BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI M.CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 50 OF 2015
Between:
Bollam Saidulu S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Jajireddygudem Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District,
Pin: 508224.
…COMPLAINANT.
AND
- Surya Agro Traders, H.No.1-2-88/28, Market Yard,
Suryapet-508213. Represented by its Proprietor
Sri Uppala Ravi.
- Siddardha Seeds, 2/4, Arandalpet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh,
Pin: 522002. Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on this day, i.e. 13/09/2017 in the presence of Sri N.Bheemarjun Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri B.Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint is filed by Sri Bollam Saidulu to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.54,340/- towards loss of crop along with interest of Rs.24% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs of litigation.
Contd…2
-2-
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
It is the say of the Complainant that he had purchased two packets of green gram seeds, from the Opposite Party No.1, weighing 4 Kgs. each by paying a sum of Rs.1,160/-, vide receipt No.2147, dated 13/06/2015.
3. He further says that, on 17/06/2015 the Complainant had sowed the above seeds in 2 acres of land, owned by him in Sy.No.33 and 294 at Jajireddygudem Village. After intra cultivation the plants were grown very well, but the yielding was nil.
4. On noticing the same, the Complainant had approached the Agriculture Officer, Arvapally, who visited the crop site on 09/09/2015 and gave his report, vide Letter No.MAO/ARP/C/01, dated 11/09/2015, in which the Agriculture Officer had observed that each plant is having 8 to 10 pods only, per square meter.
5. Basing on the report of the Agriculture Officer, the Complainant had sent a notice, dated 16/09/2015 to the Opposite Party No.1 claiming compensation, the Opposite Party No.1 gave reply, dated 22/09/2015, stating that the matter will be reported to the Opposite Party No.2, and there shall be no compensation payable. The Complainant further says that, he had issued a notice to the Opposite Party No.2 on 06/10/2015, claiming compensation towards loss of the crop, and did not get any reply.
6. As the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not come forward to compensate for loss of the crop, the Complainant filed this complaint.
Contd…3
-3-
7. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written version says that, the Complainant had sowed the seeds in the form of throwing by hand, for which the Complainant should have purchased 16 Kgs. (4 Packets) of seeds for two acres, but the Complainant had purchased only 8 Kgs. Which are insufficient for sowing in two acres. They further says that the Complainant should have informed them at the stage of flowering and budding.
8. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further says that, number of farmers, surrounding the village of the Complainant had purchased the same variety of seeds, as purchased by the Complainant, no farmer came forward to complain, regarding the defect of the seeds.
9. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further says that the report given by the Agriculture Officer (A.O.), noticed that, the plants are effected by the ‘maruka machala purugu’, for that the Complainant had not taken proper care to eradicate them. The Complainant ought to have sprayed 5 to 6 times pesticides namely; Nuvaan and Korijan 400 ml. and 60 ml. respectively per acre which costs Rs.2,000/- per spray, but the Complainant had shown under pesticides expenditure only Rs.480/- for 2 Acres, showing that the Complainant had not taken necessary steps, to control the insects.
10. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further says that, the Complainant should have informed them within 40 to 45 days after sowing the seeds, at the stage of flowering and budding, but he had
Contd…4
-4-
informed the Agriculture Officer after 81 days and to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 after 131 days, i.e. after completion of the crop life. The above acts of the Complainant shows that the complaint is fabricated and false. Hence, this complaint may be dismissed on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
11. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed their written version and did not file affidavit and documents.
12. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of
the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 or not
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claims he
made in his complaint?
3) If so, to what extent?
13. PONT No.1:
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased two packets of green gram seeds, weighing 4 Kgs. each, for a sum of Rs.1,160/- with Lot No.1030, vide receipt No.2147 (Ex.A-1), dated 13/06/2015 from the Opposite Party No.1. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had sowed the seeds in 2 acres which is owned by him in Survey Nos.33 and 294 at Jajireddygudem Village on 17/06/2015 as stated by the Complainant.
14. It is also not in dispute that after noticing less yield by the Complainant, he had approached the Agriculture Officer, Arvapally and
Contd…5
-5-
made a complaint, who visited the said fields on 09/09/2015 and issued a detailed Inspection Report (Ex.A-2), vide Letter No.MAO/ARP/C/01, dated 11/09/2015. The Agriculture Officer reported that he had visited the field of the Complainant, situated at Jajireddygudem Village in Survey Nos.33 and 294 on 09/09/2015. He also stated that the Complainant had sowed the seeds by way of throwing by hand and the crop age was of 75 to 80 days. In his report, he further says that the crop was well grown and the pods at the tip of the plants were 7 to 8 in bunches per sq.meter. He further says that per plant there are 8 to 10 pods in average and the crop was effected by “maruka machala purugu” here and there.
15. It is also not in dispute that after receiving the report from the Agriculture Officer, the Complainant had intimated the same and claimed compensation from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, vide Ex.A-3, dated 06/10/2015 and A-5, dated 16/09/2015. After receiving the claim from the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 gave reply to the Complainant vide Ex.A-6, dated 22/09/2015. In the said reply by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 stated that the seed LGG 460 was developed by Lam Farm University and marketed by Siddhartha Seeds, Guntur. The Opposite Party No.1 says that, the said seeds were not of hybrid variety nor a private variety, he further says that if the seeds were defective, the plants shall not grow healthy as stated by the Agriculture Officer, due to less rain fall for some time, and heavy rains for some time, the crop has developed leafy branches which had flowering and budding at the tips.
Contd…6
-6-
The Opposite Party No.1 further says that the Complainant did not take proper care regarding the insect control, due to above said reasons, there was no proper yielding in the crop, he also further says that some conditions were laid down on the back side of the purchase receipt which had to be followed.
16. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 argued that the crop was effected by “maruka machala purugu” as stated by the Agriculture Officer in his report, which is to be controlled by way of spraying Nuvaan and Korijan 400 ml. and 60 ml. respectively per acre, which costs of Rs.2,000/- per spray and that should be continued for 5 to 6 times to eradicate the insects from the said field. But, the Complainant had shown an expenditure of Rs.440/- only per 2 acres, showing that the Complainant had not taken sufficient steps for controlling the insects.
17. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had incurred the following expenditure, for cultivating the green gram seeds in 2 acres as stated in his complaint, and in the demand notice sent to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
a) Ploughing 2 X 2400 = Rs.4,800/-
b) Labour for pouring seeds 2 X 250 = Rs.500/-.
c) Insecticides 2X 240 = Rs.480/-.
d) Pouring Insecticides 2 X 200 = Rs.400/-.
e) For seeds 2 X 4 Kgs = Rs.1,160/-.
f) For losed craft quintals 6 X 7,500/- = Rs.45,000/-.
g) Pesticides 2000 = Rs.2,000/-
____________
Total : Rs.54,340/-
____________
Contd…7
-7-
18. As it is seen from the recorded evidence and written version of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, they have specifically stated that the green gram seeds sold to the Complainant, is not of any variety, i.e. the seeds are not of Hybrid variety nor Private variety in Ex.A-6. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further stated that if the crop is effected by “maruka Machala purugu” the said insects are to be controlled by way of spraying Nuvaan and Korijan 400 ml. and 60 ml. respectively per acre, which incurs an expenditure of Rs.2,000/- per spray and the same should be repeated 5 to 6 times in the life span of the crop. The said information, which are not mentioned in the sale receipt, nor on the packets of the seeds nor in writing, proved that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are negligent in providing services to the Complainant, proving that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
19. POINTS No.2 & 3:
As accepted by the Opposite Party No.1, in his reply dated 22/09/2015 to the notice issued by the Complainant, in which the Opposite Party No.1 says that, the seeds were developed by Lam Farm University and marketed by Siddhartha Seeds, which has no specification as to what variety the seeds belongs, i.e. it is not a Hybrid variety nor Private variety, which was not intimated to the Complainant at the time of purchasing seeds. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not specify anywhere on the seed packets, nor on the receipt as argued by the Complainant, that what type of insect controls, are to be used by the Complainant for “maruka machala
Contd…8
-8-
purugu”. As stated by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that an expenditure of Rs.2,000/- per acre should have been incurred by the Complainant for single spray and that is to be continued for 5 to 6 sprays in the crop period which is not proved by the documentary evidence, for the above said reasons the Complainant is entitled for Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only), as stated by the Complainant in his complaint, that he lost 6 quintals of crop (per quintal Rs.7,500/-) and he is not entitled for the other expenditure, because the Complainant would have got the above mentioned amount by selling the crop which includes all expenditure he spent on the crop, as shown in his complaint.
20. Further the Complainant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only), for the reasons that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not intimate the Complainant what variety of seeds he is sowing, how much expenditure he is going to incur and also what is the expected yield, the Complainant is going to get from the crop.
In the result, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit in this Forum jointly and severally a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) towards crop loss, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization
Contd..9
-9-
with costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only). Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 25th day of September, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opp.Parties No.1 & 2:
Affidavit of the Complainant. None.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.13/06/2015 Original Receipt for Rs.1,160/-,
issued by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-2 Dt.11/09/2015 Original opinion of the Mandal Agricultural
Officer, Jajireddygudem (Arvapally) Mandal.
Ex.A-3 Dt.06/10/2015 Original Notice, issued by the Complainant
to the Opposite Party No.2 along with
postal receipt.
Ex.A-4 Dt.06/10/2015 Track Record of the Registered Letter,
issued by the Postal Department.
Ex.A-5 Dt.16/09/2015 Original Notice, issued by the Complainant
to the Opposite Party No.1 along with
postal receipt.
Ex.A-6 Dt.22/09/2015 Original Reply Notice, issued by the
Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex.A-7 Dt. Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of the
Complainant.
Contd…10
-10-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri N.Bheemarjun Reddy,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri B.Narsimha Rao,
Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.
