This complaint is coming before us for hearing; complainants and the opposite party No.4 are appeared in person and in the presence of Sri. B. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 to 3; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainants No.1 to 5 are the agriculturists, used to raise chilly and cotton crops in their own lands and by taking the lands on lease, situated at Balikunta village, Chandrugonda Mandal of Khammam District.  In order to cultivate cotton crop, purchased Tadaka BG-II cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1 by attracting the wide publicity of opposite parties @ Rs.850/- per packet.  The seeds, so purchased, produced and developed by opposite party No.4 and marketed by the opposite parties No.2 and 3.  Thereafter, sowed the same in the month of June 2015 for kharif season.  The particulars regarding the extent of land, survey numbers and the particulars of seeds, so purchased are mentioned below.

The complainants have raised cotton crops by following all the procedures and precautions by investing an amount of Rs.50,000/- per acre.  They have applied pesticides and fertilizers according to the advices of A.O. concerned and the opposite party No.1, though, there was no yielding.  After having noticed, informed the same to the opposite party No.1 and the agricultural officer.  They came to know that the crop was damaged only due to defective seeds, supplied by the opposite parties.  On their grievance, filed this complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively to the complainants 1 to 3 and Rs.1,25,000/- each to the complainants No. 4 & 5 towards loss of cotton crop and also prayed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to the complainants No.1 to 5 towards mental agony and costs. 

3.       In support of their case, the complainants No.1 to 5 were filed Exhibits A1 to A17.

4.       After receipt of notice, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed counters by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.  The Representative / Area Manager of opposite party No.4 appeared in person on 01-12-2015 but failed to contest the case till it was posted for orders. 

5.       In their counter, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 submitted that as per the averments of complaint, there is no defect in germination of seeds, if there is any defect, the germination must be affected, if so happened, the complainants ought to have complained immediately.  The complainants have failed to follow proper procedures as applying of manures and providing of water, prescribed by the opposite parties.  They further submitted that according to panchanama of Agricultural Officer dt.10-12-2015 the cause of loss was due to bad weather conditions or defective seeds or failure of crop management practices.  There is no specific finding in the panchanama of A.O. regarding non germination of seeds, so, the question does not arise regarding the supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties.  Cause of low yielding may be due to improper weather conditions, lack of water facilities and usage of pesticides and fertilizers etc., therefore, the complainants are not entitled for any relief as prayed and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6.       In addition to the counter averments, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed written arguments by submitting that the complaint against sale and supply of defective seeds can be entertained under Seeds Act, not under Consumer Protection Act, the liability should not be fastened on the opposite parties without following the procedures under section 13 (1)(c) of C.P. Act.  Therefore, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.       Upon perusing the petition vide I.A.No.89/2015 filed by the complainants, we directed the Agricultural Officer, Chandrugonda to inspect the crops in dispute and assess the cause of loss by recording the percentage of loss.  Accordingly, the Agricultural Officer observed crops of the complainants No.1 to 5 and filed separate reports, marked under exhibits A13 to A17.

8.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

It is an admitted fact that the complainants have purchased Tadaka BG-II cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1, produced by opposite party No.4 and marketed by opposite parties No.2 and 3.  The complainants have sowed the seeds in the lands, taken on lease by taking all precautions as required and followed all the procedures from time to time.  Despite that, they lost entire crop and sustained heavy loss due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties.  Upon which, approached the opposite party No.1 and the Agricultural Officer and as there was no response they also made a written representation on their grievance on 12-10-2015 to the Tahsildar by sending copies of the same to the A.O. concerned, marked under exhibit A7.  Thereafter, filed the present complaint as there was no yielding till the month of October, seeking direction to the A.O. to inspect the crop for assessment of loss through a petition vide IA.No.89/2015, perused and issued notice to the A.O. Chandrugonda, with a direction to give his report after having find out the cause of damage and assessment of percentage of loss.  The A.O. inspected the crops in dispute on 10-12-2015 and filed separate reports on crop situation pertaining to the complainants No.1 to 5, marked under exhibits A13 t A17.  In Exhibits A13 to A17, the Agricultural Officer specifically mentioned the particulars regarding the yielding and loss.  According to the Seeds Act, the Agricultural Officer is an expert in his field so, the report of A.O. can not be rejected. But on the other hand the opposite parties contended that the yield was low not because of defective seeds supplied by them but because of failure on the part of complainants to follow proper management of crop, to prove their averments, the opposite parties ought to have placed sufficient evidence regarding the quality of seeds but did not do so and failed to file any proof with regard to adverse climatic conditions and poor agricultural practices, followed by the farmers if any,  it seems that an adverse inference can be drawn that there was deficiency in seeds supplied by the opposite parties.  Whereas, the complainants have taken possible steps to prove their allegations by making oral and written representations to the A.O. and the other Government officials, Now, the only question is whether the loss of crop is attributable to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties or not?.  In view of written complaint made by the complainants to the M.R.O. and the Agricultural Officer by seeking compensation for non-flowering and yielding due to defective seeds is considered to be sufficient for attributing defective seeds, supplied by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties failed to prove their averments regarding the poor management practices, adverse climatic conditions, lack of water facility, fertility of soil, and with regard to other precautions and procedures by placing sufficient evidence.  The M.A.O. did not state that the complainants failed to follow the requirements, recommendations of opposite parties, fertility of land and adverse climatic conditions, were not suitable to raise cotton crop.  In the absence of sufficient proof, we cannot consider the matter in favour of the opposite parties.  On the strength of law, the Agricultural Development Officer being an expert witness under seeds Act.  So, in view of above circumstances, the report of M.A.O. cannot be discarded and there is no reason to reject the same presumption of truth attached with it.   Accordingly, it is clear that the farmers suffered loss as a result of supply of seeds by the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties averred that the liability cannot be fastened on the opposite parties without testing the seeds  under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act. Having considered, we are not able to agree with the plea taken by the opposite parties because a farmer has been taking the lands on lease only on an extent of acres 1 to 2 cannot be expected to retain sample of seeds after purchasing the same from the opposite parties and more so, the burden of proof did not lies on the farmer.  In this regard, we have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in National Seeds Corporation limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. II (2012) SLT 51=I (2012) CPJ 1 SC.  In the light of above decision, we have opined that the complainants have taken all possible steps regarding the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, thus, onus will shifts on the other side to discharge the onus to prove their denial.  Once, the complainants have lodged their grievance with the officers, concerned and filing of report of agricultural officer during the proceedings of present complaint, it can be safely presumed that the complainants have sufficiently discharged their onus to prove that the seeds in question were of defective quality, the same was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex court in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chennamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136.  Therefore, the objection raised by the opposite parties regarding non-sending of seeds for laboratory testing is not considerable. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, we have opined that the loss of crop was caused due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No. 2 to 4.  Therefore, held liable jointly and severally for payment of compensation towards crop loss under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as the Seeds Act is totally silent in payment of compensation for crop loss due to defective seeds.

Thus as per the reports of M.A.O. marked under exhibits A13 to A17 it is clear that the complainant No.1 had purchased 3 packets of Tadaka Seeds, from which he had obtained 3 quintals of cotton per acre out of expected yielding of 5.88 quintals per acre. 

The complainant No.2 had purchased 2 packets of seeds, but he got low yielding out of expected yielding of 6.73 quintals per acre.

The complainant No.3 had purchased 3 packets of seeds.  He obtained 3 quintals of yielding out of expected yielding of 6.3 quintals.

The complainant No.4 had purchased 2 packets of seeds, obtained 3.5 quintals of yielding out of expected yielding of 6.3 quintals.

The complainant No.5 had purchased 2 packets of seeds, obtained low yielding out of expected yielding of 7.15 quintals.

As per exhibit A6, 1 packet of seeds is sufficient for half an acre.  Therefore, the seeds, purchased by the complainants No.1 to 5 were sufficient for sowing for only Ac.s. 1.20, 1.00, 1.20, 1.00, and 1.00 gts respectively.  Accordingly, the complainants 1, 3 and 4, have suffered loss of cotton crop to an extent of 4.32, 3.33 and 2.8 quintals per acre respectively.  With respect of yielding obtained by the complainants No.2 and 5 were not mentioned by the  Agricultural Officer in his report.   So we are of the opinion that the complainants No.2 and 5 are also got yield at 3.5 quintals per acre on an average on account of defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No. 2 to 4.  As per official website of Telananga State Government Agricultural Marketing Committee, the moderate price of cotton crop in Khammam District as on 30-05-2016 @ Rs.4,100/- per quintal, in view of the same, the opposite parties No.2 to 4 are held liable to pay compensation to the complainants towards crop loss.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainants.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.2 to 4 to pay Rs.17,712/-, Rs.13,243/-, Rs.20,295/-, Rs.11,480/- and Rs.14,965/- to the complainants No.1 to 5 respectively towards crop loss within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which,  the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.  The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of May, 2016.

              Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

              Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam