New Delhi.                                               -        Opposite parties   

    (Govt.Pleader)                                     

O R D E R

            By  Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainants are  basically agriculturist and living exclusively with the income derived from the agriculture.  The complainant  purchased paddy seeds namely UMA from the 1^st opposite party through the respective Secretaries of the various Padasekharasamithi under Democratic Planning Scheme.   Normally there are double crop paddy cultivation  in each and every year since  long back.  After 130 days of sowing  and when the paddy seeds are suppose to be ready for cultivation, the complainants happen to see that instead of UMA Paddy, there is total admixture  of paddy seeds with some other brand.  Even then, the crucial  aspect in this regard is  that when the minority of UMA Paddy were ready for cultivation, the duplicate mixture of paddy seeds were seems to be just grown up only.  Complainants were unable to cultivate their paddy and hence irreparable loss and injury  were caused to them.  If the complainants were waiting for 30 to 40 days with a view to get the duplicate paddy seeds ready for cultivation, the minority  UMA paddy  will be destroyed as time barred.  On the other hand, it is not possible to bring the cultivating machine for one paddy field alone as it is causing a huge amount as rent. Hence there is a practice of bringing the said machine by a mass of agriculturist  together.  The complainants were not able to cultivate the paddy for the 1^st crop and hence the next crop become collapsed as the timely sowing was not done coupled with the lack of timely water source and the entire schedule of double crop become collapsed.  The complainants purchased the paddy seeds namely UMA from 1^st opposite party, who got from 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties 3 to 5 and supplemental opposite parties 7,8 & 10 are officers and subordinate of 1^st opposite party.  The supplemental 9^th opposite party is the parent officer of 2^nd opposite party.  Due to the act of opposite parties 1 to 10 the complainants livelihood became miserable.  The act of opposite parties supplying bad quality paddy seeds without testing the quality in an authorized Laboratory and also their lack of interest in taking necessary action in this regard inspite of several complaints is clearly amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainants pray for an order directing the opposite parties to

1.Pay Rs.25,000/- per one acre as compensation for loss of 1^st crop

2.Pay Rs.2500/- for compensation to each complainant for harvesting

   the 1^st crop

3.Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for not raising the 2^nd crop.

4.Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony  

5. Cost of the proceedings to each complainants.

The opposite parties 1,3,4,5  and supplemental opposite parties 7,8,10 are appeared through Govt.Pleader and opposite parties 1,3,4,5 & 9 filed version stating the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable and it is experimental.  The opposite parties admits the distribution of paddy seeds by the 2^nd opposite party and the rest of the matters were denied.  The complainants should put to strict proof with regard to the fact that they were unable to cultivate the paddy and thereby caused mental agony and financial hardships.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and there is no liability to opposite parties 1,3,4 & 5 to pay any amount in any manner as demanded in the compliant.  The alleged paddy seeds were distributed with the Tag of 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties as a proof of testing in the Govt.authorized seed laboratories.  Besides that 90% of the seeds were seems to be normal seeds.  On 13/10/2008 as per the complaint received by the 1^st opposite party the paddy fields were inspected and the admixture of duplicate paddy seeds with UMA paddy seeds were seen, but at that time they were unable to find out its source.  The same has been informed by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd and 5^th opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1,3,4,5 did not store the paddy seeds and hence there is no act in any manner on the part of these opposite parties which will cause the admixture of duplicate paddy seeds with the UMA paddy.  Hence the opposite parties 1,3,4,5 are not liable to make good the loss caused to the complainants.  Hence the complaint dismissed with cost.

The 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties filed the version stating the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts of the case. The complainants are not consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The National Seeds Corporation Ltd. used to procure paddy seed from registered seed growers and after testing their quality in the concerned  state seed testing laboratory and central seed testing laboratory, approved by Central Seed Certification Board to meet minimum seed  certification standard and they will be supplied to Krishi Bhavans.  The National Seeds Corporation Ltd. has procured paddy seed UMA from various agriculturists    bearing lot No.02-031-16-CHN3-20.  The total procurement in this lot No. is 141 quintals.  Out of this, 65.70 quintals was supplied to the Krishi Bhavan on 22/5/2008.  The total seed alleged to have purchased by the complainants are 15.33 quintals.  There is no complaint from the rest of the seed purchased by other farmers.  More over National Seeds Corporation Ltd. has not procured any paddy seed having duration more than 130 days in Palakkad and so the question of admixture of paddy seed UMA does not arise.  The admixture  if any can only be due to previous crops raised  by the complainants in their paddy field or improper cultivation practices or improper field preparation in paddy field.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 2 & 9.  Hence 2^nd & 9^th opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Opposite party 10 filed adopting version and affidavit stating  that adopting all the contentions raised by the opposite parties 2 and 9.  No version filed by the  6^th Opposite party.

Complainants filed affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A18 marked on the side of the complainants.  The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 for and on behalf of other complainants.  Opposite parties 2,9 & 10 filed affidavit and documents.  Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of opposite parties 2 & 9.  Opposite parties 2 was examined as DW1.  The rest of the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether the complainants are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act ?

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

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainants ?

Issue I

       Complainants stated that they had  purchased seeds for a consideration of Rs.8/ per kg. from the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties stated that no evidence on record to show that they have either purchased the seed or paid any amount to the opposite parties.  At the time of cross examination of 1^st complainant deposed that at the time of purchase of seeds the 1^st opposite party not given the receipt.  The 1^st opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that the seeds given to complainants without cost.  In Ext.A15 series the tag mentioned that MRP Rs.600/- So the complainants are consumers as defined in Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence the 1^st issue answered in favour of complainants.

Issue No. II & III

Admittedly complainants purchased seed from 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd & 9^th opposite parties stated that after procuring the seed  their quality is tested in the Central and State laboratories and found to be the standard. Ext.B1 is the seed analysis report obtained from quality control laboratory and Ext.B2 is the seed testing report obtained from the State Seed Testing Laboratory.  In Ext.B1  shows that the quality of the seed is 99.8% and Ext.B2 shows that the quality of seed as 98%.  Both these report stated that the seed supplied to 1^st opposite party is of good quality.  At the time of cross examination of 2^nd opposite party deposed that he knows the fact that the complainants have purchased the subject matter of the paddy seeds and the same was given to Krishi Bhavan, Kollengode by the 2^nd opposite party.  In Ext.B1 shows date of test is 21/6/2008.  Ext.B2 date of test on 7/6/08.  In Ext.A16 1^st opposite party certified that inspected the paddy fields of complainants and 3/4^th of the paddy fields will be destroyed due to the admixture of paddy.  In Ext.A17 series letters dtd 15/10/08, 23/10/08 and 28/10/08 by the 1^st opposite party stated that the entire paddy field of complainants are destroyed due to the admixture of the paddy seed UMA issued by the National Seed Corporation and demanded the 2^nd opposite party to inspect the paddy fields and give compensation to all complainants.  Due to the admixture of seed UMA with other brand the entire paddy cultivation of 50.13 acres of paddy lands belongs to the complainants were collapsed and they were not able to cultivate the double crop. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite party 2 and 9.  In Ext.A13 series and Ext.A14 series showing the loss caused to the complainants and inspected the opposite parties in the paddy fields of the complainants.  But the opposite parties not verified whether the loss caused to improper cultivation practices or previous crops raised in the field.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to inspect the fields of complainants and filed report. The 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties stated that it is impossible to ascertain the owner of land by means of Ext.A13 series – photographs.  In Ext.A9 series 1^st opposite party mentioned that “hben t]mbn ]cntim[n¨Xn c­pw aq¶pw Xc¯nepÅ IeÀ¸pIÄ ImWpIbp­mbn.  Ipsd IXncpIÄ aqs¸¯n. NneXv ASn¡W]cphw. IXnÀh¶p XpS§p¶ ]cphw.  Da s\ÂIrjn sNbvXXnemWv IqSpXÂ.  Ht¶m ct­m Irjn¡mcsâ hbenemsW¦n ap³hÀj¯nÂ/ kokWn D]tbmKn¨ hn¯msW¶v kwibn¡mw.  F¶m Da D]tbmKn¨ `qcn`mKw IÀjIcnepw C¯c¯nepÅ IeÀ¸pIÄ ImWp¶p­v.” In Ext.A10, 1^st opposite party stated that ]mStiJckanXnIfnse Da s\ÂIrjn hben hfscb[nIw IeÀ¸v ImWp¶p.  ]cmXnbn ]dbp¶ Imcy§Ä apgph³ icnbmsW¶v ]cntim[\bn t_m²ys¸«ncn¡p¶p. No contradictory evidence produced by 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties.  No affidavit filed by 1^st opposite party.   In Ext.B1  and Ext.B2 mentioned  O.D.V. by No.0.2% and other items 2%. DW1 deposed that 0.2% is within the limit as per the international standard.  The 10^th  opposite party filed affidavit stating that adopting the contentions of 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties. Other opposite parties not filed any documents or affidavits. Complainants are basically agriculturist and living exclusively with the income derived from the agriculture.  In Ext.A15 series tag as Lot No.02-031-16 CHN3-20.  In Ext.B2 report shows that the alleged test was conducted on 21/6/2008 only.  In Ext.A15 series shows date of test on May 2008 and valid upto January 2009.  There is contradiction in Ext.A15 series and Ext.B1 regarding to the date of test.  At the time of  cross examination 1^st complainant deposed that “ap¼v sNbvX IrjnbpsS hn¯v apf¨v h¶ IeÀ¸msW¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  Ggv Nmev ]q«nbXn\v tijamWv hn¯nSp¶Xv.”  No contradictory evidence was produced by opposite parties.  In Ext.A14 series the news in Malayala Manorama daily  on October and November 2008 shows the admixture of Paddy fields of complainants.  No evidence produced by the 2nd and 9^th  opposite parties to prove that inspection was conducted and filed report.  In Ext.A1 and A2 letter dated 3/10/2008 the Secretary of the Panankavu Padasekhara Samithi and the Secretary  of the Palakkode Padasekhara Samithi informed the admixture of Paddy fields  to the 1^st opposite party.  But the opposite parties not taken any action to prove the admixture of paddy fields.  The opposite parties not produced evidence to show the reason for admixture of paddy fields.  The 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties stated that admixture of paddy fields due to improper cultivation practices or previous crops raised in the paddy fields.  No documentary  evidence produced by the 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties to prove that admixture happened due to improper cultivation practices or previous crops raised in the field.  Ext.A3 to Ext.A8, it is evident that the seeds are distributed by the State Govt. Ext.A3 is the statement regarding the distribution statement of paddy seed UMA to farmers by Padasekhara Samithies. The 2^nd and 9^th opposite parties argued that the total quantity supplied to the 1^st opposite party is 65.07 quintals and the total seed alleged to have purchased by the complainants are 15.33 quintals.  In Ext.B2 is the seed testing report shows that the quality of seed as 98% and date of test was 7/6/2008.  In the present case there was no dispute regarding the quality of seeds.  The dispute was only in the admixture of seeds.  The allegation of complainants that after 130 days of sowing they found that there is admixture of seed.  The documents through which the complainants attempted to prove admixture in Ext.A9 series, Ext.A13 series and Ext.A14 series.  No contradictory evidence was produced by opposite parties.  The complainants stated that Rs.25,000/- for damages  per acre for the loss of first crop.  No evidence was produced by the complainants  to prove that Rs.25,000/- for damages per acre.  No evidence is adduced by the complainants to prove the expense for harvesting an acre of paddy field and damages for not raising the 2^nd crop.  In the nature and circumstances of the case we considered that the complainants sustained loss due to the admixture of seed in the rate of 5,000/- per acre.  The opposite parties not taken steps to prove that seed supplied are upto standard and no admixture. 

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  In the result the complaint is allowed.

We direct  the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- for damages per one acre for the loss of crop and pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony to each complainants and pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainants.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of  October 2011.

  Sd/-

Seena.H

President

  Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –Letter sent by 1^st complainant to 1^st opposite party dated 3/10/08

Ext.A2 – Letter sent by 7 th  complainant to 1^st opposite party dated 3/10/08

Ext.A3 – Distribution statement of UMA seed received from NSC for 2008-09

Ext.A4 – Distribution statement of UMA seed of Kottayambalam Padasekhara

            samithi for 2008-09

Ext.A5 – Distribution statement of UMA seed of Palakkode  Padasekhara samithi

            for 2008-09

Ext.A6 – Distribution statement of UMA seed of Akkarapalayam  Padasekhara

            samithi for 2008-09

Ext.A7 – Distribution statement of UMA seed of Thekinchira Padasekhara

            samithi for 2008-09

Ext.A8 – Distribution statement of UMA seed of Panangavu Padasekhara samithi

            for 2008-09

Ext.A9 – Certified copy of notice sent by 1^st OP to 5^th OP dated 15/10/08 &

            28/10/08

Ext.A10 – Certified copy of notice sent by 1^st OP to 2^nd  OP dated 15/10/08 &

              28/10/08

Ext.A11 – Certified copy of complaint letter sent by complainant to 1^st  OP

               dated 20/10/08

Ext.A12 – Photocopy of agreement signed between Padmavathy & 14^th

              Complainant

Ext.A13 series  –Photographs (13 nos) with negatives

Ext.A14 series – Copy of Papernews in the Malayala Manorama Daily (5 nos)

Ext.A15 series – Tag (Label) Nos.312843, 312800 of UMA seed of NSC Ltd.

                       (2 nos)

Ext.A16 – List of affected farmers using UMA seed certified by Agricultural

              Officer, Kollengode

Ext.A17 –Letter sent by1st OP to Swaminathan, Anamari  (Reply to RI Act

               letter)dtd.4/11/08

ExtA18  series -  Possession Certificate (8 nos) issued by Kollengode Village

                        Officer.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – A.Prabhakaran

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Seed Analysis Report of NSC, Hyderabad dated 21/6/08

Ext.B2 – Seed Test Report of State Seed Testing Laboratory, Alapuzha dated

            23/6/08

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – B.Sureshkumar, Area Manager, NSC, Palakkad

Cost Allowed

Rs.3,000/ allowed as cost of the proceedings.