BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.563 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.96 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-II, VIJAYAWADA
Between:
M/s Raasi Seeds Pvt.Ltd.,
regd.Office 273, Kamaraja Nagar Road
Attur-636 102, Tamilnadu and a marketing
office at H.No.3-44-144, Beside Plot No.41
Ishaq Colony, Secunderabad-015, rep. by
its Senior Regional Business Manager and duly
Constituted Attorney Y.Siva Shankar Reddy
S/o Y.C.Venkata Reddy
Appellant/opposite party no.2
A N D
1. Prathipati Nageswara Rao S/o Pullaiah
aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Chandarlapadu, Krishna District
Respondent/complainant
2. M/s Rythumitra Seeds, rep. by its
Prop. Nelakurthi Ramesh S/o Chalapathi Rao
Shop No.5, Police Commercial Complex,
Old Bus-Stand Road, Nandigama
Krishna Dist.
respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellant M/s K.R.Koteswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents Sri Nagendra Reddy (R1)
Served (R2)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the respondent no.1 is a ryot and cultivating of his own lands taken on lease. He used to raise commercial crops and was adjudged as best ryot/Avaunt Captain. The respondent no.1 purchased cotton seeds from the respondent no.1 manufactured by the appellant and sowed in 10 acres of land. The cotton crop was attacked by pests contra to the advertisement and the same was shown to the experts but no action was taken by the respondent no.2 and the appellant. The complainant got only little quantity of yield and sustained heavy loss though approached the appellant and respondent no.2 and got issued notice to them on 05.02.2009 but of no avail.
3. The appellant and the respondent no.2 resisted the case contending that they are doing seed business for the last twenty years. Their main seed business is development and distribution of private research bred cotton Hybrid/varieties and Bajra Seed varieties. They have got a credible R & D Facilities, recognized by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi. They have bred their own research Cotton Hybrid namely RCH-2. RCH-2 Cotton Hybrid seeds has become popular and is under large scale distribution and cultivation among the farmers in the States of Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnata and Gujarat. Being very popular among the farming community, Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi on the recommendation of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has notified this variety for further multiplication and distribution vide Govt. of India Gazette Extra Ordinary No.233 dated 03.04.2000.
4. Since inception of RCH-2 Cotton Hybrid seed distribution of Krishna District, they have not received any complaint about the poor quality of seeds. The respondent no.1 failed to show any proof that he has cultivated 10 acres of land by purchasing RCH-2 seeds from the respondent no.2 and that there is no proof that he has spent Rs.8,990/- per acre towards pesticides etc. The appellant sold RCH-2 Bg (BT) variety about 3,50,000/- packets in Andhra Pradesh during Kharif 2008 but none complained about the poor quality of seeds and yielding. The total sale of seeds in all over India is 45,00,000 but none complained about the quality of the seeds. 118 acres of land was cultivated in Chandarlapadu, Narasimharaopalem, Jujjuru, Kanchikacherla, Monnaluru, Paritala etc., no ryot has given any compliant about the seeds except the complainant. There is no expert opinion as such there is no need to attribute anything much less to the quality of the seeds and the present complaint is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
5. The respondent no.1 filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the opposite parties Sri Y. Siva Sankar Reddy filed an affidavit and no documents are marked.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the opposite parties assured the complainant that the seeds would withstand the pests and insects and the report of the expert establishes result contrary to the promise of the opposite parties.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party no.2 has filed appeal contending that there is no evidence on record to prove that the seed supplied by the appellant were defective and the agricultural officer’s report indicates reference to crop expert and that the complainant has not cultivated cotton in 10 acres of land. It is contended that the complainant has not examined any expert to show that the yield was 2 quintals per acre and that crop failure was due to pests and insects.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
9. The first respondent has claimed that he purchased 10 bags of RCH-2 BT vide lot No.252366 each bag weighing 4.5 kgs and each bag worth `750/- on 10.6.2008 from the second respondent. The appellant company has disputed the sowing of the seeds in 10 acres of land. The first respondent has filed receipt issued by the second respondent on 10.6.2008 which goes to show that he has purchased 10 bags of the seed for `7500/-. The first respondent has not filed copy of pahani or any other revenue record to establish cultivation of 10 acres of the land. However, report of MRO would be sufficient to support his contention and the MRO has specifically mentioned in the report that the first respondent had cultivated Ac.2.00 gts of his land and Ac.8.00 gts of the land taken on lease, with the cotton seed. Thus , it cannot be said that the 10 bags of the seed was not sown or that the first respondent had not cultivated Ac.10.00 of the land.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the appellant company had advertised to the effect that its seed is pest resistant which the learned counsel for the appellant company has denied. A perusal of the pamphlet would indicate that what all the appellant had advertised is in regard to the efficient nature of the seed to control the spread of the pests. The Mandal Agricultural Officer has submitted her report to the JDA Nandigama that the first respondent had sown the seed in the second week of July and since then crop was infected with pests which caused damage to the bolls as a result of which flower dropping was also occurred and that the bolls were deformed which resulted in yield to the extent of 180 per acre.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant company has challenged the report of the agricultural officer on the premise that she was not present and had no knowledge as to when the seed was sown and that she had issued the report which is factually not correct. It is true the Mandal Agricultural Officer has stated in her report about sowing of the seeds, duration of the crop and there was no mention of the yield in the neibhouring fields and the report dealt with an isolated incident created for the purpose filing complaint. The Mandal Agricultural Officer is an expert in the field compared to the staff of the appellant company or any other layman. However, it is true that the government agency on receipt of intimation is supposed to send the sample to Regional Agricultural Research Institute for its scientific enlightical report on any crop failure during relevant period. The Mandal Agricultural Officer requested to depute crop experts to assess the crop standard and the government has not taken any steps to prove that the seeds are defective in nature.
12. The contention of the opposite party though reflects failure of the Mandal Agricultural Officer to send the seeds for analysis, she being herself an expert has observed that the expected yield was not obtained despite efficient crop management by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the first respondent is an experienced farmer and he was given identity certificate by the AVAUNT. The certificate would show that the first respondent has the skill and knowledge in observing the crop practice and crop management. As such it can be held that the first respondent had taken proper steps against the pest control and rest of the items in crop management.
13. This is a case where the Mandal Agricultural Officer had not given specific finding as to the defective nature of the seed and in the same vein it can be said that she had found that the yield was much below the expected yield. Though with any certainty can it be said that the seed was defective which resulted not in poor germination but low yield resulted despite efficient crop management. The appellant company ought to have sent the seed of the same lot number for analysis as the first respondent is not expected nor supposed to retain sample of the seed at the time it was sown in the field. The District Forum has observed that the crop was affected with pests and insects and the first respondent suffered loss.
14. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant company has contended that many factors such as water, air, sunlight, pesticides and fertilizers, nature of the soil and the time of sowing the seed etc., would influence the germination and yield The plea of the appellant company that the seed ought to have been sown much earlier is not controverted by the first respondent. Therefore, the low yield cannot be attributed due to the sole defect in seed. Many factors mentioned above, have direct and adverse influence which not only influence the growth of the crop but also will have impact on the quantity of yield. The District Forum has taken 10 quintals per acre as expected yield and observed that the first respondent had got 2 quintals per acre and awarded a sum of `2,50,000/- for the loss of crop and `10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also `2,000/- towards costs.
15. The appellant company has admitted that Mandal Agricultural Officer’s report to the extent the crop was infected with pests which caused damage to the bolls as well as the flowers. The appellant has made the report as basis to contend that the first respondent had observed unscientific management of crop in providing pesticides at relevant point of time. It is true, the MAO has observed that pest control management was not to the mark. A perusal of the report in toto would establish that the appellant company had not supplied 100% pure seed and in accordance with the promise it has been in the shape of pamphlet which goes to show that the seed was supported by the most efficient technology and withstand any type of pest.
16. The District Forum has not assessed the loss on legally tenable evidence and arbitrarily awarded a sum of `2,50,000/- against the appellant company besides `10,000/- as compensation. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant had rendered deficient service and is liable to pay an amount of `30,000/- and `2,000/- towards costs and to the extent the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified besides the award of `10,000/- towards compensation being set aside.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay an amount of `30,000/- together with costs of `2,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.26.06.2012
KMK*
