BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 26th day of May, 2006
C.D. No. 9/2005
M. Vamsi Krishna Reddy alias Omseedhar Reddy, S/o. M. Karunakar Reddy,
R/o. Chinna Tekur (V), Kallur (M), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
Proprietor and Manufacturer MECH-12 Bt Cotton Seed
1. The Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd,
221-224, Midas Sehar Plaza, M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 59.
2. R.K. Agro Chemicals, Distributors for Monsanto (India ) Ltd,
Shop No. 80, S.V.R. Complex, Opp. RTC Bus-Stand, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri M. Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri P. V. Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and Sri D. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking order against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-towards loss of crops and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with future interest and any other reliefs with the circumstances of the case demand alleging the purchase of 5 units of MECH-12 BT hybrid cotton seed, marketed by the opposite party No.1 and sold by opposite party No.2, paying to the later Rs.7,625/- @ Rs.1,525/- for unit under bill No.25 dated 11-6-2004 and sowing them in his land of 5.5 acres in survey No.362-C of Chinnatekur village of Kallur mandal on 18-6-2004 and the due compliance of instructions given as to the cultivation and elderly advises of experienced farmers. He was attracted to this variety as safe for cultivation under the bore wells and no pesticides are required to this type of crop. Inspite of good environmental conditions and proper field and crop management investing Rs.80,000/- the crop failed totally in the said extent of 5.5 acres yielding only 2 quintals of poor quality of cotton against the 20 quintals expected yield per acre and ensured irreparable loss and mental agony and the said seed was learnt through mass media of the papers as a failure one and the opposite party fail to respond to the notice of the complainant. The poor quality of 2 quintals of cotton did not fetch any value as unfit for market.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filing their written versions denying the complaint averments and any of their concern and there by any of their liability to the complainant’s claim.
3. In substantiation of the contentions, while the complainant side relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A19 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of Y.Gopal Reddy and replies exchanged to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 and replies exchanged to the interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any defect in seed which ensured loss of yield and there by any liability of the opposite parties to the complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A1 is the delivery challan issued by R.K. Agro Chemicals, Kurnool (opposite party No.2) on 11-6-2004 envisaging sale of 5 bags of BT cotton seed of MECH-12 variety in favour of Omseedhar Reddy (complainant) for a sum of Rs.7,625/- and the delivery of said seed to Y.V.Gopal Reddy.
6. The Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the adangal of the year 2004-2005 (1414 F) pertaining to the entries of survey No.362-2C of Chinnatekur village. Its entries envisages the total extent of said survey number as 10 acres (5.5 acres + 4.5 acres) and a cultivation of cotton crop being on an extent of 5.5 acres in Kharif and nature of said land was dry.
7. The sworn affidavit of the complainant and Y.V.Gopal Reddy confirm the said purchase of seed envisaged in Ex.A1 and cultivation of cotton in the field of the complainant as envisaged in Ex.A2.
8. Nothing much to discredit them comes forth in the interrogatories caused to them and replies obtained.
9. The opposite party side except denying everything baldly did not place any such cogent material to discredit the Ex.A1 and A2 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and Y.V.Gopal Reddy filed in substantiation of the Ex.A1 and A2 and relevant complaint averments. Hence the material envisaged under the Ex.A1 and A2 and sworn affidavits of the complainant and Y.V.Gopal Reddy are conclusively establishing the alleged purchase of said variety of cotton seed and its sowing in cultivation of the said land of the complainant in the year 2004-2005 (1414 F).
10. Neither the averments of the complaint nor the averments of sworn affidavit of the complainant says of the cultivation of the said land under any bore well operated on electricity. Nor the entries in Ex.A2 says the said dry land of complainant mentioned there in is irrigated under any bore well. Neither the complaint averments nor his sworn affidavit takes mention of any electricity service connection numbers to the bore well if any in his land.
11. The mere bald mention in the sworn affidavit of Y.V.Gopal Reddy that the land of the complainant is under irrigation of bore well remains of any help to the case of the complainant in the absence of any such mention in sworn affidavit of the complainant, and Ex.A2 and complaint averments and in the absence of any mention in said affidavit of Y.V.Gopal Reddy that they were connected with electricity supply.
12. The Ex.A14 a certificate have been issued by K.Narayana – Minor Irrigation Chairman, Chinnatekur as to the nature of the complainant’s land in Survey No.362/C as under ayacut and existence of a bore well there in is not infusing any confidence in the absence of any such mention in Ex.A2 entries of adangal, and when the said Ex.A4 is not taking any mention of electric service connection to the said bore wells. If the said land was irrigated by said bore well, the issuer of said Ex.A14 certificate could not have mentioned it as an ayacut without specifying the said bore well was a government one. If the said bore well in the land of the complainant is not private there would not be any electricity connection on the name of private individuals as mentioned in Ex.A4 to A8.
13. Further while the name of the complainant is M.Vamseekrishna Reddy @ Omseedhar Reddy the pass book in Ex.A4 electricity service connection No.64 stands on the name of M.Y.Reddy, Ex.A5 and A6 pass books of electricity service connection No.507 and 513 standing in the name of Karunakar Reddy and the pass books in Ex.A7 and A8 of electricity service connection No.719 and 726 standing on the name of M.K.Reddy and hence they bear any relevancy for being considered in adjudication of this case.
14. The Ex.A9 is the xerox of a letter dated 26-11-2004 addressed by the complainant to the concerned MAO of Kallur Mandal, wherein he alleges the purchase of said seed of MECH-12 cotton variety from the opposite party No.2 and its sowing in its land of survey No.362-C of Chinnatekur village and inspite of taking every precaution and measures in field and crop management and use of periodical pesticides and irrigations and following of instructions of the company people in crop management his incurring of loss of yield and so requiring the report of its inspection for proceeding against the seed company in court of law for loss sustained to him on account of the said seed.
15. The Ex.A10 is the observation of the MAO, Kallur in pursuance of Ex.A9 addressed to Joint Direction Agriculture, Kurnool. It alleges the inspection of complainants said filed by him on 26-11-2004 itself and reiterate of his physical observations already submitted in Part –A form, requesting the visit of scientist to inspect the crop in the filed of complainant for finding out the fault. Hence the said Ex.A10 doesn’t provide as to any defect in the said seed but only of his physical observations of the ill – fated standing crop in the field of the complainant.
16. The Ex.A11 is the office copy of the legal notice caused on opposite parties No.1 and 2 and Ex.A12 and A13 are the acknowledgments of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 as to the receipt of said notice in Ex.A11. The Ex.A11 alleges the case of the complainant as alleged in the complaint and claims an incurred expenditure of Rs.80,000/- and loss of crop of 110 quintals in the cultivated land of 5.5 acres @ Rs.2,500/- per quintal alleging it as the prevailing market rate. The opposite parties inspite of receipt of said notice did not respond to the same by any reply discrediting them nor it placed any such material during enquiry of this case as to mean any exorbitancy in the alleged quantum of loss of yield and its alleged prevailing market rate. In the absence of any such denial material from the opposite parties side at its earliest point of time provided there under there remains any prima facia obligations on the part of the complainant to take them to the strict proof by any other cogent evidence.
17. Even though either the complaint averments or the consequential material placed on the complainant side allege any specific defect in the seed supplied by the opposite parties which must have ensured the loss of yield to the complainant, in the absence of any endeavour on the part of the opposite parties to establish the genuineness of their alleged seed by taking to laboratory test as contemplated under section 13 (1) © of C.P. Act, as it is valuable rate of a consumer to get defect free goods from its producers and provider. Further on the other hand when the news paper cutting in Ex.A15 to A19 are envisaging the block listing of the said BT seed of the opposite parties due to its failure to yield properly was not discredited by the opposite parties side to the effect that they are short of truth.
18. When there is a materiel to believe the said seed is a failure one and block listed on account of its ensual of loss of crop to the farmers who availed them, and there by implying the inherent defect in said seed is doesn’t require any further proof from the complainant’s side. Non the less of any laboratory test as contemplated under section 13 (1) © of C.P. Act as the compliance of said procedure is mandatory as per the said section when the defect in said goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. Thus when there is some material to believe the said seed as a failure one and there by to imply of its inherent defect, the decision of Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, reported in 2002 (2) CPJ page 343, which upholds the dismissal of the complaint in the absence of substantiating proof as to the poor quality of the seed is having no applicability for the facts and circumstances of this case.
19. If there is any falsity in the reasons for block listing of said seed and in fact the said seed is a perfect one and free of any defect, the said seeds company would not have kept silent from proceeding against the said block listing. The silent conduct on the part of the said seed company on its genuineness and falsity in the reason for its block listing openly even by news mass media itself is establishing the existence of defect clearly in said seed and not by any inference and so the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission reported in 2005 (2) CPJ –24, which warrants a clear finding as to defect or the quality of the seed or its substandardness to draw inference as to deficiency, doesn’t appear to be relevant for its application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case, especially when the Ex.A9 observation report of MAO also finds some peculiarities, irregularities and abnormalities in the ill-fated standing crop of the complainant and there by lends some circumstance to doubt as to the genuineness of the said seed.
20. As the complainant not merely and solely rely upon the said news media reports appearing in Ex.A15 to A19 but also on the observations of MAO made in Ex.A9 report besides to asserting the failure of crop on account of the said seed and thus the reliance on Ex.A15 to A19 appears to be taken to lend corroboration to his assertions made in the sworn affidavit and observations in Ex.A9 report, the division bench decision of Hon’ble A.P High Court reported in 2005 ALD (4) page 411, is having any applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court reported in 2003 (1) ALT page 37, in reference to the section 78 (2) of Evidence Act.
21. The complainant claims loss of yield at 20 quintals per acre. The opposite party side except denying the same did not place any such cogent material to feel any exorbitancy in said expected yield. Nor there appears any possibility and probability to the opposite parties to have any knowledge of them as they ever stated to have visited the field of the complainant during relevant times. Nor the Ex.A3 – broucher as to the said seed supplied by its seed company does say anywhere the probable quantum of the yield of said kind of seed yield in normal conditions. Nor does the opposite party side place the existence of any adverse and hostile agro environmental conditions for the failure of the yield or any falsity in the rate claimed for the crop. Hence from the above the cause for the failure of the yield and the probable quantum of the yield and their rate existing at the relevant time remains not discredited by the opposite party side with any cogent material which could cast every amount of doubt on the claim of the complainant and so there by the complainant is remaining entitled to the loss of yield @ 20 quintals per acre at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per quintal.
22. The complainant alleges that he has got 2 quintals of yield only out of his 5.5 acres cultivated and it being of poor quality did not fetch any value as unfit for market. The complainant, inspite of denial of every fact alleged in the complaint by the opposite party, did not substantiate the same by lending any corroboration to his solitary version. Hence the complainants entitleness for the loss of the yield shall remain as 108 quintals i.e. minus 2 quintals from the expected yield of 110 quintals, at the then existing rate of Rs.2,500/- per quintal.
23. As a complainant suffered loss of yield at the seed supplied by the opposite parties who did not respond to the Ex.A11 legal notice acknowledging the same under Ex.A12 and A13 the opposite parties are to hold joint and several liability for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties by their indifferent conduct driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his consumer grievances the opposite parties hold a joint and several liability to the complainant to pay the cost of this litigation.
24. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally to the complainant Rs.2,70,000/- @ Rs.2,500/- per quintal as loss of probable yield of 108 quintals incurred in his land of 5.5 acres cultivated with the seed furnished by the opposite parties, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and Rs.10,000/- as costs of this litigation. The supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite parties jointly and severally to the complainant with in a month of the receipt of this order. In default they shall pay jointly and severally the supra stated award amount to the complainant with 12% interest till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 26th day of May, 2006.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties:Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Delivery Challan of R.K. Agro Chemicals, dt 11.6.2004 for Rs. 7,625/-.
Ex A.2 Adangal of F.1414 for Year 2004-2005 of Chinna Tekur (V),
Ex A.3 Paper cutting Bollgard MECH –12 Bt.
Ex A.4 Pass book.
Ex A.5 Pass book.
Ex A.6 Pass book.
Ex A.7 Pass book.
Ex A.8 Pass book.
Ex A.9 Report of the MAO Kallur (M), dt 26.11.04.
Ex A.10 Attested copy of MAO Kallur.
Ex A.11 Legal notice, dt 27.11.2004.
Ex A.12 Acknowledgement.
Ex A.13 Acknowledgement.
Ex A.14 Certificate of K. Narayana (Minor Irrigation Chairman Chinnatekur (V),
Kallur (M),
Ex A.15 News paper report of Andhra Jyothi, 23.4.2005.
Ex A.16 News paper report of Andhra Jyothi, 18.5.2005.
Ex A.17 News paper report of Andhra Jyothi, 24.6.2005.
Ex A.18 News paper report of Andhra Jyothi, 25.6.2005.
Ex A.19 News paper report of Andhra Jyothi, 15.4.2005.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri M. Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri P.V. Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3.Sri D. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties:
