BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL

Present- Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Thursday the 3^rd day of May, 2012

C.C.No.97/2011

Between

K.Murali,

S/o Late K.Charavanna,

H.No1-162,

Chinna Tekuru Village- 518 218,

Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District.                     …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

1. The Asstistant Director (Horticulture)-1,

   46-111, Colllector Complex,

   Collectorate, Kurnool - 518 002.

2. The Director,

   No.12, National Horticultural Research and

   Development Foundation,

   Chitegaon Phata,

   Nashik Aurangabad Road,

   NASHIK-422 001,

   Maharastra State.                                            ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.G.Madhusudhana Reddy, Government Pleader for opposite party No.1 and Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

           ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member)

   C.C. No.97/2011

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying a direction on opposite parties for the payment of -

1.   Rs.3,38,300/- towards the cost of the seed, expenditure insured for Crop management and crop loss

1.   Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony

1.   Cost of the case

2.    The complaint of the complainant in brief is that he purchased 6.Kgs of Onion seed of NHRDF Agri found light Red variety at Rs.200/- per 2Kg packet from opposite party No.1 developed by opposite party No.2 and sowed the seed in his leased land in the month of November, 2009.  The lot number of the seed is 09011932. He agreed to pay Rs.7,500/- as lease amount for 3 acres bearing Sy.No.361,272 Pyeke to the land owner Smt.E.Suvarnamma. He spent Rs.85,700/- on fertilizers, manure, cultivation, labour etc on the land.  The duration of the crop is normally 150 days but even after 150 days there was no yield with only 5 grams size bulb.  In the same environmental conditions the yield of other farmers was 150 Quintals per acre with other variety of seeds.  The matter was brought to the notice of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kurnool, Mr.Madhusudhan, who inspected the field and reported that the seed does not represent the NHRDF Agrifound light read variety.  He also remarked that the crop management is good and the land is suitable for the crop.  The loss of crop is due to admixture, defective and spurious seeds which were produced by opposite party No.2 and marketed by opposite party No.1. The estimated crop loss and the claim particulars are as given below,

CROP LOSS

For one Acre the Yield is 150 Quintals.

For 3 Acres the expected Yield is 3 X 150 - 450 Quintals.

The prevailing rate of one Quintal was Rs.560/-.

For 450 Quintals Crop Loss- 450 X 560 - Rs. 2,52,000/-.

CLAIM PARTICULARS -

1.     Cost of the Seed                 Rs.         600- 00

2.     Crop loss value                   Rs. 2,52,000 - 00

3.     Agricultural Expenditure        Rs.    85,700 - 00

                        Total Loss           Rs. 3,38,300 - 00

Inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, both the opposite parties refused to compensate the loss, hence this complaint is filed by the complainant before this Forum praying appropriate order.

3.     Sworn affidavit and Ex.A1 to A6 are filed by the complainant to support his case.

4.     Opposite party No.2 filed his written version which was adopted by opposite party No.1 denying his liability to the complainants claim.  Opposite parties called the complainant to produce a sample of seeds to send it for genetic purity test and compare it with their seeds.  Opposite party No.2 averred that the complainant purchased NHRDF Agrifound light red seeds from Horticulture department on 75percent subsidy producing Xerox copies of land in Sy.No.417,419 and 116/2A for 2.22 acres.  So it is false to say that the complainant sowed the said seed in Sy.No.361, 272 Pyeke in an extent of 3 acres taking lease from Smt. E.Suvarnamma for Rs.7,500/- and spent an amount of Rs.85,700/- towards manure, fertilizers, cultivation, labour etc, as his name was not found in adangal issued by  Village Revenue Officer , Chinnatekur.  As per NHRDF 3 Kgs / is recommended per acre, but the complainant used 2 Kgs only.  The complainant admitted that he purchased seed in the month of November, 2009 and gave complaint to Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kurnool,on22-02-2010 which falls below 100 days, through the crop period is 150 days.  According to the complainant to onion weight is only 5 grams but at any condition for any variety, the bulb formation would never fall below 20 - 25 grams.  If it is below 20 grams the plant cannot stood.  The opposite party No.2 denied that Mr.Madhusudhan Rao, Assistant Director Horticulture who is not competent to judge the performance of onion crop inspected the field, noticed small size bulb of 5 grams weight and issued notice to NHRDF.  The opposite party avered that there are many reasons for crop failure and therefore elaborate evidence including expert opinion is required.  The opposite party No.2 submitted   that as per record only 150 KGs of NHRDF certified seed after conducting genetic purity test was supplied to opposite party No.1 and the same was sold to several other farmers in lot No.09011932 in the same Mandal of the complainant.  Except this complaint no other was lodged against opposite parties, which bonafides that purity of seed and good yield of crop.  Therefore the failure of the crop of the complainant may be due to poor crop management.  The opposite party No.2 says that he never assured 150 quintals per acre of yield to the complainant.  The huge claim of the loss under different heads by the complainant is base less and hypothetical.  As per seeds Act 1966 the allegations of the complainant with regard to quality can not be decided with out complying the provisions of Act. Hence opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the case against them as the complaint is vexation for wrongful gain. 

5.     Sworn affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 are filed by opposite party No.2 to substantiate his case.

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments.

7.     Hence the points for consideration are

1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?

1. To what relief?

8.     Admittedly the complainant purchased 6 Kgs of NHRDF Agrifound light red onion seed from opposite party No.1 developed by opposite party No.2 on 75percent subsidy producing Xerox copies of land in Sy.No.417, 419 and 116/2A for 2.22 acres.  He sowed the seed in Sy.No.361, 272 Pyeke in an extent of 3 acres taking lease from E.Suvarnamma for Rs.7,500/-.  Ex.A1 the lease deed.  But his name was not found in Adangal (Ex.A5) issued by Village Revenue Officer, Chinnatekur for Sy.No.361, 272 Pyeke.  The receipts about expenditure under Ex.A3 are not in proper form and the claim appears to be hypothetical.  The crop period is 150 days, as admitted by the complainant, but he says that he reported to Assistant Director, Horticulture, Kurnool with in 100 days of crop.  As per the complainant Mr.Madhusudhan, Assistant Director, Horticulture inspected the filed, notice the crop failure and reported the matter to opposite parties.  But the complainant could not produce any record in his support.  Added to it the letter Rc.No.A/134/2011 dated 21-12-2011 of Assistant Director, Horticulture reveals that Mr.Madhusudhan did not inspect the crop of the complainant.  Further no other farmer, who purchased the seed from the same lot No.09011932lodged the complaint to opposite party No.2 about crop failure.  Therefore the crop failure of the complainant may be due to his poor crop management.  Finally as per seed Act 1966 the allegation with regard to quality of seed cannot be decided without complying the provisions of Act.  In the absence of expert evidence and proper test, the allegation of poor genetic quality of seed supplied by opposite party No.2 cannot be decided.  Hence the complainant failed to prove the deficiency on the part of opposite parties and the case against them is liable for dismissal. 

9.     In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 3^rd day of May,2012.

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER                           

                               APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant   Nil                 For the opposite parties Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant -

Ex.A1                Agreement documents dated 13-08-2009.

Ex.A2                Seed Purchase Certificate issued by opposite party No.1

dated 09-06-2010.

Ex.A3                Receipts (Nos.5).

Ex.A4                Price list issued by Agriculture Market Yard, Kurnool

dated 20-05-2011.

Ex.A5                Truthful Lables (Nos.3).

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties - 

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Onion Production in India (Nos.4).

Ex.B2                Analysis Results dated 18-09-2009.

Ex.B3                Photo copy of Order Copy in C.C.No.06/2010

dated 20-12-2010.

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to-

Complainant and Opposite parties 

Copy was made ready on             

Copy was dispatched on