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:
PARTICULARS OF EXTENT AND LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE COMPLAINANTS |
S.No. | FA NO. | CC No. | Bill Date | Qty | Rs. | Extent | Amount Rs. |
| | | | 30 Kgs pack | | Acres | 30000 per acre |
1 | FA 1027/2011 | CC 33/2011 | 08-09-2008 | 3 | 1410 | 4.5 | 135000 |
2 | FA 1028/2011 | CC 34/2011 | 25-08-2008 | 11 | 5170 | 16.5 | 495000 |
3 | FA 1029/2011 | CC 35/2011 | 08-09-2008 | 6 | 2820 | 9 | 270000 |
4 | FA 1030/2011 | CC 36/2011 | 23-08-2008 | 3 | 1410 | 4.5 | 135000 |
5 | FA 1031/2011 | CC 37/2011 | 03-09-2008 | 6 | 2820 | 9 | 270000 |
6 | FA 1032/2011 | CC 38/2011 | 03-07-2008 | 2 | 940 | 3 | 90000 |
7 | FA 1033/2011 | CC 39/2011 | 08-09-2008 | 4 | 1880 | 6 | 180000 |
8 | FA 1034/2011 | CC 40/2011 | 10-07-2008 | 2 | 940 | 3 | 90000 |
9 | FA 1035/2011 | CC 41/2011 | 23-08-2008 | 4 | 1880 | 6 | 180000 |
10 | FA 1036/2011 | CC 42/2011 | 01-09-2008 | 4 | 1880 | 6 | 180000 |
11 | FA 1037/2011 | CC 43/2011 | 24-09-2008 | 1 | 470 | 1.5 | 45000 |
12 | FA 1038/2011 | CC 44/2011 | 23-08-2008 | 4 | 1880 | 6 | 180000 |
13 | FA 1039/2011 | CC 45/2011 | 30-08-2008 | 4 | 1880 | 6 | 180000 |
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.
S.No. | FA NO. | CC No. | Extent | Loss of | Amount |
| | | | Crop @ | Rs. |
| | | | 15,000/- per acre | |
1 | FA 1027/2011 | CC 33/2011 | 4.5 | 15000 | 67500 |
2 | FA 1028/2011 | CC 34/2011 | 16.5 | 15000 | 247500 |
3 | FA 1029/2011 | CC 35/2011 | 9 | 15000 | 135000 |
4 | FA 1030/2011 | CC 36/2011 | 4.5 | 15000 | 67500 |
5 | FA 1031/2011 | CC 37/2011 | 9 | 15000 | 135000 |
6 | FA 1032/2011 | CC 38/2011 | 3 | 15000 | 45000 |
7 | FA 1033/2011 | CC 39/2011 | 6 | 15000 | 90000 |
8 | FA 1034/2011 | CC 40/2011 | 3 | 15000 | 45000 |
9 | FA 1035/2011 | CC 41/2011 | 6 | 15000 | 90000 |
10 | FA 1036/2011 | CC 42/2011 | 6 | 15000 | 90000 |
11 | FA 1037/2011 | CC 43/2011 | 1.5 | 15000 | 22500 |
12 | FA 1038/2011 | CC 44/2011 | 6 | 15000 | 90000 |
13 | FA 1039/2011 | CC 45/2011 | 6 | 15000 | 90000 |
| | TOTAL | | | 1215000 |
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.