PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

Tuesday, 3^rd August 2010

 

1) G. Ramakrishna, S/o G. Lakshminarayana.

2) G. Ramasubbamma, W/o G. Lakshminarayana.

 

Vs.          

 

1)     Sri Sai Ram Seeds and Pesticides, Opp.  RTC Bus Stand,

2)     Siri Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 101, Sant Masion,

                                                                                                                                     

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 27-7-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for 1^st complainants and 2^nd complainant appeared as in person and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R1 and R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainants were agriculturists belonged to Chinna Mogalaypalli Village of C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur district owned and possessed an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in survey No. 235-A with irrigation facility with bore well.  The Opposite party No. 2 was manufactuer of SIRI – 333 Hybrid sunflower seeds and O.P. No. 1 was its dealer.   The complainants purchased six packets of SIRI – 333 Hybrid Sunflower seed from O.P. No. 1 under cash bill No. 3036 on 22-4-2008 and sowed in their lands. The complainants observed all agricultural practices and used manures and pesticides properly. The complainants expected good yield and took much care from the beginning. The land and water facility was good. But surprisingly due to inferior quality of the seed supplied by the Opposite parties the complainants had no proper yielding and the entire product was not fit for marketing and thus there was total failure of the crop.  The Opposite parties visited the land and admitted that the seed was not Hybrid variety and grown for diseases and accepted to pay compensation. Thus the defective seed was supplied by the Opposite parties which would amount to deficiency of service. The complainants estimated a loss of Rs. 1,40,000/-. They got issued a notice requesting the Opposite parties to pay Rs. s1,40,000/-. They did not respond. The crop was ready for harvest. Therefore, the complaint was filed for           Rs. 1,40,000/- towards loss with interest and costs against the Opposite parties. 

 

3.                The O.P. No. 2 filed a counter adopted by O.P. No. 1 with a memo. The Opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint in toto.   The complainant owned and possessed an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in survey No. 235-A with irrigation facility with a bore well was not correct and also denied the purchase of six packets of SIRI – 333 Hybird Sunflower seeds from O.P. No. 1 under cash bill No. 3036, dt. 22-4-2008 and sowed the seed in their lands.  It was not correct that the complainants observed all agricultural functions upto the mark. It was not correct that the complainants took much care from beginning and the water was good. It was not correct that the seed supplied by the Opposite parties was inferior in quality and not fit for any marketing and hence, there was total failure of crop.   It was not correct that the Opposite parties visited the land of the complainants and admitted that the seed was not Hybrid variety and accepted to pay compensation and the seed was defective in quality. It was not correct that the complainants sustained a loss of Rs. 1,40,000/-. It was not correct that the complainants got issued a notice and the Opposite parties did not care to pay compensation. It was true that the notice was issued and in which it was mentioned that the harvest of the crop would be conducted on 5-8-2008.    The complainants had not given a chance to the Opposite parties to visit the standing crop in their lands. The O.P. No. 1 was residing at Dharmavaram and O.P. No. 2 was situated in Secunderabad and the legal notice was dispatched from Anantapur and the complaint was filed before the Forum on 6-8-2008.   The notice was issued with bad intention. The requisition submitted to the Mandal Agricultural Officer to visit the land on 15-7-2008. The complainants never made any allegations that due to defect of the seed, they failed to get good yield. On 17-7-2008 the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Dharmavaram visited the land and inspected and came to conclusion that the crop was failed due to attack of disease and it was not commented about the quality of the seed. These facts have not been stated by the complainants in the complaint. 

 

4.                The Commissioner inspected the land on 9-8-2008 and observed that the crop was attacked with a diseases called “White Millie Bug”.   Therefore, the complainants had not taken any care to prevent the diseases for getting good yield. The complainants never purchased the seed of SIRI – 333 Hybird Sunflower seed from O.P. No. 1. Therefore, the complainants were not consumers. There was no scope of deficiency of service. It was not mentioned in the casue of action regarding jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The land and survey No. were different to the documents filed by the complainants.   The Opposite party was a reputed company produced good variety of seed and used to supply to various states in India and recognized by the Agricultural Department.   The O.P. No. 2 used to release the product into the market after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Hence, the seed in question was distributed throughout Andhra Pradesh and there was no complaint from any where. In Dharmavaram also number of ryots purchased Sunflower seed from the Opposite parties. As per investigation of scieitists in the labortoary the height of the crop must be 5 to 5 ½ feet.   In the present case it was only 3 feet. It was due to attack of pest. The complainants did not follow the guidelines of the company with regard to the Agricultural Operations, sowing of seed, watering, supply of manures etc.,  The ryots had not taken any care on the crop and failed to get any advice from the Agricultural Officer. Therefore, 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 A5 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. 84/2008. 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. Both the complainants filed a complaint and engaged an Advocate before the District Consumer Forum, Anantapur. After the case has been transferred to this Forum the 1^st complainant alone engaged an Advocate and filed Vakalath. But the 2^nd complainant was the mother of the 1^st complainant had not engaged Advocate and filed any Vakalath.  Therefore, the 2^nd complainant was treated as inperson. 

 

8.                Point No. 1& 2.  The 1^st complainant was the son of the 2^nd complainant. Both were residents of Peddamoglayapalli Village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District filed a case against Opposite parties 1 & 2.  The complainants alleged that they owned Ac. 5.00 cents dry land in survey No. 235-A of Chennakothapalli Village. They filed Ex. A2 a Photostat copy of pattadar passbook in the name of the 2^nd complainant namely G. Ramasubbamma, W/o Lakshminarayana were in an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in survey No. 236 and Ac. 7.34 cents in survey No. 235-A totaling Ac. 8.34 cents was noted. The pattadar passbook or any proof of evidence of ownership and possession of land by the 1^st complainant G. Ramakrishna, son of 2^nd complainant was not filed.   So the cultivable land belonged to the 2^nd complainant but not 1^st complainant to raise Sunflower crop. The 1^st complainant purchased six packets of SIRI – 333 variety of Sunflower seed withs batch No. 3100 at Rs. 550/- per packet, totaling Rs. 3,300/- on 22-4-2008 vide bill No. 3036 from O.P. No. 1 namely Sri Sai Ram Seeds and Pesticides, Dharmavaram. The cash bill was Ex. A1. The seed was purchased by the 1^st complainant and land belonged to the 2^nd complainant. The 2^nd complainant had not purchased the seed and 1^st complainant had not proved his landed property in which the crop was raised.   In case the 1^st complainant purchased the seed he would have filed a proof of his landed property in survey No. 235-A. It was not filed. In case the 2^nd complainant raised the crop in her land of Ac. 5.00 cents in survey No. 235-A the seed would have been purchased in her name.   But it was not purchased.  The complaint was silent in which season and month the crop was raised by the complainants. There was no proper proof how much quantity of pesicides and fertilizers have applied to the crop for getting good yield.   At what stage the crop was affected with diseases and what steps have been taken by the complainants to remove the pest from the growing crop. The complaint disclosed that after sowing the seed the crop was affected with pest and so they had a loss of Rs. 1,40,000/-. How much amount was spent for ploughting, seedling, transplantation, pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural expenses was silent. There was no proper explanation to arrive at Rs. 1,40,000/- as loss in an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents of land with calculation. The complaint was completely vague. 

 

9.                On 3-8-2008 the complainant got issued a notice to both Opposite parties.   The Photostat copy of the notice was Ex. A3. Ex. A2 was Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of the 2^nd complainant.  On 15-7-2008 the 1^st complainant submitted a representation to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chennakothapalli mandal that he sustained a loss of Rs. 1,40,000/- in sunflower crop. He did not mention that the loss was sustained on account of defective seeds supplied by O.P. No. 1 manufactured by O.P. No. 2.   The Photostat copy of representation was Ex. A5. on 22-7-2008 the Mandal Agricultural Officer, C.K. Palli Mandal inspected the field of Sri G. Lakshminarayana, S/o Rama Krishna and filed a report stating that the damage was occurred to an extent of 85% due to non filling of sunflower cobs and it was partially infected with “White Millie Bug” attack.   So it was not disclosed that the damage was due to defective seed.  The Mandal Agricultural Officer did not inspect the fields of the complainant No. 2. As discussed earlier there were no steps taken to control the disease.   The complainants did not mention how much yield they had on previous years and how much yield they got it in 2008.   The respondents also filed the Photostat copy of representation of 1^st complainant submitted to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chennakothapalli under Ex. B1 and Photostat copy of filed inspection report submitted by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Chennakothapalli Mandal under Ex. B2 and the Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of 2^nd complainant under Ex. B3 and the Photostat copy of notice issued by the complainants to Opposite parties 1 & 2 under Ex. B4. The same documents have been filed by the complainants also. 

 

10.              At the instance of the complainants an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A. No. 125/2008, who filed a report under Ex. C1 with photos.  The copy of the report was filed under Ex. B5 by the Opposite parties.  In 8^th paragraph of Ex. C1 Commissioner’s report the commissioner observed that with regard to seed setting of the crop, the sunflower was well, but there were no seeds in the center of the flower and some seeds were around the flower and the sunflower crop was ready for harvesting with height of the plant was 4 ½ to 5 feet. The complainants had not taken any steps to examine the Mandal Agricultural Officer, C.K. palli Mandal, Anantapur District. The Advocate commissioner observed “White Millie Bug”  pest that affected the sunflower crop and moreover it was observed that Ac. 3.75 cents out of Ac. 5.00 cents was harvested and remaining Ac. 1.25 cents was ready to harvest. Therefore, in these circumstances the complainants failed to prove that the crop was lost due to defective seeds supplied by the Opposite parties. The pests would be attacked due to climatic conditions also. When they had harvested Ac. 3.75 cents of land and to be harvested in Ac. 1.25 cents, the yield was not bad. In case the entire crop was failed due to defective seed, there was no yield from the crop raised in Ac. 5.00 cents land. Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

11.              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 3^rd August 2010

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

 

Ex. A1         Original bill issued by R1 in favour of 1^st complainant, dt. 22-4-08.

Ex. A2         P/c of pattadar passbook of 2^nd complainant. 

Ex. A3         P/c of legal notice from complainants advocate to Respondents,

Ex. A4         Field inspection report of MAO, C.K. Palli, dt. 22-7-2008.

Ex. A5         Letter from 1^st complainant to M.A.O., C.K. Palli, dt. 15-7-2008.

 

 

Ex. B1         P/c of letter from 1^st complainant to M.A.O., C.K. Palli, dt. 15-7-2008

Ex. B2        P/c of Field inspection report of MAO, C.K. Palli, dt. 22-7-2008.

Ex. B3        P/c of pattadar passbook of 2^nd complainant. 

Ex. B4        P/c of legal notice from complainants advocate to Respondents,

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.

 

 

1)     Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.

2)     Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Respondents.

 

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :