DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., MEMBER
Tuesday, 3rd August 2010
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 41/ 2010
B. Ravindra Reddy, S/o B. Obi Reddy, Hindu,
40 years, Agriculturist, Ravulacheruvu Village, Post,
Yerraguntlapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal,
Anantapur Dist. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) Sri Aswarthappa Fertilizers, 16/211,
Backside of Durgammagudu, Besides Vysya Bank,
Dharmavaram Village and Mandal, Anantapur district.
2) Nagarjuna Seeds, No. 1-1-16-91/2, Sainagar colony,
Alwal, Secunderabad. ….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 27-7-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainants and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R2 and R1 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant was an agriculturist having Ac. 1.41 cents dry land in survey No. 409 with irrigation facility with a bore well in Yerraguntlapalli Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapur District. He purchased NS – 111 Hybrid Sunflower seed three packets on 15-4-2008 under cash bill No. 51 from O.P. No. 1, manufactured by O.P. No. 2. The complainant expected good yield but he did not secure. The land was good with water facility by bore well. The complainant sustained a loss of crop due to diseases to the plants. The crop was taken care from the beginning of the crop applying manures, pesticides, fertilizers upto mark. The Opposite parties visited the land and admitted that the seed was not Hybrid variety and accepted to pay compensation for loss of the crop due to diseases. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 3-8-2008 to the Opposite parties. But there was no response. Therefore, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- and suffered mental agony. It was deficiency of service. Thus the complaint was filed Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest and costs.
3. The O.P. No. 2 filed a counter adopted by O.P. No. 1 with a memo. The O.P. No. 2 denied all the averments of the complaint in toto. The Opposite party admitted the notice issued by the complainant on 3-8-2008 in which it was mentioned that the crop would be harvested on 5-8-2008. The complainant had not given chance to the Opposite parties to visit the field and observed the standing crop. The O.P. No. 1 was residing at Dharmavaram and O.P. 2 was situated at Secunderabad and the notice was dispatched from Anantapur and the case was filed before the fourm on 6-8-2008. Notice was issued with bad intention.
4. The complainant requested the Mandal Agricultural Officer to visit the land on 15-7-2008, in which he never stated that the crop was failed due to defective seed. The Mandal Agricultural Officer on 17-7-2008 visited the land and inspected the crop and found the crop was failed due to attack of diseases and pests and he never made any comment about quality of the seed. It was not mentioned in the complaint. The Commissioner inspected the land on 9-8-2008 and observed that the crop was attacked with “White Millie Bug” disease and the complainant had not taken any care to prevent the disease in getting good yield. The complainant never followed the instructions on cover of the seed and never purchased and so he was not a consumer and there was no deficiency of service. The complainant did not mention how the Forum has got jurisdiction in the cause of action para. The company was a reputed one used to manufactuer many varieties of seed and used to supply to number of states in India and had Research Centers also recognized by the Agricutural Departments. The Opposite party used to utilize the product into the market after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and it was distributed throughout Andhra Pradesh without any complaint from any corner. In Dharmavaram also number of farmers purchased sunflower seed from the Opposite parties. The seed was certified by the Govt. and as per investigation of the scientists in the lab the height of the crop should be 5 to 5 ½ feet. In the present case height of the crop was only 3 feet. It was due to attack of pest. The bill No. 51, dt. 15-4-2008 was denied and it was mentioned in the said document that the germination, flowering, yield, quality were depend on natural conditions and after aggreing for above the seed was purchased. The seed was purchased as per bill by one Lingaiah but not by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was not a consumer. The complainant did not follow the guidelines for agricultural operations like sowing, watering, supply of manure, pesticides and fertilizers. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service and hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?
ii. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of Respondents Ex. B1 to B5 were marked. The Opposite parties filed written arguments also. Ex. C1 was marked by consent.
7. At the first instance the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Ananthapur and it was registered as C.C. No. 86/2008. The counter of O.P. 2 with adoption memo by O.P. 1 was filed on 3-12-2008, While the case was pending before the District Consumer Forum, Anantapur. Subsequently, it was transferred to the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R District, as per proceedings ROC No. 2/2010/APSCDRC/Admn., dt. 5-2-2010 of the Registrar, A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the case bundle was received on 17-4-2010 and notice was ordered on 29-4-2010 and posted the case on 21-5-2010. R1 notice was served on 28-6-2010 and had no representation and so he was called absent and set exparte on 27-7-2010.
8. Point No. 1& 2. The complainant had Ac. 1.41 cents of land in survey No. 409/6-A dry in Ravulacheruvu village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur district. He filed Photostat copy of pattadar passbook in Ex. A2. He purchased 3 packets of NS – 111 Hybrid sunflower seed @ Rs. 550/- per packet totaling Rs. 1,650/- under bill No. 51, dt. 15-4-2008 from O.P.1 manufactured by O.P.2. The bill was Ex. A1 in the name of the complainant purchased by one D. Lingamaiah, Lingamaiah purchased seed on behalf of the complainant and hence, Ex. A1 was in the name of the complainant. After sowing the seed the crop was growing but attacked with pest called “White Millie Bug”. The complaint was completely silent at what month or period the seeds were sown and how much and what type of pesticides and fertilizers and the quantity applied to the plants and at what intervals watering was supplied to the crop and the yield received by the complainant in previous years also. There was no calculation for arriving of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss. It was silent, how much was spent for pesticides, fertilizers, labour, watering and other agricultural operations in the field. It was not mentioned anywhere the steps taken by the complainant to prevent the pests and the steps taken after the pest attacked the crop. He did not mention whether he had approached the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram to inspect the field and crop. He filed Ex. A3 photostat copy of the field inspection report submitted by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur. In Ex. A3 Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram had stated clearly that he noticed the crop at the stage of seed setting and harvesting stage and seed setting was partial due to attack of pest and diseases. There were many reasons to attack pest to the crop. It was mainly due to conditions of weather, excess watering and other reasons like bad administration. There was no mention in Ex. A3 that the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram visited the land of the complainant. He visited the lands of various other farmers of Dharmavaram, R. Yerraguntapalli. The complainant got issued a notice to the Opposite parties and filed a Photostat copy of notice under Ex. A4. At the instance of the complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A. No. 129/2008, who observed that the plants were affected with “White Millie Bug” and ready for harvest and there were no seeds in the center of the flower but seeds were found around flower. The Commissioner’s report with photos was Ex. C1. Similarly the Opposite parties filed a copy of the Commissioners report under Ex. B5. They filed Ex. B1 a Photostat copy of representation of the complainant to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram, in which the complainant never stated that he sustained a loss due to defective seed. Ex. B2 was Photostat copy of field inspection report of Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram. Ex. B3 was Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of the complainant. Ex. B4 was Photostat copy of notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite parties. Similar documents of Ex. B2 to B4 were also filed by the complainant. Therefore, in these circumatances the loss of crop was not due to defective seed but due to pest called “White Millie Bug”. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Thus, the points are answered accordingly.
9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 3rd August 2010
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Original bill issued by O.P. No. 1 in favour of complainant, dt. 15-4-08.
Ex. A2 P/c of pattadar passbook of the complainant.
Ex. A3 P/c of letter from M.AO., Dharmavaram to J.D, Agriculture, Anantapur, dt. 21-7-2008
Ex. A4 P/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to Opposite parties,
dt. 3-8-2008.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 P/c of letter from complainant to M.A.O., Yerraguntapalli, dt. 15-7-2008
Ex. B2 P/c of letter from M.AO., Dharmavaram to J.D, Agriculture, Anantapur, dt. 21-7-2008
Ex. B3 P/c of pattadar passbook of complainant.
Ex. B4 P/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to Opposite parties,
dt. 3-8-08.
Ex. B5 Copy of commissioner’s report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner.
Exhibits marked by consent: -
Ex. C1 Copy of commissioner’s report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner
with photos.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R2.
3) Sri Aswarthappa Fertilizers, 16/211, Backside of Durgammagudu, Besides Vysya Bank, Dharmavaram Village and Mandal, Anantapur district.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
