BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 30th day of September, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.7/2010 Between: Mallempalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Veeraiah, age:35yrs, occu:Agrl., r/o Jasthipalli Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District. Complainant and 1. Rama Agro Agencies, rep. by its Mohan Rao, R/o.2-5-48/49, P.S.Road, Khammam. 2. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Regional Manager by name P.V.Swamy, D.No.3-5-874/A-203, 2nd floor, Vipanchi Estates, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029. 3. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its M.D., New Cotton Market Layout Nagpur. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri.T Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri. P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and having the land in Sy.No.388 to an extent of AC.3½.00 gts., attracted by wide publicity of opposite party No.3, on 14-08-2009, the complainant purchased 10 bags of Ankur Prabha seeds from the opposite party No.1 by paying an amount of 1000/- vide cash bill bearing No. 53, dated 14-08-2009. The opposite party No.3 published the mixture of seeds i.e., Germination (Min) 75%, Genetic Purity (Min) 98%, Physical purity (Min) 98%, Inter matter (Max) 2%, other crop seeds (Max) 10/Kg, Weed seeds (Max) 10/Kg. The opposite party No.2 further labeled on the Seeds Packet that the seeds in this packet are conditioned to maintain good germination. After purchasing the seeds, the complainant sowed the seeds in his land by taking precautions and on the instructions of Village Agricultural Officer and opposite party No.1 by investing huge amounts. Even after the completion of 6 months, the crop was not grown, the same was informed to the opposite party No.1 and Agricultural Officer, but they did not respond to observe the crop in his land. It was published by the opposite party No.2 that the crop will grow within 5 to 6 months and will give yield for 8 quintals per acre. The market value at that time of red gram was 6,000/- per quintal, the complainant would have got at about Rs.1,40,000/- for the entire crop in his land in case the red gram was raised normally as assured by opposite party No. 1 to 3. The complainant invested Rs.1,000/- for purchase of seeds, 4 bags of DAP, 4 bags of 20:20 & 3 bags of potash for Rs.19,000/- for 3½ acres and spent Rs.10,000/- for purchase of pesticides and other charges like coolies and other expenses Rs.30,000/-. In total he spent an amount of 60,000/-. Even after spending of such huge amount he could not get the expected crop. Therefore the complainant claiming an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards expenses incurred by him and also Rs.1,40,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and sufferance. Hence, the complaint. 2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. 3. Having received the notice, the opposite party No.1 to 3 made their appearance through their counsel and the opposite party No.2 filed counter and opposite party No.1 & 3 filed memo adopting the counter of opposite party No.2. 4. In the counter, all the averments of the complaint are denied in toto, except admitting the fact of purchase of seed through opposite party No.1. It is contended that the complainant had not produced any expert opinion, to prove that the seed supplied was defective and also submitted that the actual time sowing red gram is June, but the complainant sowed the red gram in the middle of August. The complainant failed to state the following details that, 1) The percentage of intensity 2) Method of cultivation 3) Germination percentage of the plants 4) The method used in the fertilizers 5) Present and past environmental condition. 6) Total rainfall in the region 7) Temperature condition at the time of sowing the seed. 8) Total expected yield and reasons for expectation 9) Total yield harvested The advocate commissioner without giving proper notice visited the field and the opposite parties have no opportunity to represent their case at the time of execution of warrant. In the absence of any conclusive findings as regard to the quality of seeds, the liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of false and illegal allegations. In the absence of technical report it cannot be proved that seeds are defective. It is further submitted that unless and until the complainant prove that there was negligence or deficiency in service, opposite parties are no way responsible for any compensation. The burden lies on the complainant but the complainant has not proved that there was any deficiency in service. It is further submitted that Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd., is a reputed seeds company and doing business all over India. The complainant has not produced record of right of his land, the opposite parties never assured about yield and the same depends upon other technical factors. No substantial evidence is brought on record that he invested Rs.60,000/- for cultivation of Red Gram crop. In this year, the dealer sold 8 tones of Red gram seed in the district, but no complaint is raised from any farmer except this complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as he cultivated the red gram for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that there is a report of Agricultural Officer that there was a less crop but he has not stated the reason for less crop with out taking expert opinion, A.O gave a report which is not a valid one and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have filed and marked as Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Seed purchase bill for Rs.1000/-, dt.14-08-2009, Ex.A2 is bill for purchase of fertilizers and pesticides (4 in No.), Ex.A3 is Cover of seeds purchased and Ex.A4 Pahani for the year 2009-10. 6. On behalf of the opposite parties, except filing the counter, no document is filed and marked. 7. On behalf of the complainant, written arguments filed. 8. When the matter is posted for orders a petition in I.A.38/2010 filed by counsel for opposite party to reopen the matter and the same is allowed, written arguments and oral arguments submitted by counsel for opposite party. 9. Heard both sides, perused the material placed therein, upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought in the complaint? 2. To what relief? POINT No.1:- During the pendency of the complaint, a petition in I.A.No.10/2010 was filed praying the Forum to appoint a commissioner advocate to note down the metes and bounds by making local inspection and also to note down the stage and nature of the crop in the land of the complainant. The said petition was allowed and Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate is appointed as commissioner to inspect the Petition Schedule Land with the help of concerned A.O and V.R.O. to note down the stage and nature of the crop along with metes and bounds. Having appointed as commissioner, the said commissioner issued notices to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 and also counsel for complainant on 30-01-2010 and at the time of inspection in the field, the Agricultural Officer by name K.Venkateswar Rao and V.R.O. of Jasthipalli were present and he inspected the land and submitted his report on 20.08.2010. Along with his report he also submitted the report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, Kamepalli village, which is marked as Ex.X.1, along with some photographs taken at the petition schedule land. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Ankur Prabha seeds from the opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.1000/- vide cash bill No.53, dated 14-08-2010 as in Ex.A1. The case of the complainant is that having purchased the seeds from opposite party No.1, sowed the same in his field and taken all measures for good yielding, in spite of making all efforts, there was no yield in the crop and there was no growth in the plants. When there was no growth position, the complainant represented the same to the Mandal Agricultural Officer and also opposite party No.1 but there was no response from their side, on that he filed the present complaint before this Forum and also filed an application in I.A.10/2010 in which an advocate commissioner was appointed with direction to inspect the land of the complainant with the help of V.A.O and Mandal Agricultural Officer and file the report about the existence of the crop position on that the court commissioner has visited the land of the complainant and collected the boundaries of the field and survey number and also identity of the land of the complainant and after making all the necessary formalities, the court commissioner submitted his report as in Ex.X1, in his report the Mandal Agricultural Officer observed that the Red gram crop was raised in an extent of AC.3.20 gts., the growth of the crop is normal, but the pod formation is less and the crop may not yield more than 100kgs per acre. He further stated that the average yield of the red gram crop is 600 to 800kgs per acre. Accordingly to complainant this loss incurred by him is due to the seed fault. So far as the testing of the seeds with the laboratory is concerned, the seed purchased by the complainant was already sowed and no part of it was available with the complainant and therefore the seed could not be sent to the seed-testing laboratory for obtaining expert opinion. There cannot be any dispute on the question of the fact that the burden of proof lies with the farmer to prove his case. This could have been done by examining the seed tested from a seed-testing laboratory or by obtaining an expert opinion or any agricultural scientist or qualified agricultural officer. In this case red gram crop has been tested by Mandal Agricultural Officer who is an expert in analyzing the crop position. It is only under Consumer Protect Act, 1986, the remedy is available for the farmer to be compensated for defective seeds. As regards the Section 13(1) (c) is concerned it became unimplemented since the farmer has sowed the entire seed purchased from the opposite party. Therefore, the alternative method is report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, who inspected the fields. The farmer being an innocent is not expected to conserve certain portion of seed to get it tested to meet the requirement under section 13 (1) (c). Therefore the complainant could not be expected to retain any part of seeds to get it tested in case of exigency. The report of Mandal Agricultural Officer is crucial and important to decide whether the seed supplied by the opposite party No.1 is of good quality or defective. In the present case, the Mandal Agricultural Officer has specifically reported that he had visited the fields and verified the crop position and gave a detailed report. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant has substantially proved that he purchased red gram seed from the opposite party No.1 and paid cash of Rs.1000/- and sowed the same in his land and taken all measures for good yielding. But there is no yielding in the crop on that he made complaint to the M.A.O and also opposite party No.1. As per the report of the M.A.O., the expected yield of red gram is 600 to 800kgs per acre as against this, the complainant could be able to get the yield of 100kgs per acre, thereby he sustained a loss of about 500 to 700kgs per acre. With regard to the contention that the complainant is not a farmer the complainant refers to Ex.A4, Copy of Pahany of Jastipally, for the year 2009-10, wherein the complainant has possessed land. On the basis of above facts and circumstances, as per M.A.Os report the average yield per acre red gram crop is 6 to 8 quintals per acre, the average of which comes to 7quintals per acre. Whereas the complainant could be able to get the yield of 1quintal per acre, thereby he sustained a loss of 6 quintals per acre. The total extent of land cultivated by the complainant is 3.50 acres. The total loss comes to 3.5 x 6, which is equal to 21 quintals, the market value is Rs.6000/- per quintal, the total loss comes to Rs.1,26,000/- and he also spent some amounts towards cultivation. Rs.5000/- towards purchase of fertilizers and Rs.5000/- towards purchase of pesticides and Rs.5000/- towards labour charges and also Rs.1000/- for purchase of seeds, which comes to Rs.16,000/- (+) crop loss Rs.1,26,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,42,000/-. POINT No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- (Rupees one lakh, forty two thousand only) together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of deposit and Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 30th day of September, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM. APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: - None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A1:- Seed purchase bill for Rs.1000/-, dt.14-08-2009. Ex.A2:- Bill for purchase of fertilizers and pesticides (4 in No.). Ex.A3:- Cover of seeds purchased Ex.A4:- Pahani for the year 2009-10. Exhibits marked for opposite parties: -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
