Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/20/2007

P. Umamaheswarudu, S/o Ramalingam, Agriculturist - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Agro Agencies, By its proprietor, Distributors of Syngenta Seeds, Wholesale and Retail Hybri - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. C. Joga Rao

28 Aug 2007

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM, KURNOOL

Present, Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

and

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Tuesday the 28^th day of August, 2007

C.C. No.20/2007

 

  P. Umamaheswarudu,  S/o Ramalingam,   Agriculturist,

  R/o. Alamuru Village, Rudravaram Mandal,

 

 

  Kurnool  District.                                        …COMPLAINANT                    

Verses

 

1. Sai Agro Agencies, By its proprietor,  Distributors of Syngenta Seeds,    Wholesale and Retail Hybrid Seed Business,

    Opp. RTC Bus Stand, Nandyal.

 

2. The Managing Director, Syngenta India Limited,Seeds Division,

    Seeds House 1170/27, Revenue colony, Sivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005.                                    

 

… OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

       This complaint coming  on  this  day  for  orders  in  the presence    of   Sri. C. Joga Rao, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, and         Sri.B. Jangam Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and upon  persuing the material papers on record,  the Forum made the following,-

 

ORDER

(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, President)

C.C.NO.20/2007

 

1.     This case of the Complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the Opposite Parties to pay him Rs.90,000/- per acre

 

towards the crop loss, Rs.2,380/- towards the cost of the seed with interest 9% per annum from the date of purchase of seed, and costs of this case alleging the purchase of 14 packets of S & G  FI hybrid hot pepper Roshini seed of lot No.1762978 at a rate of  Rs.170/- per packet for an amount of Rs.2,380/- on 14.6.2006 from the Opposite Party No.1 who is agent of Opposite Party No.2 - manufacturer of said seed and its sowing in his land of acres 2.75 in Sy. No.655 and 653 of Alamuru Village, with an expected yield of 13 to 16.5  tons per acre at the rate of 150 to 200 chillies for each plant, but it has given yield of 100 kgs for acre as chillies yielded to each plant were 15 to 20 only and they too were  very small and poor in quality due to  defect in seed and there by he sustained crop loss at Rs.90,000/- per acre at the rate of green chilly and red chilly per ton was Rs.7,000/- to 8,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively and he incurred Rs.10,000/- towards fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural operation and  non response of the opposite parties at that state of affairs even when it was taken to their notice and so on the requisition the visit of Agricultural Department officials and teem of scientists of RARS Nandyal, the said effected field and observing the effect of infection with thrips and virus, die back fruit root incidence to the said crop and the deficiency of the opposite parties in not compensating the loss of the Complainant.

2.     In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the Complainant, the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying its liability to the Complainant’s claim alleging any assurances on its part as to the probable yield and of any poor yield to the Complainant as, was not brought its notice and falsity in complainant’s claim

3.     In substantiation of the Contentions while the Complainant’s has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.X1 and the evidence of Sri. G.V. Bhaskar Reddy (PW.1) besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case, the opposite party side has merely relied upon its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.

 

4.     Hence the point consideration is whether the Complainant has made  out any defect in the seed, covered under Ex.A1, ensuing loss of crop for entitling him to the claim made and there by the liability of the opposite parties to make good of the said claim .

 

5.     The Ex.A1 is the cash bill dated 14.6.2006. It envisages the purchase of 14 packets of syngenta chilly seeds of Roshini variety of lot No.1762978 at a rate of Rs.170 per packet by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1 for a total sum of Rs.2,380/-. As the said aspect of purchase was not being disputed by the Opposite Parties, the Ex.A1 stands for believing the purchase of seed mentioned therein by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1.

 

6.     The Ex.A2 are fourteen empty packets of said Roshini variety seed these  empty packets as bearing the lot number of said seed as 1762978 as mentioned in Ex.A1 bill of the purchaser, there appears any difficulty in holding those packets covered in Ex.A2 as the  packets purchased by the Complainant under Ex.A1.

 

7.     The Complainant alleges that he is having acres 2.75 land in Sy.No.655  and 653 of Alamuru Village, and in that he has sown the purchased seed.  The Ex.A3 is  two pattadar passbook envisaging the ownership particulars as to the land in Sy.No.653 & 655 in Alamuru Village in the name of the Complainant’s wife and complainant respectively  and so there by the fact of Complainant’s holding said land remaining established.

 

8.      The Complainant alleges the poor yield on account of defect in seed sold to him under Ex.A1 by the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant except alleging vaguely the seed as defective did not specify by actual kind of defect in said seed either in respect of germination or purity and any concern of said defect of seed on the yield.

 

9.     The Complainant alleges the said chilliy crop yields four times in its crop tenure and while the first three periodicals yields 12 to 15 tons per acre the last one yields 1 to 1.5 tons per acre. When such is the probable yield and the crop condition was hopelessly bad as each plant bears 15 to 20 small, weak and non qualitative chillies per plant, there appears any reason from the Complainant as to why he has not made any approach at its earliest possibility, on noticing such worst state of affairs to the crop, either to the opposite parties or agricultural officers for necessary consultations and advice to better the things from the worst and to arrest the preventable loss.

10.    When the Complainant alleges defect in seed neither he made any endeavour to see any sample of said seed for being sent for laboratory test and analysis nor prevailed over this Forum to direct the opposite parties to provide sample seed of said lot for referring to it necessary laboratory test and analysis for ascertaining the defect of the seed, as contemplated U/S. 13 (1) of C.P. Act .

 

11.     While such is so the Ex.X1 report of team of agricultural department scientist and officials as to their observation of the fields of Alamuru Village, where said variety chilliy seed was sown, observes that all plants were effected with thrips and high incidents of virus of die back and fruit rot disease and symptoms of sphondylia capsici insect to the crop with plants of stunted growth and rot qualitative fruits.

 

12.     The evidence of Sri.G.V.Bharskar Reddy, (PW.1) who was one of the team which visited the said chillie crop lands covered under Ex.X1 reiterates the observations made in Ex.X1. But he is not definite and certain as to defect in seed as not roots out the said state of affairs to the incidents of pests and diseases and on the other hand attributes the failure of crop on account of the existence of the thrips to the crop arisen on account of the seasonal environmental conditions .

 

13.     From the above Ex.X1 and the evidence of PW.1 -  G.V .Bhaskar Reddy what remains clear is that the said state of affairs to the chilliy crop in said fields was on account of thrips, and virus diseases with which the crop was effected and not on account of any specific defect in said seed covered under Ex.A1.

 

14.     The Vyavasaya panchangam published by Aacharya N.G.Ranga, Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad for the year 2006-2007 deals at Page Numbers 270 to 275 as to the guidelines and instructions that are to be taken in rising chilliy crop. It mandates the farmer to process the seed, for preventing it from being effected with virus infections, with 150 grams of Tri Sodium Artho Phosphate, and to guard  from the insects with 8 grams of Imideclo pridin and to guard from other kind of pests with 3 grams of capton or 3 grams of Mancozeb , 80 grams of Phepronil capsules for each cent extent, one kilo neem powder for each cent extent and use of 10 tons of organic manure and the field processing for raising plantation and application of 1% Bordo Mixture or three grams of  copper Oxichloride per each liter water on 13^th and 20^th day to seed beds and plantation of six weeks old plants. For preventing or guarding the crop from thrips it mandates the application of 3 grams of Corbaril or 3 milli liter Fasalon or 1.5 gram Aciphate or 2 ML Phepronil or .25 ML Spynosad to each liter of water for its application to the leaves of the plant and use of 8 kgs of 0.3 percent Phepronil capsules for each acre on 15^th and 45^th day while sufficient mosture is there in the land. In order to come across virus infections to the crop it advises the total removal of virus effected plants and raising of Jawar and maize crops around the fields besides to purifying the seed with Tri Sodium Artho Phosphate and avoiding indiscriminate use of the fertilizers and pesticides.

 

15.     There appears any material on record as to that the Complainant has followed the above guidelines and norms in raising chilliy crop or filed any documentary record as to purchase of any such pesticides, manures and fertilizer. Nor the Complainant appears to have taken any consultation advice from Agricultural Department to come across the ill effects occasioned to his crop in the land to believe any proper field and crop management.

17. While there is any entitleness to the Complainant from the opposite parties to the ensued crop loss in the above state of circumstances,there appears any consistency in the claim of the Complainant even, as while the complaint estimates the ensured loss and incurred expenditure to Rs.90,000/- per acre the Ex.X1 takes it to Rs.25,000/- per acre and the evidence of Pw.1 estimates the ensued crop loss to Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.

16.     Hence, in the above state of circumstances, the ensued crop loss to the Complainant was not on account of any defect in the seed but on account of thrips, virus diseases etc., observed in Ex.x1 and reiterated in the evidence of Pw.1. When the ensual of crop loss is attributable to other factors and not to any specific defect of the seed no liability to opposite parties can be held for ensued loss of crop to the Complainant as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court held in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited  V/S. Sadhu and another reported in 2005 3 Supreme Court cases Page No.198.

 

18.     The Complainant takes reliance on the order of the Honourable A.P.State Commission delivered in F.A.No.1160/05 in C.D.No.43/99 dated 24.11.2005 where in liability of the opposite parties therein to make good of the loss, which was held by this Forum was not disturbed. But it doesnot appear to be with any relevancy for its application to the facts and circumstance of this case as the defect in seed as cause for ensual of loss of crop was held therein and in the present case the failure or ensual crop of loss appears to be due to Thrips, Pests and Virus diseases.

19.     As any defect in seed established for the ensued loss of crop to the Complainant, there appears any liability of the opposite parties for any mental agony that would have occurred to the Complainant on account of loss of the expected yield on account of Thrips, Pests and Virus diseases.

20.      Consequently there being any merit and force in the case of the Complainant to hold any defect in seed caused loss of crop and its liability on the opposite parties to make good of them the compliant is dismissed with costs.

 

     Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in the open bench this the 28^th day of August, 2007.

MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

 

For the complainant ,                                For the opposite parties, Nil

 

PW.1. Deposition of PW.1, dated 26.6.2007

              (G.V.Bhaskar Reddy)

 

List of exhibits marked for the complainant,-

 

 

Ex.A1.         Cash bill, dated 14.6.2006 in the name of complainant

                   For Rs.2,380only.

 

 

Ex.A2.         Fourteen (14) empty packets of Roshini, FI Hybrid Hot pepper.

 

 

Ex.A3.         Pattadar Passbooks (2) in the name of complainant’s parents

                   (P. Ramalingam and P. Tulisamma)

 

 

 

Ex.X1.         Report on visit of chillies crop in Alamur (Village)

                   Allagadda (Mandal), Kurnool (District).

                

 

 

 List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties.   NIL

 

 

          Sd/                                                                           Sd/

   MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT                                   

 

Copy to,

1. Sri. C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.

2. Sri. B. Jangam Reddy , Advocate, Kurnool.                                           

 

Copy was made ready on,

Copy was dispatched on,

Copy was delivered to parties