BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 1stday of August, 2008
C.C.No. 38/07
Between:
Kalubandi Yesobu, S/o. Devasahayam,
Pamulapdu Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
- Sai Aro Agencies , Distributors of Syngenta Seeds,
Near RTC Bus-stand, Nandyal, By its partner Raghurami Reddy.
2. Satish Traders, K.G.Road, Near Bus-stand,
Atmakur.
3. Syngenta India Limited, Seeds Division,
H.No.1170/27, Revenue Colony, Sivaji Nagar,Pune-411 007 … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.Naga Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.B.Jangam Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No 38 /07
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite parties to refund Rs.8,330/- towards cost of the seed , Rs.5,31,250/- as compensation for loss of 125 quintals of yield @ Rs.4,250/ - per quintal , Rs. 38,223,34,630 30,000/- towards the cost of fertilizers, pesticides ,manures and labour etc., Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case to the complainant alleging the deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1 in selling defective chilly seeds of Roshini Hybrid Variety produced by opposite party No.2 and sowing of the said seed on their extents of land of Ac.5.00 in Sy.Nos.683 &686 of Pamulapadu and the ensual of probable yield of 23 quintals per acre as two quintals per acre only, yielded and thereby the loss of crop and agriculture investment to their mental agony and on inspection of crop by officials of agriculture revealing poor vigour of hybrid , stunted growth of the plants with less pod and their by probability for poor yield.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties contested the case by filling the written version of the opposite party No.2 & 3 and its adoption by opposite party No.1 denying any of assurance for a quantity of 25 quintals per acre and of any deficiency of theirs and thereby any of their liability to the complainant’s claim requiring strict proof of the facts relating to crop and field management of complainant’s in raising said crop and remedial and precautionary measures taken in reference to then existing environmental conditions and of inspection of crop by scientists to their notice and any complaint to opposite parties as to the failure of crop by complainant.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary records in Ex.A1 to A 14 besides to the evidence of PW 1 and sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case , the opposite party side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 and sworn affidavit of opposite parties in reiteration of its defence.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties to hold their liability to the complainant’s claim.
5. The contention of the complainant is that due to defect in seed the growth was very poor and they could not get minimum expected yield even inspite of adoption of scientific methods and compliance of all necessary procedures of cultivation and use of their enriched experience in agriculture .
6. The complainant did not place any such cogent material which holds with any definiteness and specificness that the seed purchased and sowed in their lands was defective and effected the yield. Nor any material is placed in substantiation of the complaint averment as to inspection of field by Joint Director of Agriculture along with scientists in the month of December 2006 and holding the defect in Roshini Hybrid Chilly seed.
7. The Ex.B1is the inspection report of Dr.Y.Rama Reddy, Scientist, RARS Nandyal pertaining to Roshini Chilli Hybrid crop in the fields of the farmers in Ramireddypalli of Koilakuntala Division and Pamulapadu, Eskala, Santhinilayam, and Abdullahpuram Villages of Atmakur Division . The said inspection and observation was said to have been made on his visit, on 13-2-2007 and 14-2-2007 , along with Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agricultural Officer of said division. The said observation report no where alleges defect in the seed resulted to this state of circumstances which it observes in the said Ex.B1 as to the Roshini Chilly Yield in said fields of the farmers. On the other hand it observes sucking pest to the crop therein the fields and thereby not rooting out the possibility for the said state of circumstances to the crop on account of the sucking pest . Even though it takes further , a mention that Hybrid vigour was very poor (to the crop) and due to this poor growth ,less pod productive plants and more poor productive plants, but as the said was not attributed in reference to any defect of the seed sowed in said fields that to without any scientific test of the said crop as to Hybrid vigour and further with the said circumstances to the crop expecting a further two or three poor yields of one to two quintals quantity per acre while two quintals only yielded in all to complainant , the said Ex.A1 observation remains with any cogent reliability to hold any defect in the seed especially when there is any complaint as to germination of seed and plant population and its growth and any other abnormal physiological features of leaf size, petal colour , pod colour, length of pod . Further the Ex.B1 observation report being on mere physical look at the said crop and not being arrived on any approved pathological test and there being any material to hold that the sucking pest to the crop is on account of the defective seed alone, and as the evidence of P.W.1 says that he did not conduct any seed test , the Ex.B1 is remaining of any much avail to the complainant’s case to hold the loss of expected yield to the complainant is on account of defect in seed alone .
8. The P.W.1 is a mere breeder scientist. Pathologist , Entomologists deal with deceases of the crops and scientific study in respect of pest . While evidence of P.W.1 says as to several types in sucking pest such as thrips , mites and aphids , neither his observation report nor his evidence could classify the kind of sucking pest observed on the crop in the fields and further he does not appear to be in know of hybrid as he says at one juncture hybrids are of two types as F1 & F2 and at other juncture says the F2 is not hybrid as it is produced in resowing the F1 seed . Hence his evidence appear to be of any much help to the case of the complainant especially when Section 12 and 13 of Seeds Act empowers the seed analysis to seed inspector and the P.W.1 , the author of Ex.B1 , was shown as any such empowered seed inspector for holding any seed analysis .
9. The Vyavasaya Panchangam for 2006-2007 , published by Aacharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University , Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad in its Pg.270 to 273 deals with chilly crop and of the precautionary measures to be taken in crop cultivation for good yield and for fighting the pest and thrips till harvest . At Pg.No.272 it envisages of the measures to be taken for crop production from various pests including thrips and recommends use of Carboril 3 grams , or Fasalone 3 ml or Esiphate 1.5 grams or Fipronil 2 ml or Spinosad 0.25 ml with 1 liter of water and its spraying on effected parts. As preventive measure it recommends the use of 8 kilos of 0.3 % Fiprosil Capsules on 15th and 45th day of plantation when moisture is still in field . It recommends the processing and culturing of the chilly seed with Imideclofrid and balanced use of organic and inorganic fertilizers and manures in cultivation of said crop . Neither the complaint averments takes any mention of the adoption of said measures in crop management in their fields . Nor any bills of purchase of those pesticides , fertilizers and manuals is filed by the complainant with any assertion as to its use as recommended to meet the said contingent state of circumstances to their chilly crop. The Ex.A2 –bunch of 32 bills containing those pesticides which are recommended or warranted for proper cultivation of said crop. By this what is remaining clear is that the complainant had not taken any adequate required measures in crop management and thereby remaining as a cause for such state of circumstance to the crop and so cannot blame anybody and nonetheless attribute it to any defect in seed.
10. The Ex.A14 a xerox of printed broucher relating to Roshini Hybrid Chilies and its beneficial features . It no where says of the quantum of expected yield for acre or lends any assurance to any quantity . It says the yield starts its commencement from 55 to 60 days of plantation. As per Ex.A1 chilly seed of Roshini Hybrid was purchased in the month of June & July 2006 . As per sworn affidavit of the complainant the purchased seed was sowed in the same month in their lands for growing nursery and after the necessary nourishing they were transplanted . The inspection of the fields, where said roshini variety was raised, was done by the P.W.1 on 13-2-2007 to 14-2-2007 . Hence from the said time factor what appears is that the said inspection was done about 8 months after to the purchase of the seed and its sowing. As the yielding of said variety commences from 55 to 60 days of its transplantation , the complainant must have got several periodical cuttings of yield of said chilly crop by the date of inspection of the said fields by P.W.1. But neither the complaint nor the sworn affidavit of the complainant nor the evidence of P.W.1 could say of the yield got by the complainant by the date of said inspection . When the Ex.B1 says a further probability for 2 or 3 yields to said crop it is not clear from the complainant side even the quantum of yield got to the complainant in said 2 or 3 further probable yields . Further Ex.B1 report covers the lands of Pamulapadu , Iskala, Shanthi Nilayam, and Abudullahpuram of Atmakur Division and Ramireedypalli of Koilakuntla Division only and the land in Ex.A3 being of Chelimala - and not of any of the above covered villages the Ex.B1 report appears to be of any relevancy to the complainant’s case.
11. The complainant ‘s side except alleging it was assured of 25 quintals of yield per acre by the opposite parties , did not substantiate it. Nor any other cogent material appears from the complainant side to the effect that the said hybrid variety was made understood to yield 25 quintals per acre . Nor any material as to earlier years of yield of said variety was placed to establish the truth in said contention of the complainant.
12. A local variety No.334 said to have yielded 12 to 15 quintals per acre, which is not proved by evidence of persons who raised said crop is of any avail to the complainant as comparison as to any merit or demerit must be with the same kind but not with the other kinds .
13. Copy of adangal extract in Ex.A3 said to be of land of complainant in Sy.No. 683,686, of Chelimela envisaging cultivation of chillily crop an extent of Ac 5-16 is remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant as it pertains to the year 2007 while the year of cultivation was 2006 and the concerns of complainant to the said land of Chelimela not madeout alleging any where the land used for said cultivation was of said Chelimela.
14. As discussed in supra paras as to the viability of the Ex.B1 report and evidence of P.W .1 in reference to Ex.B1 against to complainant’s contentions as to the aspect of defect in seed and in the absence of any cogent material as to defect in seed the mere paper clippings in Ex.8,12,13 and representations in Ex. 9 & 10 remains of any avail to the complainant’s case as they cannot be substitute proof for holding defect in seed.
15. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in The Secretary Vs The Area Manager , reported in 2008 (2) CPR 193 (NC) says the onous of proof lies with farmers to prove their case and this could have been done either by getting seed tested from a “seed testing laboratory” or by obtaining an “Expert opinion” of an Agricultural Scientist or qualified Agricultural Officer and as nothing to that effect had been done by the complainant to prove case about substandard supply of material , dismissed the revision sought against the appeal allowed by the State Commission against the order of District Forum .
16. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in National Corporation Seeds Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy reported in I (2004) CPJ 122 (NC) – dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of State Commission confirming the award of compensation for deficiency , holds the contention that the complainant did not discharge the burden of proving defect is not acceptable as farmer not expected to conserve certain portion of seed and get it tested to meet requirement of Section 13 (1) ( C ) of C.P.Act .
17. Even though the farmers are not expected to conserve certain portion of seed for its testing for assessing the defect therein , but when a dispute arises on said factor nothing would have prevented the complainant , who intends to take advantage of the defect in seed for his ensued loss , in invoking, during the enquiry, the Forum for a direction to the opposite party to submit any residuary seed of the said lot for testing and assessing any defect in seed of said lot from which supply was made to the complainant , to hold the opposite parties liability for the ensued loss of the yield on account of the defect in said seed inspite opposite parties stand that no useful purpose serves thereby as the life of shelf of the said seed expired by now. As no such endeavour was from the complainant’s side , the opposite parties can not be held failed to perform their duty of testing the residuary seed and so the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs. R. Sekhar @ Sridhar reported in 1 (2008) CPJ 158 NC has any relevant application to this case.
18. Therefore in the light of supra stated clear decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2008 ( 2 ) CPR 193 (NC) holding the liability of the complainant to prove the defect in the seed, and there being any bonafied endeavour on the part of the complainant to take any alternative route for establishing the assessment of the standards in seed supplied , the decision of the Hon‘ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in I (2004) CPJ 122 (NC ) is having any superceding effect on the rational of the decision reported in 2008 (2) CPR 193 (NC) crop loss due to defective in seeds supplied by opposite party being not proved by the evidence of P.W 1 and Ex.B1 report – the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs Beemi Reddy Malla Reddy reported in I (2008) CPJ 492 (NC) has any relevant application to the facts of this case.
19. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and others reported in 2003 (6) ALT 5 (NC) (CPA) holds that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act could be invoked as no provision of seeds Act 1966 provides compensation to the farmer for the supply of defective seeds and as C.P.Act alone provides remedy to the farmer for compensation . There being any contention from the opposite parties questioning the filing of this case under C.P.Act but only as to the aspect of testing of seed as contemplated under seeds Act for assessing any defect in the seed for holding their liability, there appears any relevancy of this decision to the facts and circumstances of this case.
20. In the present case there being any pleading from the opposite party to the effect that the complainant ought to have purchased other seed and sowed for having good yield when the seed already sowed has not given satisfactory yield , the decision cited by the counsel for complainant reported in 2004 (5) ALT 4.1 (DNSC) which rejects such contention as approach of the Forum to be rational rather than technical as C.P.Act being a benevolent legislation intended to protect large body of consumers from exploitation , appears to be of any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
21. The decision of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Janata Fertilizers Depot Vs Mandadi Satyanarayana Reddy and another reported in II (2001) CPJ 412 cited by the leaned counsel for the complainant to the effect that the consumer is to be protected from unfair trade practice and exploitation of a traders as the latter owes a duty and responsibility to the farmer to supply genuine product and so they cannot induce the gullible farmers for purchase of seeds and ultimately squeeze them to maximum extent possible resulting in colossal loss of the crop – appears to be of any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said observation was made in the said case, where the defect in seed was established and in the present case it is not .
22. When the defect in seed is not established in an approved manner and on the other hand the said state of circumstances to the crop in the field appears to be on account of thrips with which it was infested and thrips to said crop appears to be at the deficient crop management of the farmer and after germination the progress of the crop not only depends upon the crop management and field management, but also on friendly agro environmental conditions as no seed yields crop in the mere air , the cause for said improper yield or less than expected yield is more at the deficiency of the complainant in crop management rather than any inherent defect in the seed and thereby there being any material to hold the defect in seed supplied by the opposite parties which must have ensued loss of expected yield to complainant, there appears any liability of the opposite parties for the claim of the complainant .
23. Hence, there being any merit and force in the claim of the complainant to the liability of the opposite parties the case of the complainant is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :Nil
PW.1. Deposition of 1st Witness of Complainant dated 15-10-2007
(Dr. Y. Rama Reddy)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Two bills for purchase of seeds dated 05-07-2006 and
07-06-2006.
Ex.A2. Bunch of bills for purchase of pesticides.
Ex.A3. Certified copy of adangal for the year 2007 of Sy.No. 683
And 686 of Chelimela.
Ex.A4. Agriculture incurred expenditure.
Ex.A5. Empty 19 packets of Roshini Seeds.
Ex.A6. Bill dated 22-03-2007 issued by Agriculture Market Yard
Committee , Guntur for the material received from the
Complainant.
Ex.A7. Acreditation card of Ch. Veera Prasad.
EX.A8. Paper clipping of Andhra Jyothi dated 15-02-2007.
Ex.A9. Representation dated 28-02-2007 of Complainants to
District Collector, Kurnool.
Ex.A10. Representation dated nil of Ryots Sangham to District
Collector, Kurnool.
Ex.A11. Covering letter and Inspection Report, dated 07-02-2007.
Ex.A12. Certified copy of Eenadu paper dated 14-03-2007.
Ex.A13. Certified copy of Vaarth publication dated 14-03-2007.
Ex.A14. Certified copy of printed broacher of Hybrid Roshini Mirchi.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Inspection Report of Dr. Y. Rama Reddy, Senior Scientist,
RARS, Nandyal during the month of February, 2007. Pertaining to Roshini Chilly Hybrid.
Sd/- Sd/-s
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
