BETWEEN:

Jasthi Venkateswarlu,

S/o Rattaiah,

R/o Tsundurupalli,

Bapatla Mandal,   

Guntur district.                                                   …complainant

AND

1. State Commissioner and Director of Agriculture,

    Opp. L.B. Stadium, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad.

2. Joint Director of Agriculture,

    Collector Compound, Guntur.

3. Mandal Agricultural Officer,

    Agricultural Marketing Committee Compound,

    Karlapalem Road, Bapatla Mandal,

    Guntur district.

4. Managing Director,

    APSSDC Limited, Regd.Office 5-10-193,

    Hakabhavan, Near Assembly,

    Hyderabad-4.

5. Managing Director,

    M/s Mahendra Seeds, C/o H.No.1-8-326,

    Balasamudram, Hanumakonda,

    Warangal.                                                      …opposite parties

(Opposite parties 4 and 5 were added as per orders in IA 25/11
dated 16-06-11)

        This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 01-06-12               in the presence of Sri Ch. Radha Krishna, advocate for complainant and of Sri G. Rajeswara Rao, advocate for 5^th opposite party and opposite parties 1 to 4 remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,00,000/- as damages on account of supply of substandard and defective BPT seeds; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for costs. 

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant is having about Ac.15.00 of land in Tsundurupalli village of Bapatla Mandal.   The complainant used to raise paddy as first crop and realize 30 bags per acre.   The complainant purchased four bags of paddy seeds weighing 30 kgs each from the 3^rd opposite party @Rs.450/- per bag.   After purchasing the seeds the complainant sowed the seeds in nursery for germination.   After getting ready for transplantation the complainant transplanted the seedling in an extent of ten acres.   Three months after plantation the complainant came to know that inferior quality of BPT seedlings were being grown along with original BPT seedling.   Due to substandard or defective quality of BPT seeds the rats damaged the original BPT plants by cutting the crop.   The complainant brought the same to the notice of all the opposite parties regarding defective or substandard BPT seeds.    Defective or substandard quality of BPT crop was no way useful for cultivation and caused much loss to the original BPT.  The complainant estimated it @Rs.8,000/- or Rs.9,000/- per acre.   Due to supply of substandard or inferior quality of BPT seeds the complainant incurred loss of more than Rs.1,00,000/- and suffered mental agony.  The complainant estimated the mental agony at Rs.10,000/-.  The 4^th and 5^th opposite parties are responsible in supplying inferior and duplicate seeds.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.     The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed memo adopting the version of OP3 and the contents in brief are as follows:

        The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture of AP, Hyderabad allotted 57256 quintals of paddy seed through RC.No.SC(5)23/29 dated 23-05-09 and 27-05-09 for distribution as per guidelines.    The paddy seed supplied to Bapatla Mandal (BPT 5204) was produced by M/s Mahendra Seeds, Warangal.   The APSSDC Limited has positioned paddy seed at Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla for distribution to the farmers of Bapatla mandal.   After obtaining permits from the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Bapatla the complainant purchased six bags of BPT 5204 paddy seed from the Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla on subsidy.   On 11-11-09 office of the 3^rd opposite party received a written complaint from the complainant stating that the paddy seed BPT 5204 supplied through the Department contains rouges (other paddy variety seedlings) which caused much loss to him.   After receipt of complaint the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur addressed a letter to the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, LAM, Guntur with a request to depute the paddy breeder for crop inspection and to submit report.   The Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, LAM, Guntur immediately responded and wrote a letter to the Principal Scientist and Head, RICE Research Unit, Bapatla with instructions to inspect the paddy fields of the complainant and report compliance.   Due to unknown reasons the inspection report of the Scientist has not been received by the 3^rd opposite party.   Meanwhile the 3^rd opposite party received legal notice on 25-11-09 from the complainant’s counsel stating that complainant incurred loss of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per acre due to purchase of spurious BPT 5204 paddy seed from the department.   The paddy seed has been distributed in Bapatla Mandal on subsidy.   Though there are some rouges in the field of complainant the yield was on par with the other farmers of the village who got 28 to 30 quintals of yield per acre.   There were no complaints from other farmers except the complainant.   M/s Mahendra Seeds, Warangal is responsible for supply of quality of seed.    The role of Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, AP, Hyderabad and Joint Director of Agriculture is confined to only allocation of required quantity of seed to the District and Mandals.   The Mandal Agriculture Officer, will issue permits to the farmers as per eligibility.   The seed producer gives all the specifications of the seed on a tag.    The seed producers may supply certified seed/truthful labeled seed.   Every bag of seed supplied by the producers provided which contains the name of the producer and required specifications of the seed namely physical purity, genetic purity, germination, moisture etc.   It is the responsibility of the producer to maintain such quality of parameters of the seed and supply such seed to the farming community to give a good crop.   The complaint therefore be dismissed against opposite parties 1 to 3.

4.   The 4^th opposite party remained exparte.

5.  The contention of the 5^th opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          On 12-06-09 the A.P. Seeds, Warangal purchased 567 bags of paddy seeds for tests.   After confirmation of genuinity only the                         AP State Seeds Corporation made payment of 1^st installment on 09-07-09, after satisfying that there was no complaint from farmers.  Final payment was made to the 5^th opposite party on 21-10-09.   The 5^th opposite party if supplied any inferior and duplicate seeds to                 AP Seeds there was every possibility to trace the same during tests.   The 5^th opposite party did not receive any complaint from the Tsundurupalli village or any other village from Bapatla Mandal.  The  5^th opposite party never supplied the seed other than weighing the bags not more than 30 kgs.  As per complaint it can be noticed that the complainant used 50 kgs bags and 100 kgs bags.   So those bags might have purchased from other suppliers.   There must be bad maintenance by the complainant in using the paddy seed or might have purchased from other suppliers.   The complaint therefore be dismissed against the 5^th opposite party.

6.     Exs.A-1 to A-42 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on behalf of complainant and 5^th opposite party respectively.      

7.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of                       opposite parties?

        2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?

        3. To what relief?

8.  POINT No.1:-   The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 to 3 sold seeds to him under Exs.A-13 to A-17 with truthful labels Exs.A-18 to A-25.   The complainant added the opposite parties  4 and 5 as parties to the complaint as per orders in IA 25 of 2011 dated 25-06-11.   The order passed in IA 25 of 2011 became final. 

9.     Under the original of Exs.A-13 to A-17 the complainant purchased 40kgs, 50kgs, 50kgs, 60kgs, and 70 kgs respectively.   Exs.A-18 to A-25 truth labels revealed that the 5^th opposite party  packed BPT 5204 in bags containing 30 kgs only.   Exs.A-18 to A-25 fortified the contention of the 5^th opposite party that it supplied BPT 5204 to the opposite parties 1 to 3 in bags weighing 30 kgs only.   It is not the case of the complainant that opposite parties 1 to 3 sold BPT 5204 under Exs.A-13 to A-17 in loose also.  The complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant was silent as to how the complainant purchased BPT 5204 weighing more than 30 kgs of each bag said to have been supplied by OP5.   Different companies might pack seeds in different quantities per bag as rightly contended by 5^th opposite party.  Under those circumstances, we infer that Exs.A-18 to A-25 did not relate to Ex.A-13 to A-17.

10.   The complainant failed to add/implead the proper manufacturer/producer of BPT 5204 to the complaint.   It can therefore be said that the 5^th opposite party is not the producer of the seeds covered by Exs.A-13 to A-17.  

11.   Along with their version the opposite parties 1 to 3 filed copy of the letter dated 03-11-09 addressed by Mandal Agricultural Officer to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bapatla.   The observations made by the Mandal Agricultural Officer in her letter dated 03-11-09 are extracted below for better appreciation:

“1. During time of inspection (i.e., on the day of inspection) the crop is at 100% flowering stage.

          2. There is no clear distinguistion between off types and BPT                         5204           crop plants.

          3. With regard to rat damage, it is generally observed that rat                  damage severity is more in flowering stage even in pure                      crop.

        Finally I conclude that considerable yield loss may not be expected, and the opinion of the scientist is required in this aspect”.

12.   Considering Exs.A-13 to A-17 and A-18 to A-25 we opine that the complainant has not purchased BPT 5204 manufactured by 5^th opposite party alone.  Under those circumstances, we opine that it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the seeds produced by 5^th opposite party alone are substandard.

13.   In view of the letter extracted supra and Exs.A-13 to A-25 we opine that the complainant miserably failed in establishing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

14.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and therefore we answer this point against the complainant.

15.   POINT NO.3:-  In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 4^th  day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 5^th opposite party :  

                                                                                           PRESIDENT