Counsel for Opposite Parties     : Present.(O.P.1)

 

1.         At this stage we feel it to mention the previous Chequered History of this case. Originally this case was filed by the complainant in May -2001. After

 

completion of the due enquiry, this forum dismissed the complaint on 13.08.2004. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred appeal before Honourable A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. On merits the learned State Commission allowed the appeal, directing the Respondents/Opp.Parties No.2 and 3 to pay Rs.8,000/- per acre for 2 acres i.e., acres 2.00 X Rs.8,000/- = Rs.16,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization, together with cost of the seed i.e., Rs.360/- X 2 bags = Rs.720/- and costs of Rs.300/-. Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the complaint and appeal against respondents/Opp.Parties No.1 without costs.

2.         As against this order, respondents/Opp.Party No.2 preferred Revision before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. After due enquiry Honourable National Forum observed: “Since the report (letter dated 24.03.2004) relied upon by the State Commission in allowing the complaint is neither a valid report of an Expert nor it relates to the respondents/complainants, and in the absence of any evidence to prove their case, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, which is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to allow the parties to lead the evidence in respect of their respective contentions, including the expert evidence, so as to enable the District Forum to pass the order as per law” and since this is old matter the District Forum is directed to dispose of the case within 6 months from the passing of this order. 

 

1.         The complainant is an agriculturists, He is having lands of his own.

Sy.No.45/5 - extent Ac.6-00 guntas.   

Complainant is cultivating above lands since many years. He is having vast experience in growing and raising all types of crops, especially the cotton crop. The Opp.Party No.1, is the dealer of RCH-2 variety of cotton seed, being

 

produced and marketed by Opp.Parties No.2 and 3. All the Opp.Parties have widely publicized above variety of seed through various ways and means. Having lured by said advertisement the complainant got purchased RCH-2 variety of cotton seed from the shop of Opp.Party No.1 under bill No.4239, Dt:08.06.2000 for Rs.720/- towards 2 bags @ Rs.360/- each.

2.          The complainant has sown the seed purchased under above bill in his agricultural lands shown above over an area of 2-00 acres of land and took all normal crop management practices and plant protection measures from time to time as and when needed and as suggested by the Opp.Parties and the agricultural authorities. The complainant also applied fertilizers and sprayed pesticides from time to time and incurred huge expenditure on them.   The duration of crop is 180 days. After completion of prescribed period, the germination and growth of plants was normal, but there was no boll formation. Complainant took several measures as suggested by the Opp.Parties and the concerned agricultural authorities but inspite of the same there was no progress in fall-out of buds and hence complainant sustained huge crop loss. 

3.          It is stated that the complainant raised the same variety of seed in the previous season and got good yield. The complainant incurred Rs.7,000/- per acre towards labor charges: purchase of seed : Purchase of fertilizers and pesticides and other incidental charges.   The market value of one quintal of cotton is Rs.2300/-. Hence, complainant sustained loss of Rs.46,000/- towards crop apart from incidental charges incurred on agricultural operations. The complainant attributed that the acts of Opp.Parties amounts to deficiency in service.

Hence the complainant prayed this forum to direct the Opp.Parties

 

 

 

4.         The Opp.Party No.1 contested the case and filed counter. The gist of the counter is nothing but denying the averments made in the complaint and stated that these complaint was filed with malafide   intention to degrade the name of Opp.Party in the business circle.    The Opp.Party No.1 is neither manufacturer nor producer of the cotton seed, as such he is not liable for payment of any compensation. There is no cause of action to file the cases against Opp.Party No.1. The seed sold by them did not suffer any deficiency, but only quality seeds were supplied to the complainants. The averments in the complaints are false, devoid of merits and they are filed to harass the Opp.Parties for wrongful gains, and opp.Party No.1 prayed to dismiss the case.

5.         The Opp.Parties No.2 and 3 herein i.e., Rasi Seeds Company Limited and J.K.Agri Genetics are the same parties in all cases. The gist of counters is as follows: The Opp.Parties No.2 and 3 mainly stated in their counters that they have supplied the good variety of seed, there is no defect in the seeds. The complainant did not take proper care in cultivating his lands, and not deposited the seed for sending the same to the laboratory test. The complaint is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the case.

 

 

 

6.         The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit, reiterating the facts of complaint and prayed to allow the complaint.

7.         On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. On behalf of Opp.Parties Ex.B1 to B4 are marked.

8.         Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for?

9.         The learned Advocate for complainant submitted written arguments almost reiterating the contents of complaint and also relied on some reported cases. To avoid repetition we will discuss the same while appreciating the evidence on record. 

The learned Advocate for complainant further submitted that the original documents that were not filed before the District Consumer Forum, were filed in First Appeal before A.P. State Commission and they prayed to allow the petition.

10.       On the other hand the learned Advocate for Opp.Parties submitted written arguments. The relevant contention are as follows:

The complainant has to prove the sowing of RCH-2 cotton seed in their field the yield from the seed sown, the climatic condition and practice and management adopted by the complainant and failure of crop due to defective seed by examining the expert. The complainant relied upon the letter of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Adilabad dt:24.03.2004. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble National Commission held that the aforesaid letter is not expert report. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that in view of decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Vs.Sadhu & another (Civil Appeal No.1308/2005) the need for having expert report is paramount in order to decide the case as per law as well as the procedure laid down under Sec-13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Opp.Party No.2 & 3 relied upon 2005 (1) ALD (Cons) 11 (NC).

 The Opp.Party further relied on a decision reported in 1999(3) ALD CR 203 wherein their Lordships held

 

 

11.       The main contention of the Opp.Parties is that the letter dt:24.03.2004 is not expert report. According to learned Advocate for complainant, they did not say that Ex.A4 (letter dt:24.03.2004) is an expert report and it came in to existence under the following circumstances. Originally local agriculturist along with agricultural scientist inspected (12 cases) i.e., sample agriculture fields in 3 villages in which similar seeds were purchased and sown and available crop and gave their expert opinion under Ex.A3. According to complainant this will represent all the cotton fields in general and asking report for each field is not possible and desirable. It is only when this forum asked for report. In the lands which were not inspected, the Agriculture Officer mentioned it is not possible to submit reports on par with Ex.A3 at this belated period i.e, about 4 years after the actual date of cause of the action. Thus according to complainant Ex.A3 represents the actual situation that existed during the crop year of relevant date and that is sufficient compliance.

 

12.       In view of the above circumstances it is to be determined whether there is a material circumstance to show that ryots shown JK 2 seeds in their fields, and whether their ryots agitated on the ground that seeds were defective? To prove

 

these aspects the complainant relied on the news published in the daily news papers like Eenadu.

13.       The news items are as follows:          

 

 

 

 

The matter written under the above headings that cotton crops was raised at about 30 thousand acres generally, they give yield in the month of November but in this case the cotton crop did not bear fruits even in January. So the farmers are in troubles in support of this they filed photographs when the agricultural officers inspected the crop. Thus from the above it can be safely said that cotton crop failed in an extent of about 30 thousand acres and the same thing was brought to notice of all concerned.

14.       During the course of arguments the learned advocate for Opp.Parties submitted that original pahanis were not filed before the District Forum and the allegations of the complainants cannot be believed. There is no substance in this contention, as the original pahanis were filed at the first appeal before Hon’ble State Commission.

15.       The Opp.Parties basing on the evidence of Dr.K.V.Krishna Rao, contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the farmers have followed the management practices specifically plant protection and defects in setting of balls in cotton crop. The learned advocate for complainant replied that the some farmers raising cotton crop since many years and they are getting considerable yield every year and generally they follow some process and for the

 

sake of compensation they do not discontinue the settled management practices. Incidentally it is further argued the same farmer utilized Brahma seeds in the same season and they reaped bumper yield.   So it can be safely said that the complainant followed proper management practices.  

16.       We feel there is any amount of substance in the contention of complainants.

 

17.              From the above discussion and circumstances on record, the following points can safely be summarized.

a.     The complainants are agriculturist, they are cultivating cotton crop since many years and Adilabad is one of the biggest cotton market in South India.

b.     The fact that complainant’s purchased JK-2 Seeds (RCH-2) from Opp.Parties and cultivated in the relevant year of 2000-2001 is not disputed. There was no complaints on other varieties and they reaped good yield in the same year and in the similar conditions.

c.      The JK-2/Rasi seeds did not give even normal yield in the year 2001. The cotton farmers complained the same to all concerned in the relevant year. The print media gave wide publicity and the

 

 

concerned Marketing Executive visited and promised to       compensate the loss to farmers with in permissible limits.

d.     The concerned Agricultural Scientists categorically said, inspecting each bit of cotton field is not practicable and the report under Ex.A3   represents the fate of farmers, that the cultivated JK – 2 seeds/RCH-2 in the relevant year 2000-2001. So there is no justification for Opp.Parties to put up a defense much against their version in the news papers (                                                                                                                                                             

e. Under the above circumstances the above decision I (2008) CPJ 317 (NC) will apply to this case and the comment of Opp.Parties that Ex.A4 is not a scientist report is of no consequence. The liability of Opp.Parties are concerned, we disallow the claim against Opp.Party No.1 and hold that Opp.Party No. 2 & 3, are liable to pay the compensation.

f.        We hold that normal yield is 6 quintals per acre. The farmers must have realized 2 quintals on average and they deserve to be compensated at the rate of 4 quintals of cotton per acre. We Fix Rs.2000/- per quintal.   Considering all circumstances on record, we hold that the complainants are entitled for Rs.8,000/- per acre. In the circumstances we disallow the claim of costs and interest.

 

18.       In the result the petition is allowed. The Opp.Parties No.2 & 3 are directed to calculate and pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- per acre to the complainants. The amount payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount carries interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.06.2008 on wards, till the date of realization.