Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- being loss of crop plus interest of Rs.20,000/-; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.
- In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:
The complainant took three acres of wet land on lease from Nancharamma temple located in Karalapadu village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district. The 1st opposite party is distributor of seeds manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant purchased three bags of paddy seed of Sonal variety from 1st opposite party on the advertisement given by it. The 1st promised yield of 40-45 bags per acre. The complainant took all necessary steps for cultivation i.e., using water, fertilizers and pesticides but in vain. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the loss sustained by him but in vain. Thereafter the complainant informed the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Piduguralla. On 25-03-10 the Mandal Agricultural Officer of Piduguralla Mandal inspected the lands of the complainant and gave a report stating that the crop has been damaged due to neck blast, by that choffy (unfilled) grains are occurred, the yield may severely affect and may come less than 90% of normal yield. The VRO of that village also issued certificate. The opposite parties intentionally and wantonly cheated the complainant by supplying defective seeds. The complainant got 10 bags of paddy only per acre. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service by supplying defective seeds. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The 1st opposite party filed memo adopting the version of 2nd opposite party and their contention in nutshell is thus:
The lands in Kandrika village are being irrigated through NSP canal. In Guntur district the Khariff season starts either in the month of August or September and ends by December while the Rabi season starts during January and ends by March or April. During 2009-2010 the Government did not release water to NSP canal till 15th of October due to shortage. If any crop is raised during that period it will come to flowering in the month of December to February which is the coldest period of the region. On account of low temperature, there is every possibility of the crops being infected by viruses and fungus and of having stunted growth and short fall of crop. The short fall of crop is only due to climatic conditions of the cold weather, but not due to any impurity of the seed. The complainant purchased the seed on 09-11-09 and might have transplanted the same either in November or December which is not conducive to sow the seeds on account of untimely sowing the seeds weather in the temperature and improper management may lead to certain pests and diseases and they may go up resulting no flowering no seed formation and poor yielding. The opposite parties learnt that the complainant got normal yield. The certificate said to have been given by the Agricultural Officer did not relate to the property of the complainant. Even otherwise, the sheath blight might have occurred due to late sowing and transplantation of the crop but not due to defect in the seed. The complainant never approached opposite parties for any guidance. Farmers who managed the crop have got results satisfactorily. The Sonal variety of paddy has been extensively cultivated in Nagarjun Sagar right command area in thousands of acres. There was no complaint regarding genetic impurity from any quarter. The claim made by the complainant is false and mischievous. The complaint therefore be allowed.
4. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party.
5. Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether the seed manufactured and supplied by the opposite parties are defective?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?
6. Admitted facts in this case are these:
1. The 2nd opposite party is the producer of the paddy seed variety Sonal NP-3114.
2. The 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party.
3. The complainant purchased seeds on 09-11-09 under Ex.A-1.
7. POINT No.1:- The deficiency of service complained against the opposite parties is that the complainant realized 10 bags of paddy only instead of 45 bags as promised and it was due to defect in the seeds. Burden is on the complainant to prove that the seeds purchased under Ex.A-1 from OP1 manufactured by OP2. The complainant under Ex.A-2 dated nil addressed a letter to the Agricultural Officer of Piduguralla Mandal complaining that the crop raised by him in an extent of three acres in Karalapadu village was damaged and completely dried. Smt P. Sandya Rani, Mandal Agricultural Officer gave report (Ex.A-3) on 25-03-10 and the relevant portion is extracted below for better appreciation:
“The farmer Shaik Gouse Arif S/o Davulasabude h of Karalapadu village, Piduguralla Mandal has cultivated paddy variety of Nuziveedu sonaal to an extent of Ac.3.00. Basing on the advertisement, the farmer has cultivated paddy Nuziveedue sonaal.
On inspection, it is revealed that the crop has been damaged by Neck blast, by that chaffy grains (i.e., unfilled grains) are occurred. The yield may severely affect and may come less than 90% of the normal yields.
This issue may be considered for taking action against the seed producer and the marketer for compensating the loss born by the farmer. The farmer purchased the seed from M/s Padma Seeds, Piduguralla on 09-11-09”.
8. In this case the complainant did not take steps to send the paddy seed for scientific investigation. On the other hand the opposite parties filed IAs.293/11 and 294/11 and 317/2011 to 326/2011 to Principal Scientist/breeder, Rice Research Unit, ANGRAU, Bapatla and deposited the sample bag concerned in this case. The complainant resisted the same. This Forum on 03-09-11 dismissed the above said IAs and became final as both the parties did not canvass further.
9. The decisions therefore relied upon by the complainant reported in India Seed House vs. Ramjilal Sharma and another (2008 (III) CPJ 1996 (NC), H.N. Sankar Sastry vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka 2004 (II) CPJ 37 (SC) and Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004 on the file of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the case.
10. Relying on the decision reported in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu and another 2005 (III) ALT 25 (SC) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mahyco Seeds Limited vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and others 2011 (II) CPR 35 (NC) held that in any case genetic defect in the seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. In this case there is no scientific report from a laboratory. We therefore opine that the complainant failed to prove that the seed under Ex.A-1 is defective and answer this point in favour of the opposite party.
11. POINT No.2:- In view of above finding in the result the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore this point is also answered in favour of the opposite parties.
12. POINT No.3:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of October, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 09-11-09 | Paddy seed purchase bill |
A2 | - | Complaint to M.A.O., Piduguralla |
A3 | 25-03-10 | Inspection report given by M.A.O., |
A4 | 06-05-08 | Certificate issued by V.R.O. |
A5 | 25-03-10 | Crop photograph |
For opposite parties : NIL
