BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-HYDERABAD
F.A.Nos.1600/2005 to 1608/2005 AGAINST C.D.Nos. 18/1997 to 21/97, 79/97 to 83/97 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, KHAMMAM.
Between-
1. Garapati Srinivas Rao, S/o.Bhaskar Rao,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Pochavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1600/05
2. Garapati Venkateswar Rao, S/o.Bhaskar Rao,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Pochavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1601/05
3. Totakuri Krishnarjun Rao, S/o.Narayana,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1602/05
4. Garapati Satyanarayana, S/o.Bhaskar Rao,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Pochavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1603/05
5. Gadesula Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Subbaiah,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1604/05
6. Gadesula Venkateswar Rao, S/o.Subbaiah,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1605/05
7. Totakuri Harinath, S/o.Kannaiah,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1606/05
8. Totakuri Bhaskar Rao, S/o.Kannaiah,
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1607/05
9. Gadesula Harinath, S/o.Satyam
Occ-Agriculture, R/o.Kachavaram (V),
Kunavaram (M), Khammam Dist. ..Appellant/Complainant
in F.A.1608/05
And
1. Venkataramana Agricultural Agencies,
Fertilizers and Pesticides, Church road,
Bhadrachalam, rep. by its Proprietor.
2. Maharastra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd.,
Plot No.B-4, Industrial Estate,
Jalna, Maharastra 431 203. .Respondents/Opp.parties
in F.A.Nos.1600/05 to 1608/05
Counsel for the Appellant- Mr.R.Srinivasa Rao
(in all the appeals)
Counsel for the Respondents- Mr.K.Vijayendar Reddy R1 and R2
(in all the appeals)
QUORUM- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
ORAL ORDER- (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Lady Member)
---
These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the facts are similar in all these cases.
F.A.No.1600/2005-
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.18/1997 on the file of District Forum, Khammam, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a resident of Pochavaram Village, Khammam District and is an agriculturist raising crops like chilli and cotton in his fields. The complainant submits that he had purchased Tejaswini-MHP1, K95 69-15 RNJ 83050 Hybrid seeds from opposite party No.1 for Rs.5776/- on 18-6-1996 under bill No.085 and on 16-7-1996 vide bill No.047 he once again purchased seeds of Rs.1850/- totalling to 450 grams of MAHYCO seed from opposite party No.1 marked by opposite party No.2. The complainant submits that after going through the advertisements to get more produce from his field, he purchased these Hybrid Tejaswini seeds and sowed in his land to an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas. He used all the fertilizers and pesticides as per the norms spending nearly Rs.60,000/-. The complainant further submits that he was made to believe by opposite parties 1 and 2 that this variety would get nearly 25 quintals per acre. In the month of November and December, 1996, the crop size was very small and growth was not proper and not in usual shape and direction. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and demanded compensation but received no reply, then he complained to the Mandal Agricultural Officer about the defective seeds and the Agricultural Officer in turn inspected the complainant’s field and found that the variety of the seeds supplied by the opposite parties was not notified in that area. To that effect, the Mandal Agricultural Officer gave a report and promised to take action against the opposite parties. The complainant submits that he suffered crop loss of 20 quintals per acre and the present market rate is Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per quintal. Hence the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,25,000/- i.e. Rs.2,500/- x 90 quintals and other costs towards manuring, labour and compensation.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting that the complainant had purchased MAHYCO Hybrid seeds i.e. Tejaswini-MHP1, K95 69-15 RNJ 83050 Hybrid seeds from opposite party No.1 for Rs.5776/- on 18-6-1996 under bill No.085 and on 16-7-1996 vide bill No.047 for Rs.1850/- i.e. totaling 7,625/-. Opposite party No.1 denies whether the complainant is a resident of Pocharam Village and also denies for want of knowledge that the complainant had used the Fertlizers and Pesticides for manuring his land and further denies that there was crop loss and that the complainant approached Mandal Agricultural Officer. He contends that the complainant did not file any documents to prove that he is the owner of the agricultural land and that he took the agricultural land on lease and that he sustained any kind of loss due to defective seeds. Opposite party No.1 submits that he is only a dealer of MAHYCO company at Bhadrachalam and selling the seeds of this company which are in sealed packets and therefore he is not liable to pay compensation since he is only a dealer and not the manufacturer and therefore seeks dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite party No.2 filed written statement stating that the complainant did not file any documentary evidence to prove that he is the owner of the land and sent the seeds purchased from the opposite parties and did not state the dates of sowing the seeds, the dates of nursery and also transplantation from the nursery. As per the Agricultural norms, the transplantation has to be done after 21 to 25 days of sowing. Opposite party No.2 submits that if there is any delay in transplanting, the crop will be lost. The crop was highly affected due to attack of plant virus and bacteria and due to that the growth of the plants was stunted. Since this year the State was badly effected due to heavy rainfall and there was fungal disease, pest incidence and also virus infection which occurred at the flowering stage resulting to low yield. Therefore, the low yield cannot be attributed to defective seeds and submitted that the seeds germinated uniformly. The required sowing rate of chilli is 80 grams per acre but the complainant had sown 450 grams in Ac.4.20. Further the complainant stated that the Mandal Agricultral Officer (M.A.O. for short) inspected the crop and found that the variety of seeds supplied by the opposite parties was not notified in that area but the M.A.O. actually prepared the report merely on observation of the standing crop and the information given by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 contends that the complainant transplanted the seed from the nursery to the main field at a belated stage and further the attack of plant virus and disease had stunted the growth of the plants. The complainant did not take proper care in controlling this disease with effective usage of fertilizers and pesticides. The yield depends upon other climatic conditions like high temperature, inadequate water supply, insufficient rain, infection of several diseases and pro crop management. Opposite party No.2 further contends that the complainant ought to have lodged the complaint under the Seeds Act, 1966 to the Seed Inspector, who is appointed by Government of India instead approached the Consumer Forum. This case involves complicated questions of facts and law and the seeds ought to have been sent to laboratory for testing and only the Plant breeder is a competent person to give his opinion regarding the character of the seeds. Opposite party No.2 further contended that it requires lot of technical consideration and expert opinion of seed experts from the University of Agricultural Sciences and therefore, it is just and necessary to refer this case to the Plant Pathologist of the Agricultural University. In fact on receipt of the complaint, the Regional Manager, Sri V.S.S. Reddy and the Area Manager, P.S.Reddy visited the complainant’s plot on 20-1-1997 and explained the reasons for the poor condition of the crop. Opposite party No.2 contend in their counter that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ since he trades in chillies, which is a commercial crop and therefore is a commercial activity and that he did not adhere to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. This complaint involves complicated questions of facts and interpretation of laws and rights, which cannot be determined satisfactory by the Consumer Forums and therefore seek dismissal of the complaint and that only a competent civil court has got jurisdiction.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A18 and C1 and C2, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant filed his written arguments and contended that it is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the seeds from the opposite parties and that the crop condition was not proper. The M.A.O. inspected the fields and found that the variety of the seed was not notified in that area and promised to take action against the opposite parties. The complainant also filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the Forum had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to assess the loss/deficiency. The Advocate Commissioner stated in his report that there was low yield and that since adhering to Section 13(1)(C) became unimplementable, the Forum ought to have relied on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and Advocate Commissioner. The Forum has erred in observing that the subject involves complicated questions of fact and law and cannot be adjudicated in a summary jurisdiction and directed the complainant to go to civil court. He also contended that the contention of the respondents/opposite parties that the farmers were indulging in commercial activity by growing the chilli crop and therefore do not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act cannot be sustained since the National Commission has held that farmers were also ‘consumers’ and he relied on the relief granted by the National Commission in R.P.Nos.531-537/2003.
Respondents 1 and 2 also filed their written arguments. The learned counsel for R1 and R2 admitted that the appellant had purchased the said seeds from them but there is no evidence to state that these seeds were sown in his fields to an extent of Ac.4.20 and that he spent Rs.60,000/- towards agricultural expenses and that he did not file the land records to show that he was owner of the lands and that he did not mention the date of sowing of the seeds and when there were transplanted and what is the distance between plant to plant. The learned counsel further contended that the seed rate per acre was not mentioned by the complainant and that the standard practice is 80 grams per acre and the total seed required for Ac.4.20 is 340 grams whereas the complainant has sown 450 grams which is excess and contrary to the agricultural norms. Excess usage of fertilizers also effects the crop and yield. He contended that the type of soil, inadequate water supply, insufficient rain, excess temperature, inadequate or abnormal usage of fertilizers, not controlling pests with proper pesticides, poor crop management, lack of nutrients in the soil all these contribute to poor crop yield. The complainant also did not adhere to provisions of the Seed Act, 1966 by referring the matter to Seed Inspector, hence the case in hand requires extensive and elaborate study and cannot be determined in a summary way by the Consumer Forum. It is also the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the complainant ought to have sent the seeds for testing and without analyzing the seeds and plants with respect to their character, it cannot be observed on physical inspection whether the seed is defective or not. The learned counsel also submitted that the crop was infested by pests and diseases and that the complainant has not taken any steps to arrest it. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 further contended that because of poor crop management practices and non adherence of Section 13(1)(c) and Seeds Act, 1966 and also contended that this case ought to have been filed in a civil court since it involved complicated questions of facts and law.
We have perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased Tejaswini-MHP1, K95 69-15 RNJ 83050 Hybrid seeds from opposite party No.1 for Rs.5776/- on 18-6-1996 under bill No.085 and once again purchased Tejaswini-PHP1, K95 68-15 RNJ 83051 Hybrid seeds on 16-7-1996 vide bill No.047 which were produced and marketed by opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer of the said seeds and sold by opposite party No.1, who is the dealer. It is the complainant’s case that he purchased the chilli seeds and sowed them in his land of Ac.4.20 but received very poor yield inspite of using fertilizers and pesticides worth Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, the complainant complained to opposite parties but did not receive any response. It is also the complainant’s case that he has adhered to all crop management practices but still suffered a crop loss of 20 quintals per acre and the market rate being Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per quintal, he sustained crop loss of Rs.2,25,000/-. As against this, it is the opposite parties’ contention that the complainant having grown chilli crop indulged in commercial activity and therefore is not a ‘consumer’. We rely on the decision of the National Commission reported in 1995 I CPJ 45 NC in LAKSHMI AGRICULTURE SEEDS STORE v. DHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS in which the National Commission held that-
From the aforesaid consepectus of the relevant precedent, the language of the statute and upon larger principle,it would emerge that Parliament has clearly employed the phrase‘commercial purpose’ in its generic sense. It would appear that ‘agriculture’ is a genus distinct from ‘commerce’ and consequently
“commercial purpose” and ‘agricultural’ purpose are genetically
Different . The core issue is whether a plainly agricultural purpose
can be labelled as a ‘commercial’ one? In our view, it cannot be so”.
It was further remarked in that case
“Perhaps in the end of one may with consideration poetic license
borrow the analogy of Kipling’s famous couplet, to conclude, that
agriculture is agriculture, and commerce is commerce, the twain
shall never met.
In the light of the aforesaid somewhat exhaustive discussion,
the answer to the question posed at the outset has necessarily
to be rendered in the affirmative. It is held that “commercial
purpose” is a thing apart and distinct from a “agricultural purpose”
under the Act”
In the instant case it is not as if the complainant is indulging in any commercial activity involving large scale profits by selling the chilli seeds. He has sown the crop distinctly for the purpose of agriculture and mere selling of the chilli crop cannot be said to be a commercial activity and therefore, we hold, that the complainant is a ‘consumer’.
The second contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not adhered to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also did not report to the Seed Inspector and did not follow the norms in the Seeds Act, 1966. In the instant case, the agriculturist had sown all the seeds in his acreage of Ac.4.20 and therefore the burden of proof shifts to the opposite parties to send the seeds for testing under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. We rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) in MAHYCO v. ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS wherein it observed that
‘ it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they would not be in a position to send the seeds for analysis. Under these circumstances the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its accord sent the seeds for analysis to an appropriate laboratory. The opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory’.
This judgement applies to the instant case. We observe from the record that the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to the laboratory and therefore to shift the burden on the complainant when it is an admitted fact that the complainant has sown all the seeds in the field, it is the duty of the opposite parties to have sent the seeds for analysis from the same batch of seeds which is with them and they have not chosen to establish their case by doing so.
The next contention of the opposite parties is that the Commissioner’s report and the Agricultural Officer’s report cannot be relied upon and that the seeds ought to have been sent to Plant breeder and Plant Pathologist in the Agricultural University. We rely on the decisions of the National Commission reported in I (2004) CPJ 122 (NC) IN NATIONAL SEEDS CORPN. LTD. V. M.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY that ‘burden to prove defect not discharged by complainant-contention not accepted- farmer not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds and get it tested to meet requirement under section 13(1)c) and also in 1994 (I) CPR 747 (NC) IN MALAPRABHA NEERWARI BALAKEDARARA (IRRIGATION CONSUMER) CO-OP. SANGH LTD., v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA that
‘a Commissioner’s report can be accepted by the Consumer Forum/
Commission with respect to defective seeds when opposite party has
not sought seed certification and Section 13(1)(c) become un-implementable’.
In the instant case since Section 13(1)(C) has become un-implementable, we see no reason for not relying upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Mandal Agricultural officer. The Advocate Commissioner has stated in his report as follows-
‘On 8-2-1997 when I had inspected the warrant schedule property,
the learned counsel for the complainant was present and opposite
parties were also present in person. I had inspected the warrant schedule
property and found that there was very low yielding of chilli crops in
the warrant schedule property. There were very few chilli crops which
had good yield and most of the lands were having very less yield and
there is very low yield in warrant schedule property. The Asst.Agricultural
Officer was not present on my date of inspection. The learned counsel
for complainant had given me work Memo enclosed with a certificate
said to have been issued by the AAO, Kunavaram, who inspected the
warrant schedule property on the request of the Cultivator on
18-12-1996 and assessed damage caused to the crop of the complainant.
As per the certificate given to me by the learned counsel for the
Complainant, the damage caused to the crop approximately 9 -10 quintals
per acre”.
The Agricultural Officer in his report dated24-12-1996 stated as follows-
Yield per acre - 3-5 quintals
Area in Acre - 4.20
Date of transplantation - 8-9-1996
Pests -Thrips and mites noticed, plant protection
measures recommended.
Diseases -Yellow leaves and fruit rot noticed, plant
Protection measures recommended.
Size of the Fruit - Average 2 CM to 4 CM.
Condition of the Crop - Poor
The purity of the seed was not under the Indian Seed Act, 1966.
The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the Apex Court in HARAYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. SADHU AND ANOTHER reported in II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) in which the Apex Court held that
‘there was no deficiency of service on behalf of the Seeds Corporation’.
The facts in the instant case are different since the report of the expert committee in the case cited, indicates that variation in crop condition was not and could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. Whereas in the instant case both the Agricultural Officer and the Advocate Commissioner stated that the yield was low which can be attributed to defective quality of seeds.
He also relied on the judgement of the National Commission reported in I (2007) CPJ 266 (NC) in which the National Commission has held that
‘there was no deficiency of service proved since the testing laboratory report from an independent agency supports the case of the petitioner that the seed was of 99.6 percent purity and that the local Commissioner’s report does not comment on the quality of the seed one way or the other’.
He also relied on the judgement of the National Commission in II (2005) CPJ 94 (NC) in
SONEKARAN GLADIOLI GROWERS v. BABU RAM in which the National Commission held that-
‘Non standard quality of seeds supplied was not proved and in the absence
of clear finding regarding quality of seeds supplied-No inference can be drawn
against the petitioner’.
Whereas in the instant case, the Agricultural officer clearly stated that there is low yield and lot of damage to crop. He also stated that the variety of the seed is not as per Indian Seeds Act, 1966. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents/opposite parties did not choose to lead any evidence by cross-examining the Agricultural Officer.
In view of these observations, we hold that the seeds supplied by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2 are indeed defective and have lead to the low yield of the complainant’s crop.
The next contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had not followed proper crop management practices and submitted that the chilli crop is infested by pests and that there is no evidence on record to prove that the seeds were defective. It is also the contention of the opposite parties that the delay in transplantation would lead to low yield. Once again we reiterate that that there is no documentary evidence to state that all these farmers have delayed the transplantation from the nursery to the main field and that they did not follow proper crop management practices. When respondents had contended that poor climatic conditions also could be a cause, they ought to have filed the whether reports and substantial evidence to state that there was low or heavy rain fall in that area and in that period which affected the crop. In the absence of any such evidence, we cannot accept their argument that poor climatic conditions could be the reason for crop loss. It is also improbable that entire batch of the farmers would not have followed proper crop management practices thereby leading to low yield. The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant did not file prove that he is the owner of Ac.4.20 or has taken this land for lease is also unsustainable on the basis of the Agricultural Officer’s report in which he has inspected and stated the area and acreage is Ac.4.20 and that the plants per acre is 8,500. We also rely on Ex.A17, which is the report of the Sarpanch, who certified that the complainant had sowed Tejaswini variety of chilli seeds in Ac.4.20 in S.Nos. 47/1, 33/6, 24/1 and 47/2 and has also given the boundaries. This clearly establishes that the complainant is indeed the owner/ for Ac.4.20 acreage and this is sufficient evidence to establish that the complainant falls within the definition of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, 1986 and has a locus standi to file this complaint.
The last contention of the opposite parties is that this case involves complicated questions of fact and law and therefore has to be sent to a civil court. We rely on the judgement of the Apex Court reported in
AIR 2002 SC P-2931 in DR.J.J.MERCHANT and OTHERS v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI has clearly laid down that the redressal agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot relegate function assigned to them to a civil court on the ground that complicated questions are involved in a given case. The Apex court further observed that the National Commission is headed by a former judge of Supreme Court, the State Commission is headed by a former judge of High Court and the District Forum is headed by a former District Judge as its President and can adjudicate such matters”
In the instant case with the material filed by the complainant, we see no reason for this Commission not to adjudicate this matter and to send it to civil court. In the light of the judgement cited above, we find this contention unsustainable.
Now we address ourselves to the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Taking into consideration that theAgricultural Officer has stated that the yield was 3 to 5 quintals per acre and the condition of the crop was poor and the Advocate Commissioner stated that the loss of yield is around 9-10 quintals per acre and though the appellant/complainant stated that he sustained loss of 20 quintals of crop per acre, he has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his loss. Therefore, we rely on the Commissioner’s report which states that the loss is around 10 quintals per acre and we award an amount of Rs.2,500/- x 10 quintals per acre x Ac.4.20 = 1,12,500/- inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. However since R1 is only the dealer, we are of the view that he cannot be made liable in the instant case.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,12,500/- towards crop lossinclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1601/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1601/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.4.00 = Rs.1,00,000/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1602/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1602/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.15.00 = Rs. 3,75,000/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1603/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1603/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.6.20 = Rs. 1,62,500/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1604/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1604/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs.2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.2.20 = Rs. 62,500/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1605/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1605/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.8.00 = Rs. 2,00,000/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1606/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1606/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.6.20 = Rs. 1,62,500/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1607/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1607/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.5.00 = Rs. 1,25,000/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No.1608/2005-
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.1600/2005, F.A.No.1608/2008 is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the 2nd respondent to pay to the complainant at the rate of Rs,2,500 x 10 quintals x Ac.2.00 = Rs. 50,000/- towards crop loss inclusive of all expenses together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-. Case against R1 is dismissed without costs.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER. MALE MEMBER.
JM Dated 27-2-2008
