Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/71/2018

Chidanandaiyya S/o Murugeppaiayya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Mallikarjuna Fertilizers Represented by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.B.Suresh

24 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:14.06.2018

DISPOSED  ON:24.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:71/2018

 

DATED:  24^th JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	1. Chidanandayya S/o Murigeppaiayya, aged about 45 years,   2. Niranjana Murthy S/o Murigeppaiyya aged about 47 years.   3. Manjunatha S/o Murigeppaiyya Aged about 68 Years.   All are R/o  Beeravara Village, Chitradurga Tq & Dist,Karnataka State   (Rep by Sri.S.B. Suresh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Sri Mallikarjuna Fertilizers Represented by its Proprietor, Medehally road, Chitradurga-577501, Karnataka.   2. Monsanto India Limited, Presented by its Managing director/general Manager, Monasanto India Pvt ltd,5th floor, Ahura center,96, Mahakali Caves road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400093   (Rep by Sri.B.S. Kulkarni, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.40,000/- per acre with costs and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainants is that, they approached OP No.1 for purchasing maize seeds and as per the advice of OP No.1 they have purchased the maize seeds in the month of June 2017 i.e., rainy season.  After that the seeds were germinated and grown about 2-3 feet height.  After that, the complainant surprised to see that, the grown crops attacked from fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused dry leaves due to less resistance power of seeds.  Further the complainants submitted that they have filed an application before the Agricultural Department i.e., Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chitradurga, the same is referred to concerned authorities.  Further the Botanists visited the above said lands and issued a report for failure of crop due to less resistance power of seeds.  So, the grown crop attacked from fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused dry leaves due to less resistance power of seeds and hence, the complainants suffered loss of Rs.40,000/- per acre.  The above said loss was happened only due to low quality seeds, which was purchased from OPs and hence, both the OPs have committed deficiency of service towards the complainants and the complainants have issued legal notice to the OPs on 21.09.2017, the same has been served to the OPs, but they have not replied nor settle the claim of the complainants and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OPs, Sri. B.S. Kulkarni, Advocate appeared and filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint stating that, the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Further this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The allegations made in the complaint at para 1 to 8 are denied as false.  Whatever the allegations made by the complainants in the complaint, the same is disputed and denied as false.  The OPs have submitted that, the Agriculture Officers have visited the lands of the complainant, but they never informed this OPs and the report given by them was one sided.  Even on going through the alleged inspection report of Dr. Yekaboti  and Dr. Rajanna dated 17.08.2017 discloses that, the disease was occurred due to fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused to leaves and further gave suggestions/recommended to stop this type of disease immediately spry Heelacobachol 10 EC (1ml/ltr) or Mencocheb 75 WP (2g/ltr) if not will spread to all plants.  But the complainants did not follow the instructions given in the said inspection report.  It is further submitted that, there is no report from the said officer in respect of defects in seeds.  Further it is submitted that, the report filed by Dr. Yekaboti and Dr. D. Rajanna dated 17.08.2017 was objected by the officer of this OP Sri.Nagaraj D.N on 18.08.2018.  The Assistant Director of Agriculture has issued letter sum/ sakruni/chi/mekkejola/beh.ha/biravar/2017-18/ 1078-81 dated 21.08.2017 to associate Director of research, Zonal Reserch Station, Babbur, Hiriyur Taluk for visit all other Hybrid fields and to give the transparent/fresh report with coordination with all, but there is no transparent inspection report from the concerned officer.  Further it is submitted that the DKC9133 brand maize seeds produced by this OP No.2 has got so many lot numbers, but the complainants did not disclose the lot number in their complaint nor produced pocket of the seeds.  There was severe drought and there was no maintenance of the complainants to save their crops.  Further it is submitted that the DKD9133 brand maize seeds by this OP No.2 company under several parameter tests in their own quality control laboratory which is recognized by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Central Government of India.  The alleged problem may be due to change in environmental condition, low temperature, insufficient rains inadequate agronomical practices, wrong method adopted by the complainants.  The complainants have not taken proper care of the crop as per instructions, directions given in the broacher provided and further submitted that this OP supplied seeds during khariff season and sold the 53.59 MT of DEKALB 9133 in Chitradurga taluk markets to many villagers the said seed only after its complete satisfaction and confirmation of prescribed germination, genetic purity standards and of its yield satisfactions.  The OPs have not received any complaints from other farmers of the said village or neighboring villagers.  Further it is submitted that getting good yield of hybrid maize crop, it is necessary to take proper plant protection measures as the yield depends upon method of sowing time, usage of seed rate and spacing, usage of manures and fertilizers, irrigation availability, weed control, pest control and disease control measures etc.  These OPs further submitted that the said DKC9133 brand maize seeds demonstrated the preference for these seeds.  The farmers who have taken proper plant protection measures and followed the recommended agricultural practices and directions as per recommendations have received the good yield from the said seeds.  There are so many farmers of the said village are purchased said DKC9133 brand maize seeds from the same lot and none of the farmers complained to this OP regarding poor germination.  It is further submitted that, it is mandatory on the part of complainants to send sample of the seeds in the laboratory for analysis as required u/Sec.13(1)(c) of the C.P Act, 1986.  It is submitted that, prior to its marketing the said seed lot was uniformly tested in the laboratory of this OP company in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Seed Testing Manual for confirming the germination, genetic purity and physical purity standards prescribed by the Central Government under Seeds Act 1966 and Seeds Rules 1968.  Hence, the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service and they have supplied good seeds to the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

4.     Complainant No.1 himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-14 got marked.  OPs have examined one Sri. Gangaraju, Regional Sales Manager as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 document has been got marked and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainants prove that, the OPs have supplied defective maize seeds to them and they suffered loss of Rs.40,000/-per acre and  entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainants have purchased maize seeds from OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said seeds and sown the same in their lands.  After growing nearly 2-3 feet height, there was a problem with regard to development of crop i.e., fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused dry leaves due to less resistance power of seeds.  Accordingly, the complainants have reported to the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Chitradurga.  The said officer referred the case to the concerned authority.  The Botanists have visited the spot and verified the crop and after verifying the lands, prepared the report and submitted the same to the concerned authority.  After issuing of the notice from this Forum, the concerned authorities, those clearly shows that the OPs have supplied the defective maize seeds to the complainants.  But the OPs have taken a contention in their version that they have not supplied the defective seeds and before supplying the seeds they have tested the same in the laboratory and supplied the same in the market.  Further they have taken a contention that the Biravara villagers have purchased the maize crops from the OPs, so many villagers have not filed any complaint before this Forum.  But these complainants have filed the complaint, this shows the complainants have filed the complaints to give harassment to the OPs to get unfair benefits from the OPs.  Further it is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainants have not produced any documents to show that they have obtained expert’s report from the concerned authority.  But, as per the documents and version, it clearly shows that the OPs have supplied defective seeds to the complainants.  The report given by the concerned authority very clearly shows that, the OPs have supplied defective seeds to the complainants.  In view of the defective seeds supplied by the OPs to the complainants, they have suffered lot, which is to be compensated by the OPs.     

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants which clearly goes to show that, the complainants have purchased the DKC9133 maize seeds from the OPs and sown the same in their lands.  After that, the crop was grown only 2-3 feet height and at that time, there was a fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused dry leaves due to less resistance power of seeds.  After that, the complainants have reported to the concerned authority.  The Assistant Director of Agriculture have referred the same to Technical persons.  The Botanists have visited the spot and submitted report saying that, the OPs have supplied defective seeds to the complainants, which caused loss to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre.  The documents clearly shows that, the complainants have purchased the seeds from the OPs and the bills produced by the complainants clearly shows that they have purchased the seeds from the OPs, the same were marked as Ex.A-5 and A-6 and the photo produced by the complainants clearly shows that there was a fungus like Helminthosporium SP and Alternaria SP caused dry leaves due to less resistance power of seeds.  The complainants have produced Ex.A-8 to 10 those are RTC extracts, in which the complainants name is mentioned.  The OPs have stated that, the complainants have not properly maintained the crop, they have not taken care for crop development.  Due to the negligence on the part of complainants, they have not get good yield from the seeds supplied by the OPs, which is not correct because, the complainants have taken all precautionary measures.  So, in any angle, it shows that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service by supplying the defective maize crops.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainants.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the complainant No.1 is entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards compensation, Rs.14,750/- the price of the seeds in all a sum of Rs.94,750/- along with interest  @ 9% pa from the date of purchasing the seeds till realization from the OPs.

It is ordered that, the complainant No.2 is entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards compensation along with interest  @ 9% pa from the date of purchasing the seeds till realization from the OPs.

It is ordered that, the complainant No.3 is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- towards compensation along with interest  @ 9% pa from the date of purchasing the seeds till realization from the OPs.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainants.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 24/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri Gangaraju, the Regional Sales Manager by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Xerox copy of report issued by Asst. Director of Agriculture
02	Ex-A-2:-	Office order No.23/2017-18
03	Ex-A-3:-	Letter dated 07.08.2017 by the Asst. Director of Agriculture
04	Ex-A-4:-	Truthful Label
05	Ex-A-5 & 6:-	Two Tax Invoices
06	Ex-A-7:-	Photo
07	Ex-A-8 to 10:-	RTC extracts
08	Ex-A-11:-	Postal receipts
09	Ex-A-10:-	Legal Notice dated 28.02.2018

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Specific Power of Attorney

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**