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
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 15th day of July , 2009
C.C.No.149/07
Between:
Meka Bhaskar, S/o. M.P. Chennaiah,Agriculture ,
Pamulapadu,(Village and Mandal) Kurnool District. ..…Complainant
-Vs-
1) Sri Ram Seeds Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor,
B.V.Ramana and Distributors of
Sygenta Seeds Atmakur, Kurnool District.
2) Syngenta India Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,
Seeds Division,
H.No.70/27, Revenue Colony, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune-411 007. ……Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.B.Jangam Reddy, Advocate for 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.149/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2,73,700/- as damages and cost of the case alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in selling the defective seed which on its cultivation in complainants land resulted in loss of yield .
2. The case of complainant is that while the opposite party No. 1 is dealer of Hybrid Chilly Roshini Variety Seed , the opposite party No. 2 is its producer and the complainants purchasing on 12-06-2006 10 packets of said seed each containing 10 grams at Rs.170/- per packet and sowed it in last
week of June in his land Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No. 331 E of Pamulapadu Village and transplanted it in the last week of July and in spite of taking all necessary precautions and measures in cultivation of land and its crop management expending Rs.40,000/- per acre , it has resulted in loss of total yield and when the said state of affairs was taken to the notice of Joint Director Agriculture ,Kurnool a Senior Scientist , Regional Research Agriculture Office, Nandayl was deputed and the latter has inspected the said field on 04-02-2007 and observed the said poor growth of production of plants and less pod productive plants and poor hybrid vigour and the said variety where ever has been sown in that year has resulted to the same on account of defect in said seed and on account of said observed features the complainant sustained loss of expected yield of 12 to 15 quintals valuing at the relevant period at Rs.4,500/- per quintal and there by was put to a loss of Rs.1.5 lakhs per acre and the opposite parties by selling said defective seed practiced un fair trade practice on complainant and so the opposite parties are liable to pay damages besides to an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony .
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notices of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying its liability for complainants claim filling a written version of the opposite party No. 1 and a memo of its adoption by the other opposite parties.
4. The written version of the opposite parties besides denying the truth of the complaint averments disputes the ownership of the complainant in land alleged for cultivation and its actual cultivation with all necessary precautions and managerial skills alleging any guarantee was given for quantity of yield and favourble environmental conditions and doubting the bonafdies of scientist report for want of necessary particulars and also disputes the bonafides in alleged agricultural expenditure and claim for mental agony and blames the complainant for taking the matters behind it without notice .
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 , Ex.X1 toX3 and the evidence of PW. 1 to 3, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any un fair trade practice and deficiencies of the opposite parties for holding their liability to complainants claim .
7. The Ex.A4 is the seed purchase bill dated 12-06-2006 . It envisages the sale of 10 packets of Hybrid Chilly of Roshini Variety for a sum of Rs. 1700/- /- and there by envisages the purchase of seed mentioned there in by complainant from the opposite party No. 1 . In the absence of any contradictory material to it from the opposite party side , it goes to say of the purchase of said hybrid chilly Roshini Variety by the complainant for a valuable consideration .
8. The Ex.A5 is the C.C. of Adangal for the year 1416 F pertaining to Sy.No. 331 E of Pamulapadu Village. It envisages the cultivation of Chilly Crop by the complainant on an extent of Ac.1.50 under well irrigation as kharif crop . In the absence of any material contradicting its contents from the opposite party side the alleged cultivation of complainant in his land for said chilly crop is remaining established , even though the Ex.X1 and X2 entries remains of any avail to the complainant on account of its inconsistency as to the extent of and non existence of name of the complainant in the list of farmers in Ex.X1 and X2 respectively.
9. The Ex.A3 is the field inspection report dated 02-01-2007 said to have been made by a team officers mentioned there in on complaint dated 29-12-2006 of farmers of Roshini Chilly growers of Pamulapadu ,Iskala , and Shantinilayam. It envisages the name of the farmers whose field inspections were covered on 31-12-2006 . But it does not take mention of the complainants name in the said list to believe the land of complainant also was inspected by the said team . Therefore the observation of said team officers mentioned in said report as to chilly plots of Roshini Variety and the evidence of PW. 2 and 3 regarding it remains with any relevancy for its appreciation to the case of the complainant .
10. The Ex.A2 is the covering letter dated 17-02-2007 of Senior Scientist to Joint Director Agriculture , Kurnool for transmitting there under the inspection report dated 17-02-2007 ( Ex.A1) .
11. The Ex.A1 singed by Dr. Y. Rama Rao – Senior Scientist ( PW.1) on 17-02-2007 styled an inspection report of said PW.1. , pertaining to Roshini Chilly Hybrid , said to have been made consequent to Ex.X3. The material there in indicates the visit of said Scientist to Roshini Chilly Hybrid Plots under Revenue Divisions of Koilakuntla and Atmakur on 13-02-2007 and 14-02-2007 along with Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agriculture Officers of above divisions and of his observations mentioned there in as concern to Ramireddypalli of Koilakuntala Division and Pamulapadu and Iskala and Shantinilayam and Abdullapuram Villages of Atmakur Division. Even though it has any specific mention of the inspection of complainants land in particular but as covers the Roshini Chilly Hybrid Plots of Iskala Village also i.e., complainants village, the observations found in said Ex.A1 finds some relevancy for their appreciation in the complainants case .
12. The Ex.A1 even though gives an uniform findings as to plant population , plant height , leaf size, petal colour , pollen colour , pod colour , and length of the pod but finds in its observation as to productive plants as very poor at 1 or 2 % only and rest poor production consisting to 10 to 25 pods per plant and the presence of sucking pest and overall very poor hybrid vigour , poor growth , more less pods productive plants and there by expects 2 to 3 poor yields .
13. The said Dr. Rama Reddy in his evidence as PW.1 besides reiterating the material particulars of Ex.A1 , further says that purity of the variety ( of seed ) is also one of the reason for such state of affairs to the crop as the management practices of farmers are satisfactory and the pests is not enough to effect the yield as hybrids or pest tolerants . Nothing much to discredit his evidence comes forth in his cross examination . Therefore it remains clear that the defect which resulted in said state of affairs to the crop was less hybrid vigour attributable to the said seed which has given raise to said crop .
14. As the date of purchase of seed being June 2006 and the case is being filed in the month of September , 2007 i..e, more than an year after to said purchase of seed and the life of seed being 1 year only as per the evidence of Pw.1 , the non endeavor for sending said seed for any test remains with any serious consequence on the merits of this case , especially when a per the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in M/s. India Seed House Vs Ramjilal Sharma and another reported in III (2008) CPR - 3 (NC) no adverse inference can be drawn against complainant on ground of his having not sent sample of seed for testing to a laboratory as it was not expected from every buyer of seeds to said apart some quantity of seeds for testing on presumption that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing .
15. The Ex.B1 is broacher pertaining to various hybrid chilly varieties including of Roshini Variety. Except providing the physical features of it such as probable height of the plant , colour of leafs probable days of commencement of first yield , length of the fruit and its more weight for enabling long distance transport , does not provide as to its probable yield for acre . Hence the Ex.B1 remains of any avail for assessing the loss of yield .
16. The Ex.B2 - Xerox of the literature pertaining to insects , pests and diseases to chilly crop published by Acharya N.G .Ranga Agriculturulal University Hyderabad. In its forward it is mentioned that the chilly crop in field is damaged by about 25 insects pests , the most potent being thrips and pod borers and diseases like fruit rot and the viral diseases and when ever and where ever the farmers face serious problems they are suggested to seek advise of the scientist and extension workers and avoid crisis situation . As per the evidence of PW.1 Dr. Y. Rama Reddy , Scientist and his observation in Ex.A1 , the said crop was found with sucking pests and his visit for inspection being on complaint of farmers who have cultivated the Roshini Chilly Hybrid Variety , the complainant appears to be diligent as to said suggestion advised by Ex.B2 . Further while the Pg. Nos 2 to 6 and 12 of said Ex.B2 deals with various sucking pest i. e., thrips , mites , aphids , midges , the management of viral diseases were dealt at page 42 . But as the evidence of PW.1 is that the said pest observed was not having much effect on the yield , the material in Ex.B2 remains with any relevancy for its appreciation as to pest control method , especially when the PW.1 satisfied of proper field and crop management by said farmers.
17. The learned counsel for the opposite parties places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi in Soni Karan Gladioli Growers Vs Babu Ram reported in II (2005) CPJ – 94 where the complaint was dismissed as no expert evidence has been brought on record by the complainant to prove his case . But in the present case as the evidence PW.1 of Dr. Y. Rama Reddy , Senior Scientist , RARS as stands as evidence of expert attributing the reason for poor state of affairs to the yield to the loss of hybrid vigour the supra stated decision is having any relevant application in this case.
18. Another decision taken reliance by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is of Hon’ble Maharastra SCDRC , Mumbai in Rasi Seeds Private Limited and another Vs Sudham Singh Dage Singh Girase and other reported in 2008 (III) CPR Pg.280 wherein the judgment of District Forum was held unsustainable and was set aside as any whisper about the quality of seed either in report or panchanama of seed committee. But in this case as the expert evidence of PW.1 attributes the defect as loss of hybrid vigour resulting to poor yields , the supra stated decision is having relevant application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case.
19. The learned counsel for the opposite parties taken reliance on to the Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi , in Mahastra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Vs Sri Parichuri Narayana reported in 2009 ( 1) CPR Pg.182 (NC) where in the orders passed by foras below were set aside as there is anything in the report of the advocate Commissioner as well as Agricultural Officer that low yield was due to defective seeds supplied by the respondent . But in the present case the sale of seed by opposite parties to the complainant as proved from the Ex.A4 and its cultivation in complainants land vide Ex.A5 and the poor hybrid vigour as the reason for poor yield is being canvassed in the evidence of Pw.1 and in his inspection report in E.xA1 , the reasons for said state of affairs being made clear , the above said relied decision has any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case.
20. Another decision taken reliance by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is of Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi in the Secretary Vs The Area Manager reported in 2008 (2) CPR Pg.193 (NC) where in the revision petition is dismissed as there is any expert report of any Agriculture Officer or of any seed testing laboratory as to defect in seed . But as the Ex.A1 being an inspection report of a qualified agricultural scientist and his evidence as PW.1 corroborates the reasons for poor yield on account of poor hybrid vigor which is attributable to the seed from which said crop originated and the said seed being established by Ex.A4 as one supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant for a valuable consideration . So the above said decision is having any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of the complainants case.
21. The earlier orders dated 1st August, 2008 of this Forum in C.C.78/07 and 38/07 were also placed by the leaned counsel for opposite parties for their reference in this case. But the said is not remaining any avail to the opposite party side as the said has arisen negativating the entitleness of the complainant for claim made there in for want of any proof as to defect in seed and so they are having any binding effect to the different fact and circumstances of this case.
22. A question has been raised by the leaned counsel for the complainant during the arguments that OPs were not properly represented and so the material adduced for OPs side carry any weight and in the absence of any such cogent material from the OP side , the case is to be held in favor of the complainant alleging that while the OP.No. 1 is M/s. Syngenta India Limited represented by its Managing Director-1170/27-Revenue Colony, Sivaji Nagar, PUNE-411005 having its registered office at Royal Insurance Building-14-5, TATA Road Church Gate-MUMBAI-400020, the vakalath and written version of the OP.NO. 1 was executed and singed by one Danam Siva Prakash-Territory Sales Manager, Kurnool with an authorization dated 25-07-2007 of Syngenta India Limited to execute vakalath , appoint lawyers to defend the case , sign papers and writings required jointly and severally as may be necessary on companies behalf. Even though the said authorization dated 25-07-2007 being having any force for want of its issaual by described OP.NO. 1 but as the verified affidavit enclosed to the written version of OP.NO.1 says the said deponent who has executed vakalath and written version of OP.No.1 acquainted with the facts of the case and the order 29 Rule I CPC permits the signing of pleadings and any verification on behalf of the corporation by the officers of said corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case , there appears any much merit and force in the said contentions of the complainants counsel, especially when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs Narendra Kumar and others reported in AIR 1997 SC Pg.3 holds that it would be traversity of justice if the plaintiff is none suited for a technical reason which does not go to the route of the matter.
23. The learned counsel for the complainant takes reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Surpreme Court in HN. Sankar Sastry Vs Assistance Director of Agriculture ,Karnataka reported in 2004 STPL (L.E.) 33228 SC 2004 AIR (SC) Pg.3474 where in it was held U/s 14 (1) of C.P.Act , if the District Forum is satisfied that the good complained against suffers any defect , it could grant reliefs which include returned the price of crop and also compensation to the consumer for any loss suffered and granting of relief to the consumer does not depend upon whether they should have made alternate arrangements . As from the material on record the seeds supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant being at some considerable cost and the said seed has a poor yield on accounts of its poor hybrid vigour , the complainant is remaining entitled in the light of above decision to the reimbursement of the losses and inconveniences he was put to on use of said defective seed .
24. When the material on record says that the poor yield is on account of poor hybrid vigour of the seeds form which the said crop has arisen in spite of satisfactory field and crop management , the OP side did not place any material to show that the complainant did not manure properly or that there is some defect in said filed coupled with conduct of the opposite parties not visiting at all the fields of complainant having regard to the allegations of the complainant it cannot be said that there is any defect either in manure or in preparation of soil for sowing seeds .
25. The decision of Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi in M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited Vs. Kondabrole Hassen Rao and others reported in 2008 (2) CPR 134 (NC) was relied by the learned counsel to say that the complainant is entitled to the claim as the complainant was proved by Ex.A1 report and the evidence of PW.1 as to defect in seed and the OPs side have any expert report to counter the same and any independent evidence is placed by the OPs side as to the quality of the seed , and in the said circumstances there appears on complainant side truth in said contentions of the complainant the said decision is considered in favor of the complainant .
26. The decision of Hon’ble NCDRC , New Delhi , M/s India Seeds House Vs Ramjilal Sarma and others reported in 2008 (3) CPR Pg.59 (NC) was taken reliance by the learned counsel for the complainant . IT says that if there is any manufacturing in defect in a vehicle or machinery or defect in production of seeds it is settled Law that producer / manufacturer and dealer or jointly and severally responsible . From the material on record the seed purchased by the complainant under Ex.A4 being one manufacturer by OP.No.1 for which the OPs 2 and 3 are distributors and retailed dealers and the said has given a poor yield due to lack of hybrid vigour , the liability of the OPs 1 to 3 jointly and severally remains to compensate the loss and inconvenience occasioned to the complainant consequent to the consumption of said purchased seed for cultivation.
27. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties played an unfair trade practice on him by supply of said quality of seed .As per Sec. 2 (r) 1 (1) of C.P.Act a false representation as to the goods are of a particulars standard , quality , quantity , grade , composition , style , model also amounts to unfair trade practice .
28. As the seed supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties was said to be of Roshini Hybrid Chilly Variety but as ensued a poor yield on account of lack of hybrid vigour the act of the OPs in supply of said seed as hybrid is amounting to an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties exposing their liability to compensate the complainant for damages.
29. The complainant while alleges the total loss of yield, the Ex.A1 and the evidence of PW.1 says of expectation of 2 or 3 poor yields. The sworn affidavit of the complainant and the Ex.A7 notice of complainant says the expected yield of hybrid variety is 30 to 35 quintals and so the ensued loss at Rs.1.5 lakshs at Rs.5,000/- to 6,000/- per quintal , but produces any basis for it for its favourable consideration . While such is so with the complainan , the PW.1 expects yield of 12 to 17 quintals per acre to this hybrid variety no basis for it even placed for its favourable consideration in favour of the complainant . Nor the Ex.B1 broacher of said hybrid chilly variety provides any quantity of expected yield. Nor there any particulars from the complainant as to the quantum of poor yield expected in Ex.A1 and yielded inactuality.
30. Nor the Ex.A6 appears to be any avail in this connection as it does not disclose the said figures mentioned there is what and for what quantity.
32. Hence there being any material to access the actual loss of the complainant is the complainant is not remaining entitled to claim on the count of loss of yield. But as the supply of seed by the opposite party which ensued a crop with lack of hybrid vigour the said supply of seed by the opposite parties as true hybrid amounts to an unfair trade practice the complainant is remaining entitled to the damages from the OP for said unfair trade practice. In the above state of circumstances an amount five times to the purchase seed value as damage to the complainant at the joint and several liability of the opposite parties appears to meet the ends of Justice.
33. As the complainant was not only put to mental agony at the poor yield on the seed supplied by the opposite party but also as was driven by the said conduct of the opposite parties to the forum for redressal of his grievances an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this case at the joint and several liability of the opposite parties appear to meet the ends of justice .
34. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 at their joint and several liability to pay to the complainant the amount five times to the purchase seed value as damages and Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case respectively within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award shall be payable by opposite parties 1 to 3 at their joint and several liability to complainant with 12 PERCENT interest from the date of default till realization .
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of July, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :Nil
PW.1 Deposition of PW-1 (Dr.Y.Rama Reddy ) Dt.7-8-2008
PW.2 Deposition of PW-2 (Dr.G.Narasimha Rao) Dt.26-8-08.
PW.3 Deposition of PW-3(B.Srinivasa Murthy) Dt.6-1-09.
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Inspection report dt.17-02-2007.
Ex.A2. Covering letter dt.17-02-2007 of Senior Scientist to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool
Ex.A3. Field inspection report dt.02-01-2007.
Ex.A4. Seed purchase bill dt.12-06-2006.
Ex.A5. Adangal for the year 1416 for Pamulapadu Village, Survey No. 331E.
Ex.A6. Letter dt.18-11-2008 of selection grade secretary
Ex.X1 Office copy of final yield data particulars along with covering letter dt.26-03-2007.
Ex.X2 Representation letter dt.NIL. to District Collector, Kurnool
Ex.X3. Xerox copy of letter dt. 22-01-2007 by Joint Director of Agriculture Associate Director of Research ,RARS, Nandyal.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Brochure pertaining to Roshini Hybrid Varity.
Ex.B2. Literature pertaining to Chilly verities published by
Acharaya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra
Pradesh.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party
Copy was made ready on
Copy was dispatched on
