F.A.No. 1375 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.48 OF 2005
 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
     Metpalli Village & Mandal
     Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Yeruva Narayana Reddy
S/o Sambi Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

          F.A.No. 1376 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.49 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Mangal Seeds,
     Plot No.202, I.D.A. Rampur,
     Madikonda, Warangal.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Dasireddy Raghu Veera Reddy
S/o Basivi Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1377 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.50 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Mangal Seeds,
     Plot No.202, I.D.A. Rampur,
     Madikonda, Warangal.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Yeruva Pulla Reddy
S/o Punna Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1378 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.51 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
      Metpalli Village & Mandal
      Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Yeruva Narayana Reddy
S/o Sambi Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1379 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.52 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
      Metpalli Village & Mandal
      Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Ponnapati Anji Reddy,
S/o Venkata Ram Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1380 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.53 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
      Metpalli Village & Mandal
      Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Yeruva Sambasiva Reddy
S/o Venkatappa Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1381 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.54 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
      Metpalli Village & Mandal
      Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy
S/o Koti Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

F.A.No. 1382 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.57 OF 2005

Between:

1.    Prasad Seeds & General Merchants
Shop No.8, S.C.Complex, Station Road
Narasaraopet, Guntur Dist. Rep. by its Prop.

2.  M/s Sai Seeds Corporation,
      Metpalli Village & Mandal
      Karimnagar Dist. A.P.
                                                               Appellants/opposite parties

A N D

Ponnapati Naga Malleswara Reddy
S/o Jagannadha Reddy
Rangareddypalem Village,
Narasaraopet Mandal,
Guntur Dist.

Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the appellants             Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondent            Sri P.V.Ramana

QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
                                                        &

                          SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

          Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.48 of 2005   on the file of the District Forum, Guntur, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.  F.A.No.1376 to F.A.No.1382 are filed against C.D.No.49 to C.D.55 of 2005.  Since all these appeals deal with common facts  and as the C.Ds were disposed  of by a common order the appeals  being disposed of by a common order.

          The factual matrix of the case as seen from the complaint in C.D.No.48 of 2005 is that on 20.5.2004 the respondent purchased 4 bags of paddy seed of JGL 384 variety of Lot No.218 from the appellant no.1 who is the dealer of the producer of the seeds, the appellant no.2 herein for a consideration of Rs.1520/- vide bill No.2870 dated 20.5.2004.  The respondent, during the agricultural season between September 2004 and January 2005, had cultivated his land which had the irrigation facility from Nagarjuna Sagar Canal for impending season and entire Guntur District experienced adequate rainfall required for raising paddy crop. On 4.9.2004 the respondent had sown the paddy seeds in his filed.  Subsequently seedlings were planted by maintaining proper distance and timely manure, pest control was administered.  Adequate irrigation facility was provided to the land.  The appellant no.1 promised the yield of 35-40 bags per acre.  However, the crop as stood on the date of filing of the complaint does not give such yield as promised by the appellant no.1.  Bundles of paddy grains in different variety and different sizes were grown.  The crop was short fallen. 

The respondent and other farmers informed the problem they faced to the appellant no.1 who gave evasive reply.  The appellants had sold defective seeds to the respondent.  The respondent spent an amount of Rs.8,000/- per acre and agreed to pay amount worth 15 bags as lease to the landlord.  The respondent and other farmers lodged complaint against the appellants u/s 420 IPC before Police Station Narsaraopet who registered the complaint on 22.12.2004 in Crime No.490 of 2004. The Joint Director of Agriculture and his staff inspected the crop and found that the crop was short fallen due to sub-standard seeds supplied by the appellants.  The expected yield is 70 bags per acre and the loss of crop @ Rs.500/- per bag for 140 bags is Rs.70,000/-.  The respondent also claimed an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards damage, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs, a total amount of Rs.78,000/-.

          The appellants resisted the claim.  It was contended by the appellant no.1 that the respondent was not a consumer.  It is admitted that the respondent purchased paddy seeds of JGR 384 variety from the appellant no.1.  The appellant no.1 had not promised the yield of 35 -40 bags per acre.  The appellant no.2 is the manufacturer of the paddy seeds.  The seeds were sold in sealed bags/packets with company seal intact.  Except the respondent and six others no complaint was received by the appellant no.1 in regard to the allegation of defect in seeds.  The yield would depend upon the fertility of the soil, application of the manure, pesticides, at proper time and providing sufficient water from time to time.  During the agricultural season 2004-05 there was no sufficient rain and there was no sufficient water supply through Nagarjuna Sagar canal. 

The lands including the land of the respondent in Rangareddy palem were not suitable for raising paddy crop.  The respondent should have taken photographs of the standing crop to show about the bundles of paddy grain in different variety and different sizes and the same should have brought to the notice of the appellant.  The respondent and other farmers who are his relatives filed the complaint on communal and political ill feeling against the appellant no.1 to cause financial loss to him and to defame him among the traders in Guntur District.  The cash bill filed by the respondent and issued by the appellant no.1 contains a note that the seed was manufactured by the appellant no.2 after having examined them technically and confirmed that they are suitable for sowing and any guarantee was given therefor.  The respondent neither informed nor issued any notice in regard to the poor yield to the appellant no.1 before the filing the complaint.

          The appellant no.2 filed counter.  It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable.  The appellant no.2 commenced business in the year 1987 at Metpalli after obtaining license from Joint Director of Agriculture (JAD) Khammam.  The appellant used to purchase paddy breeder seed from research station concerned and by raising crop with the said breeder in their own lands.  They used to produce/make finished seed.  From the finished seed of paddy,  the appellant no.2 used to raise the crop in their field and after getting the crop, they used to process the same by removing under size seeds, oversized  and light seed from the seed send  some samples from the clean seed to their own laboratory for seed test. In the laboratory the appellant used to conduct 1) germination test, 2) moisture test and 3) ODV test of the clean seed.  The seed would be released only after ensuing that there is no defect in them.  The yield of the seed would depend upon the fertility of the soil application of the manure, pesticides at proper time and providing sufficient water from time to time and also it depends on the temperature and monsoon rains.  There was no complaint from any other farmers.

          Based on the affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellants to pay Rs.19,200/- @ Rs.400/- per bag for 48 bags in six acres.

          The points for consideration are:

1)    Whether the appellants supplied spurious and defective seeds to the respondent?

2)    To what relief?

Point No.1:  There is no dispute in regard to the purchase of 4 bags paddy seeds of JGL 384 variety from the appellant by the respondent for a consideration of Rs.1520/- inasmuch as the purchase bill dated 20.8.2004 establish the very same fact.  It is also not in dispute that on 4.9.2004 the respondent had sown the paddy seeds in the field, an extent of 6.00 acres taken on lease for the purpose of cultivation of the land.  Sarpanch Jonnalagadda village issued certificate Ex.A14 to the effect that the respondent cultivated paddy crop in the land in Sy.No.421 and 366 whereof he obtained the yield of 11 bags @ 75/- per bag per acre.  This certificate also shows that four other farmers Mettu Papi Reddy, Koppula Chinna Venkatreddy, Eruvu Venkat Reddy and Boyapati Pulla Reddy also raised paddy crop in their respective fields’ and the yield was the same as obtained by the respondent.  Therefore, we hold that the purchase of paddy seeds and sowing of the same in the field by the appellant is established.

The respondent had stated that he had taken all precautionary measures and adopted agronomical practice by applying pesticides and fertilizers at proper time as also by providing the field with sufficient water.  Hence, it is his version that he had adapted the required agronomical practice in raising the paddy crop.  The certificate issued by Agricultural Extension Officer under Ex.A22 would prove the steps taken by the respondent at the time of sowing of the paddy seeds in the field.  The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Narsaraopet reported the condition of the crop raised by the appellant and other farmers in Rangareddy Palem Village, through his letter dated 22.12.2004 to the Joint Director of Agriculture Guntur.  It was mentioned in the letter that he inspected the fields of the farmers at Rangareddy palem village, after having read the news in Eenadu daily that JGL 384 paddy seeds sold by appellant no.1 and produced by the appellant no.2 was miserably failed evoking distress among the farmers.  He had made the following observations:

1.    The crop is said to have been sown on 5.9.2004 and transplanted in between 26.9.2004 to 1.10.2004 in an extent of 78 acres in the village.

2.    The crop is in milky stage.

3.    Effective tillers are ranging from 10 to 15 per bill.

4.    Off-types have been noticed to an extent of 15-20% in the said fields.

5.    Expected yield may be around 10-15 bags/acre while the neighbouring fields are likely to yield 30 bags.

The Joint Director of Agriculture of Guntur issued memo dated 22.12.2004 wherein it was mentioned that M/s Sai seeds Corporation Metpalli, was not under MOU for the year 2004-06 and he suggested that complaints against the said companies be filed by those farmers who purchased the seeds produced by it.  The respondent and five others submitted representation dated 22.12.2004 to the District Collector, Guntur stating that the appellant no.1 sold the paddy seeds to them with a promise that they would get yield of 35-40 bags per acre and the crop they raised in their respective fields would show that it would not yield more than 10 bags per acre.  It was revealed in their enquiry that the seeds purchased by them were defective and the appellant no.1 evaded to meet them and subsequently absconded from the place.  FIR Ex.A10 was issued in Crime NO.419 of 2004 by the Police Narsaraopet under section 420 of IPC against the appellant no.1. 

As seen from the observation made by the Assistant Director of Agriculture in his letter dated 22.12.2004, Facts Tiller were ranging from 10-15 per bill, off types were also noticed to an extent of 15 to 20% in the field and expected yield was 10-15 bags per acre whereas the neighbour fields were likely to yield 30 bags.  The Assistant Director is an expert and according to him the yield was very poor despite required agronomical practice followed by the respondent as also the other farmers.  An objection to the report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture on behalf of the appellants was that it was not binding on them for the reason that he inspected the fields in their absence.  We do not find any merit in the contention as the Assistant Director is a government employee and a technical expert.  The appellants instead of complaining that the Assistant Director had inspected the field without putting them on notice, they could have requested him to issue notice to them before he proceeded to the inspection of the field.  They did not even request him to re-inspect the field of the respondent.   It is the Assistant Director who personally inspected the field and gave a specific finding as to the poor yield and defect in the seed.  The appellants have not produced any document that the paddy seed produced by them was certified to be pure and free of any defect. News paper clippings Ex.A12 would show that the respondent and other farmers were deceived by the appellant no.1 who promised them that the paddy seeds would give good yield.

Instead of contending that the respondent had not sent the sample seed for analysis, the appellants ought to have taken steps to send the sample seeds for analysis.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., Vs. Slavapti Chandra Reddy and Others” 1998 CPJ (SC) (OP) held that if the opposite party disputes about the defect of the seed, they themselves could have filed application before the District Forum to send the sample seed to laboratory for analysis and relying on this decision, this Commission in “K.Anjaiah Vs.National Seeds Corporation” in F.A.No.926 of 2002 decided on 15.7.2004 held that it is for the opposite party to send the sample seed for analysis when it disputes the defect in the seed manufactured by it.  The opposite parties failed to explain what prevented them from sending the sample seeds for analysis. 

As per the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in “India Seeds House Vs Ramjilal Sharma and another” reported in III (2008) CPJ 96 (NC) and “South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs R.Shekar @ Sreedhar” reported in I (2008) CPJ 158 (NC) the appellants would have invoked Sec.13(1) of the C.P.Act to get the sample of seeds of the same lot as was sold to the respondent to establish that the seed was free from any defect and failure to perform such obligation has to be held against the appellants as the farmer cannot be expected to set apart some quantity of seed for testing expecting that the seed he purchased was defective and has to be sent for laboratory test and at some point of time in future.

  In the light of the inspection of the crop made by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Guntur and finding of the Joint Director of Agriculture that the appellant no.2 was not under the MOU and the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent, we are of the opinion that the seeds produced by the appellant no.2 and sold by the appellant no.1 to the respondent were defective and spurious.

The learned counsel from the appellant has submitted that the District Forum has not considered the third party affidavit of Sri S.Rami Reddy, Ret. Assistant Director of Agriculture.  A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is a specific reference to the affidavit of the said Ramireddy.  The District Forum had bestowed its attention at page 13 of the impugned order and taking into consideration of the observation of the retired Assistant Director, the District Forum assessed the yield as 8 bags per acre. S.Rami Reddy in his affidavit stated that he worked as Assistant Director of Agriculture and retired at Markapuram in the month of June 2000.  Further he stated “ I have got full knowledge in paddy crop”.  This sentence does not reflect the sense which he might have intended to say.  He had not visited the field of the respondent or any other farmers who raised the crop by the seeds sold by the appellant no.1 and produced by the appellant no.2.  The Assistant Director who issued Ex.A10 has been in the service of the government and physifically verified the crop and meticulously noted the condition of the crop.  Compared to the observations of D.Pitchi Reddy, the Assistant Director of Agriculture who issued Ex.A10 any observation made by a retired Assistant Director who had not inspected the field nor physically verified the crop cannot be given any credence.   Therefore,  we do not find any force in the contention that the District forum had not considered the third party affidavit of S.Rami Reddy.  Hence,  the point is answered against the appellants.

Point no.2:  The appellants have not questioned the assessment of loss of the crop of the respondent as was done by the District Forum.  The District Forum, taking into consideration of the bills of purchase  of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and the expenditure incurred by the respondent in developing the land for cultivation of the crop etc., has rightly assessed compensation which we find proper and reasonable. 

          In the result this appeal F.A.No.1375 of 2006 is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.6.2006 passed in C.D.No.48 of 2005 by the District Forum Guntur.

 For the reasons stated in F.A.No.1375 of 2006, Appeals F.A.Nos. 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381 and 1382 of 2006 are also being dismissed.    Time for compliance six weeks. 

                                                                                      PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                                  MEMBER
                                                                                            Dt.18.06.2009