay Rs.5,800/- towards costs of the complaint i.e., totaling Rs.99,250/- to the complainant.    Hence the complaint.    

 

3.     The opposite party No.2 filed counter with the following averments:-  It is true that the opposite party No.2 is a reputed company under the name of Bayer Bio Science Private Limited (previously known as Proagro Seed Company Private Limited) registered under Companies Act and situated at 8-1-39, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.   The said company has developed high yielding Rice Hybrids on account of dedicated research and development activity.  The Hybrid seed is extensively tested in the field before being identified and released for seed production.  It is false and incorrect to state that OP Nos.1 and 2 gave publicity with regard to the yield of the paddy is expected at 10 to 14 quintals per acre.   It is true that the complainant and OP Nos.1 and 2 have entered into an agreement (Seed Production Grower Agreement) which makes both the parties binding to the terms of the said agreement.  As per the terms of the said agreement clause No.35 (Arbitration clause) of the Agreement, in case of any disputes with regard to the agreement the matter must be mutually settled in case of failure to reach any settlement within 15 days from the date of the written notification addressed by either party the matter shall be referred to arbitration.   It is submitted that there was no such notice of any dispute on behalf of the complainant in the past or till date in writing except this notice from the Hon’ble Consumer Forum.   In view of the above pleadings the complainant’s claim for the damages caused by company to the tune of Rs.68,457/- cannot be granted in this case as this Hon’ble Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain this matter under C.P. Act and even otherwise no compensation can be awarded as the complainant did not allege any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of OP.2.   Hence the complaint may be dismissed.    

 

4.  The opposite party No.1 remained exparte.

 

5.  The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12.
6.  The opposite party No.2 filed affidavit and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.   

 

7. The points which fall for consideration are:

 

1. Whether this Forum is having Jurisdiction to try the complaint?
2. Whether the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement oust the Jurisdiction of this Forum?
3.  Whether the complainant has proved that there is a fault in the seed supplied by OPs?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

8.     Point No.1:- The contention of the OP.1 is that this Forum is not having territorial Jurisdiction to try the complaint.  According to the Agreement Ex.B-1, the complainant has to file the complaint in Hyderabad.   Therefore the compliant is not maintainable before this Forum.   The territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum cannot be ousted by any agreement between the parties.  They are governed by the provisions of the C.P. Act relating to jurisdiction.  Section 11 of the C.P. Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum.  It is the cause of action rule which helps much to determine the jurisdiction.  As such the clause No.35 under Ex.B-1 is void as the jurisdiction of the District Forum is determined as per Section 11 of the C.P. Act.    In this case, the OPs supplied seed at the native village of the complainant and the complainant sowed the seed in his agricultural lands which are fallen under the territorial jurisdiction of Mahabubnagar District.   Therefore the cause of action arose at Mahabubnagar.   Therefore we hold that this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and grant reliefs.   Hence this point is decided in favour of the complainant and against OP.1.

 

9.   Point No.2:-   According to OPs in terms of Clause No.35 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement (Ex.B-1), in case of any disputes with regard to the agreement the matter must be mutually settled in case of failure to reach any settlement either party should go to arbitration.   It is settled law that even if there is an arbitration clause for      settlement that would not prevent the Consumer Forum to judge the deficiency in service by the service provider.  The remedy provided under the C.P. Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  The Hon’ble National      Commission held the said opinion in its latest decision reported in CPJ 2008 (1) P.214 in Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., Vs. Kishore Jain case.   In view of this decision and due to occurrence of         cause of action in Mahabubnagar District, we conclude that mere existence of Arbitration clause i.e., Clause 35 under Ex.B-1 does not oust the jurisdiction of this Forum and that the complaint filed by the complainant under the provisions of the C.P. Act is maintainable.  Hence this point is decided against the OP.1.

 

10. Point No.3:- There is no dispute with regard to the agreement entered by OP.1 with the complainant.   The complainant has filed cash receipt vide Ex.A-8 to show that he has spent huge amounts towards for fertilizers and pesticides.   But the complainant has not filed any material before us to show that the seed supplied by OP.1 is inferior quality or spurious or otherwise.   Furthermore he has not taken any steps for calling the OPs to produce the subject seed as required under law for sending the same by this Forum for laboratory tests to determine the defect if any.  The complainant has not filed any report of expert/specialist/Agricultural officer of concerned area in proof of his contention.    The complainant has also not filed any material with regard to out put from the seed sown, field conditions, agricultural practices etc.  Furthermore the expert report is paramount to decide the seed cases.   There is no such report before us.   On the other hand, the OP filed    Ex.B-3 to show that the seed supplied is perfect and seed was supplied on free of cost in terms of agreement i.e., Ex.B-1.   Ex.B-1 and B-3 prove the contention of the OPs.  In view of the said facts, we are relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of J.K. AGRIGENTICS and others Vs. Siddula Ramesh, reported in CPJ 2007 (4) P.286, wherein their Lordships observed in para No.5 of their order that “As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and another, Civil Appeal No.1308 of 2005, the need for having an ‘expert’ report is paramount in order to decide the case as per law as well as procedure laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It cannot be disputed that onus to prove ‘deficiency’ was on the complainants”.  

 

    In the light of the above case law, we are of the considered opinion in the case on hand the complainant has failed to establish his case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs that the seed supplied by them is defective/spurious or inferior quality or otherwise.  Hence this point is decided against the complainant. 

11. Point No.4:-   As we have already held above that the complainant has failed to prove his case with cogent evidence, the complainant is not entitled for any amount as prayed by him and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.     

 

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17th day of December, 2008.           

 

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

 Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-      

 

Ex.A-1:        Cash Receipt, dt.8.1.2008.

Ex.A-2:        Cash Receipt, dt.30.1.2008.

Ex.A-3:        Cash Receipt, dt.20.3.2008.

Ex.A-4:        Cash Receipt, dt.8.1.2008.

Ex.A-5:        Cash Receipt, dt.19.2.2008.

Ex.A-6:        Cash Receipt, dt.23.2.2008.

Ex.A-7:        Cash Receipt, dt.8.3.2008.

Ex.A-8:        Payment and Investments Receipt.

Ex.A-9:        Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book.

Ex.A-10:      Post Harvest Report, dt.29.5.2008.

Ex.A-11:      Seed Tags (13).

Ex.A-12:      Pahani for the year 2007-08.

 

Exhibits marked for OPs:-    

 

Ex.B-1:        Seed Production Grower Agreement, dt.1.11.2007.

Ex.B-2:        Letter of Authority of Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd.

Ex.B-3:        Certificate copy of Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., dt.12.12.2008.

  

By the Forum:

     - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:-  

1. R. Siddi Lingappa S/o R. Nagappa, age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Jurala village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 
2. Sri K. Prabhu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the OP.No.2.
3. Palle Srinivas Reddy, Govt. Teacher, P.O. Palem Mandal, Kottapeta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.