BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

FA  1027  of 2011 against C.C.  33/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Kameneni Sambaiah

S/o. Tirupathaiah

Agriculturist

R/o. Savalyapuram (V&M)

Guntur Dist.                                                ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant  

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1028  of 2011 against C.C.  34/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Ponduri Haribabu, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged about 41 years R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District.

                                                                   ***               Appellant/

Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1029  of 2011 against C.C.  35/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

T. Subba Rao and 12 others,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1030  of 2011 against C.C.  36/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Vattikuti Srinivasa Rao,

S/o. Bapiraju,

Aged about 41 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1031  of 2011 against C.C.  37/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Vegulla Krishna Murthy,

S/o. Venkata Rao,

Aged about 46 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1032  of 2011 against C.C.  38/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

M. Devaiah & 12 others

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1033  of 2011 against C.C.  39/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Daggu Peda Anjaiah,

S/o. Narasaiah,

Aged about 36 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1034  of 2011 against C.C. 40/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Vegulla Atcha Rao,

S/o. Venkata Rao,

Aged about 61 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1035  of 2011 against C.C. 41/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Nekkanti Krishna Murthy,

S/o. Veera Swamy,

Aged about 42 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                        Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1036  of 2011 against C.C. 42/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

T. Bala Veera Reddy & 12 others

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1037  of 2011 against C.C. 43/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Talari Subba Rao ,

S/o. Pullaiah,

Aged about 30 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1038  of 2011 against C.C. 44/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

V. Venkata Rao & 12 others,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

FA  1039  of 2011 against C.C. 45/2011, Dist. Forum, Guntur 

Between:

Papasani Anjaneyulu,

S/o. Appaiah,

Aged about 42 years,

R/o. Savalyapuram Village,

Savalyapuram Mandal,

Guntur District.                                          ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant 

And

1)  Proprietor

Sri Venkata Vijayalakshmi Seeds

Sivayya Stupam Centre

Vinukonda-522 647

Guntur Dist.

2)  The Proprietor

M/s. Srikanya  Seeds & Processing Plant

Near NH-5 Road

D.No. 1-179, Dongavaripalem (V)

Penugonda Mandal

West Godavari Dist.                                    ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops 1 & 2.

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s.  Sidda Satyanarayana

Counsel for the Resp:                                  R1- Held Sufficient

                                                                   R2- Served.

CORAM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

                                                                   &

                                          SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER                                 

THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble  Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          ***

1)                 All these appeals are preferred by the unsuccessful complainants  pertaining to loss of paddy crop variety NLR-145   purchased from Op1 dealer  manufactured by Op2  complaining that they were spurious.

2)                Though the Dist. Forum  disposed of the matters separately, considering the fact  that  common questions of fact and law arise, we are of the opinion that  all these appeals can  be disposed of by a common order.

3)                The case of the complainants  in brief is that they are agriculturists  and residents of   Savalyapuram  of Guntur district  and  own  agricultural lands.  They purchased  paddy seed NLR 145 variety  from Op1 dealer manufactured by Op2 when they assured that  it would yield 35 to 40 bags per acre in an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents.    After sowing the seed it resulted in irregular maturity and chaffy  panicles causing huge loss.  For benefit,  we give below the extents  of land and loss sustained by the complainants  in a tabular form:

Thereupon they approached the  opposite parties  and agricultural officers of  Savalyapuram Mandal.  The agricultural officers in turn  enquired into the matter and sent the seed to the laboratory for testing the quality.    The report reveals that  there was admixture in the seed.  Thus  they are spurious in nature.   The yield was below 5 bags per acre.   Thus they have sustained loss of Rs. 30,000/- per acre.   Therefore they prayed that the compensation be awarded as mentioned above. 

4)                Op1 dealer resisted the case.   While admitting that  he was the dealer of Op2 a manufacturer of  paddy seeds.   He  sold the seeds in sealed bags, however, it never assured that it would yield  35 – 40 bags per acre.   No notice was served by the agricultural officers before inspection.   When the complainant  had purchased the seed on  19.8.2008  the dates  of inspection on  5.1.2008 and 7.1.2008  could not have been true.   The dates cannot be corrected by the officials, and if  there is any tampering  it was by the complainants.  The claims of the complainants are exaggerated.    Therefore it prayed for  dismissal of the complaints  with costs. 

5)                Op2   the manufacturer equally resisted the case.    It alleged that  it is a recognised seed producer of Nellore  Agricultural University.    It had followed the standard procedure in  distributing the  paddy seed, and packed  seeds were of 80%  or more germination.   The complainants have to prove  the extent of land  in which they sowed, and the quantity of  seed purchased etc., since they were not tallying.    It had supplied the seeds to different places  and that there was no complaint from any quarter.   The complaints were bad for non-joinder of  agricultural officers as parties.    It never sold spurious seeds, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaints  with costs. 

6)                The complainants  in proof of  their case filed  their affidavit evidences and got Exs. A1 to A4 marked  while Op2 filed his affidavit evidence, and got Exs. B1 to B7 marked. 

7)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined  that the complainants could not establish that the seeds were  spurious nor that there was any loss of crop.  The extent of land and the probable  expenditure and returns were not filed, and since  the complainants could not establish  their claims, the complaints were dismissed. 

8)                Aggrieved by the said  order the complainants preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum  did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.      It did not consider the scientific report  submitted by the  Agricultural Scientist nor the assessment made by the agricultural officers for the loss sustained by the farmers.  So also the report submitted by the field verification committee.    Therefore they prayed that the complaints be allowed. 

9)                The points that arise for consideration are:

(i)       Whether there was any defect in the seeds manufactured by Op2 and

sold by Op1 dealer?

(ii)      If so, what is the compensation that can  be awarded?

(iii)     To what relief?

10)               It is an undisputed fact that the complainants have purchased  paddy seeds  NLR-145 variety from the dealer Op1  manufactured by Op2  vide bill Ex. A1.    When the  complainants complained  the quality  of seeds in view of  irregular growth,   a  committee consisting of  Asst. Director of Agriculture (R), Vinukonda,  Asst. Director of Agriculture, Narasaraopet, Revenue Divisional  Officer,  Narasaraopet,  Co-ordinator, DATT Centre, Guntur, President, Seeds Dealers Association, Guntur and  the President, Farmers Federation, Peda Gottipadu of Prathipadu mandal  visited their fields evidenced under Ex. A3  and opined that  there was  admixture in the seed of  NLR 145 and other two   varieties.    There is no uniformity   of crop in all the fields and the yield loss was expected  to be 40% to 50 % vide Ex. A3.    In  her  inspection report  Ex. A2,  Dr. B. Krishna Veni, Scientist (Breeding) RRU, Bapatla noted:

          Name of the village :                  Savalyapuram

          Name of the paddy variety:                  NLR -145.

          Complaint of the farmers:                    Admixture of other types.

Observations recorded :   “On an average  50% to 60%  admixtures  of the following three  paddy  varieties were observed:

• Tall plants with medium bold grains in grain filling stage
• Tall plants with long slender  grains having  long purple awns  in grain filling stage.
• Medium tall plants  with long slender  grains which  were already matured were present.
• The NLR 145 variety  with long slender  grains  are in grain filling stage. 

(emphasis supplied)

Op1 dealer did not dispute  Ex. A1 bills issued by them wherein the complainants  had purchased the seeds.    The contention  of the opposite parties  that there was some mistake  in mentioning the date in the inspection report.   It is stated as 5.1.2008 and 7.1.2008,  though it could not have been the date of inspection, as the reference in their report  shows that they visited the  fields pursuant to  letter R.C. No. Fert-II/2030/08 Dt. 30.12.2008.  Obviously the  Joint Director of  Agriculture, Guntur sought for such report.  They have submitted their report by quoting Lr. No. C1/Paddy/Deputation/2008 Dt. 30.12.2008.    Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn  from this innocuous  mistake mentioned in the report.

11)               Yet another contention of the opposite parties is that  they were not informed  at the time of inspection.   They have forgotten the fact that  their own representative  viz.,  President, Seed Dealers Association, Guntur was  present.    In fact  his signature  finds a place in the very report.    Apart from it   Op2 had  license to deal in seeds right from  6.7.2007 as per Form-B issued by  Addl. Director of  Agriculture, Hyderabad.   The stock register pertaining to  August, 2008 was filed  though evidently they  have license to deal with these seeds right from July, 2007.    Non-filing of  stock register for the month of  July, 2008 necessarily leads to an adverse inference against their version.    Equally so, the Principal Certificate  issued by Op2 manufacturer  dt. 25.8.2008  appointing  Op1 as authorised dealer.  It  was filed in order to show that they could not have sold  seeds earlier to 25.8.2008.    They have got license  to deal with seeds right from June, 2006,  vide Form-B .     Pursuant to this  Op2 had supplied seeds to Op1  under bills dt. 19.8.2008, 25.8.2008 and 18. 9. 2008.   It  is  not  as  though  there  was  no supply  of seeds earlier to it.  

Obviously either Op1 or Op2  had supplied the seeds  NLR-145,   admixture with  other seeds.   There cannot be better evidence than  the evidence  that was  produced by the complainants  to unravel this question.   Undoubtedly, as observed by the  Asst. Director of Agriculture and others that there was admixture in the seeds NLR-145 variety, and the loss of crop could be  between 40% and 50% vide Ex. A3.   The said report being  issued by an expert has to be accepted.   

12)              Various  contentions in regard to the validity  of report of agricultural officers, non-compliance of  Section 13(1)( c )  of the C.P. Act  are covered by  the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported  in  2012 (2) SCC 506  observed : 

“It may also be mentioned that there was abject failure on the appellant’s part to assist the District Forum by providing samples of the varieties of seeds sold to the respondents. Rule 13(3) casts a duty on every person selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of notified kind or variety to keep over a period of three years a complete record of each lot of seeds sold except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The sample of seed kept as part of the complete record has got to be of similar size and if required to be tested, the same shall be tested for determining the purity. The appellant is a large supplier of seeds to the farmers/growers and growers. Therefore, it was expected to keep the samples of the varieties of seeds sold/supplied to the respondents. Such samples could have been easily made available to the District Forums for being sent to an appropriate laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. Why the appellant did not adopt that course has not been explained. Not only this, the officers of the appellant, who inspected the fields of the respondents could have collected the samples and got them tested in a designated laboratory for ascertaining the purity of the seeds and/or the extent of germination, etc. Why this was not done has also not been explained by the appellant. These omissions lend support to the plea of the respondents that the seeds sold/supplied by the appellant were defective.

37.In Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (1998) 6 SCC 738, this Court did not decide the issue relating to the alleged non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act, but approved the reasoning of the State Commission which found fault with the appellant for not taking steps to get the seeds tested in an appropriate laboratory. In that case, the respondent had complained that the sunflower seeds purchased by him did not germinate because the same were defective. The complaint was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The District Forum allowed the complaint and declared that the respondent was entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per  acre in addition to the cost of the seeds. The State Commission rejected the objection of the appellant that the District Forum had not collected the sample of the seeds and sent them for analysis or test for determining the quality. The National Commission summarily dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, this Court extracted the finding recorded by the State Commission for upholding the order of the District Forum and declined to interfere with the award of compensation to the respondent. The relevant portions of paragraph 4 are reproduced below:

“Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply, it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstance that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.

It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties in spite of their promise, never visited the fields of the complainants. The opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that the complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there were rains in the month of September 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds, it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in the preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.”

(emphasis supplied)

38.   Reference can usefully be made to the orders of the National Commission in N.S.C. Ltd. v. Guruswamy (2002) CPJ 13, E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Gourishankar (2006) CPJ 178 and India Seed House v. Ramjilal Sharma (2008) 3 CPJ 96. In these cases the National Commission considered the issue relating to non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) in the context of the complaints made by the farmers that their crops had failed due to supply of defective seeds and held that the District Forum and State Commission did not commit any error by entertaining the complaint of the farmers and awarding compensation to them. In the first case, the National Commission noted that the entire quantity of seeds had been sown by the farmer and observed:

“There is no doubt in our mind that where complainant alleges a defect in goods which cannot be determined without proper  analysis or test of the goods, then, the sample need to be taken and sent to a laboratory for analysis or test. But, the ground reality in the instant case is that reposing faith in the seller, in this case the leading Public Sector  Company dealing in seed production and sale, the petitioner sowed whole of the seed purchased by him. Where was the question of any sample seed to be sent to any laboratory in the case? Whatever the Respondent/Complainant had, was sown. One could have appreciated the bonafides better, if sample from the crop was taken during the visit of Assistant Seed Officer of Petitioner - N.S.C. and sent for analysis. Their failure is unexceptionable. In our view, it is the Petitioner Company which failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (c) of the Act. By the time, complainant could be filed even this opportunity had passed. If the Petitioner Company was little more sensitive or alert to the complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, this situation might not have arisen. Petitioner has to pay for his insensitivity. The Respondent/Complainant led evidence of State's agricultural authorities in support who made their statements after seeing the crop in the field. The onus passes on to the Petitioner to prove that the crop which grew in the field of the complainant was of 'Arkajyothi' of which the seed was sold and not of 'Sugar Baby', as alleged. He cannot take shelter under Section 13 (c) of the CP Act. Learned Counsel's plea that Respondent/Complainant should have kept portion of seeds purchased by him to be used for sampling purposes, is not only unsustainable in law but to say the least, is very unbecoming of a leading Public Sector Seed Company to expect this arrangement.”

In the second case, the National Commission took cognizance of the objection raised by the appellant that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Act had not been followed and observed:

“Testimony of the complainant would show that whatever seed was purchased from respondent No. 2 was sown by him in the land. Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to have sent the sample of seed for testing to the laboratory. It is in the deposition of Jagadish Gauda that after testing the seed the petitioner company packed and sent it to the market. However, the testing report of the disputed seed has not been filed. Since petitioner company is engaged in business of sunflower seed on large scale, it must be having the seed of the lot which was sold to complainant. In order to prove that the seed sold to complainant was not sub-standard/defective, the petitioner company could have sent the sample for testing to the laboratory which it failed to do. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent the sample of seed for testing to a laboratory.”

In the third case, the National Commission held:

“Holding in favour of the complainant, the National Commission stated that, “it is not expected from every buyer of the seeds to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing on the presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing. On the other hand a senior officer of the Government had visited the field and inspected the crop and given report under his hand and seal, clearly certifying that the seeds were defective.”

39. The reasons assigned by the National Commission in the aforementioned three cases are similar to the reasons assigned by the State Commission which were approved by this Court in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy (supra) and in our view the proposition laid down in those cases represent the correct legal position.”

When  Op1  distributor did not dispute the purchase of seeds by the complainants, and in fact  they themselves filed photostat copy of receipts, and  therefore it could be said that  very same seeds had been sold, and in view of seeds being   adulterated by admixing  with other seeds, the complainants  had sustained loss of crop ranging from 40% to 50%.   Therefore, we hold that  Ops 1 & 2 are jointly and severally guilty of supply of admixture of seeds,  amounting to defect  in seeds. 

13)               Since the agricultural officers indicated the percentage of loss, and the opposite parties having  admitted that the crop  would yield  at least  30 bags per acre, a reasonable deduction of 50% could be given from the loss estimated by the complainants in their complaint.  They have mentioned which they could prove by filing the  very list prepared by the Mandal Agricultural Officer.    Therefore calculating the loss at Rs. 15,000/- per acre being 50% of the estimated loss by calculating the lands owned by the complainants, it would come to as shown below,  which we fell reasonable and modest.    No doubt for all this period  they were denied the fruits of the crop,  besides sufferance of mental agony.  

14)              In the result the appeals are  allowed in part setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently the complaints are allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay the above mentioned amounts with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint  viz., 24.6.2010 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each  and costs of Rs. 5,000/- each.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER

        12/07/2012

*pnr

UP-LOAD – O.K.