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
Monday the 13th day of June, 2011
C.C.No.15 /10
Between:
Sri P.Damodar Reddy,
S/o. P.Thimma Reddy,
R/o. H.No.1-80,
Mundladinne Village,
Waddepalli Mandal,
Mahaboobnagar District–509 126. …Complainant
-Vs-
- Maharastra State Seeds Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director having its
Office at Maha Beej Bhavan, Krishi Nagar,
Akola – 444 104.
- Muralidhar Seeds Corporation,
Proprietor B.Nagi Reddy,
D.No.F4, Industrial Estate,
Kallur,
Kurnool District – 518 003. …Opposite ParTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri Syed Shafaqath Hussain, Advocate for complainant and Sri Shaik Chand Basha, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri N.Venkata Rao, advocate for opposite party No.2 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 15/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,19,600/- towards the value of 598 KGs of cleaned seeds delivered by him to opposite party No.2 @ Rs.20,000/- per quintal and also to pay a compensation of Rs.45,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per acre for supplying the complainant foundation seeds of unsuitable variety, which resulted in poor yield.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is a farmer by occupation. Opposite party No.1 organized Sunflower certified seed multiplication program which is registered with the Andhra Pradesh seeds Certification Agency Gadwal during Kharif Season 2008. The complainant joined the said program agreeing to cultivate the Sunflower seeds DRSF–108 in his 3 Acres of land. Opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 supplied to the complainant foundation Sunflower Certified Seeds DRSF–108 a notified variety of 9 KGs to be cultivated in his 3 Acres of land. Before supplying the seeds opposite party No.1 verified the land of the opposite party No.1 and informed the complainant that his land is suitable for cultivating Sunflower Seeds DRSF -108 and the opposite parties also represented to the complainant that the yield of the cleaned seed would normal be Six Quintals per Acre. Believing the representation of opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant agreed to grow the Sunflower crop in his land and sowed the seed supplied by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 in his land. The complainant also paid cash for the foundation seed supplied to him by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. Inspite of all care taken by the complainant in growing the crop, due to unsuitable variety of seeds, the seed filling was only 20 to 25%. On a complaint given by the complainant and other farmers, opposite party No.1 deputed its officials to visit the field of the complainant on 31-01-2008 along with one G.V.Venkateshwarlu representative of opposite party No.1 and others. They observed that the seed filing was very less and there is possibility of considerable reduction in the yield per Acre. Subsequently also opposite party No.1 along with a Sunflower Scientist of the Director of Oil Seeds Research, Hyderabad visited the fields of farmers including that of the complainant. The said Scientist in the presence of officials of opposite parties 1 and 2 informed the complainant and other farmers that the variety of seeds supplied by opposite parties 1 and 2 was not suitable to this area and that was the reason for non-filling of embryo in the seeds. The complainant has delivered the entire yield of 598 KGs of cleaned seeds produced from his land to opposite party No.2. As per the understanding between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 they agreed to purchase the seed from the complainant at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal. The opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation for supplying unsuitable variety of seeds. The act of opposite parties in representing to the complainant that his land is suitable for growing the Sunflower seeds DRSF-108 and that the yield of cleaned seed would normally be Six Quintals per Acre amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 22-01-2009 calling them to pay the value of the cleaned seeds delivered to opposite party No.2 and also to pay compensation at Rs.15,000/- per Acre for supplying foundation seed of unsuitable variety. Both the opposite parties received the notices. Four months thereafter the Regional Manager of opposite party No.1 issued reply notice with false allegation. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. In response for tenders called by opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 came forward to take foundation seed from opposite party No.1, to raise crops in its agent’s land and to supply the cleaned seed to opposite party No.1. An agreement was also entered accordingly in between opposite parties 1 and 2. As per the terms of the agreement opposite party No.2 shall raise the crop by itself or through its agents and supply the cleaned seed to opposite party No.1 go-down at Akola. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. Opposite party No.1 purchased Sunflower DRSF-108 seed from University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad under bill dated 30-08-2007 for Rs.87,000/- for multiplication purpose. Opposite party No.1 hired the services of opposite party No.2 for multiplication of DRSF-108 breeder seed. No one informed the complainant that his land is suitable for cultivation of DRSF-108 Sunflower crop. No one assured the complainant that DRSF-108 seed would yield Six Quintals per Acre. Opposite party No.1 did not receive the complainant’s stocks to its go-down. The complainant failed to take care of the breeder seeds as required. Due to the complainants own fault the seeds could not grow properly. The complainant failed to follow the instructions of the Scientist of opposite party No.1. Poor crop management and change in climatic conditions are also the reason for not getting bumper crop. No official of the opposite party No.1 visited the land of the complainant on 31-01-2008. Sunflower Scientist of the Director of Oil Seeds Research, Hyderabad not visited the land of the complainant and other farmers. No Scientist informed the complainant that the variety of seeds supplied to the complainant was not suitable to the area. The complainant and opposite party No.1 colluded together and filed the present complaint to gain wrong fully. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Complainant joined the seed multiplication program agreeing to cultivate the Sunflower seed DRSF-108 in his fields. The seed was supplied by opposite party No.1 and as such opposite party No.2 is not responsible for any defect in the seed. The opposite parties not agreed to purchase the seed of the complainant at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal. It is denied that the official of opposite party No.2 visited the field of the complainant on 31-01-2008. Opposite party No.1 not represented the complainant anything with regard to the yield per Acre. The opposite party No.2 has not adopted any unfair trade practice. The claim of the complainant is exorbitant. The complainant and opposite party No.1 colluded with each other and filed the present case to harass opposite party No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and Sri V.Maheswar Reddy are filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. The complainant and opposite party No.1 filed written arguments. Opposite party No.2 not filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that during Kharif Season 2008 he purchased 9 KGs of DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower seed from opposite party No.2 and sowed the same in an extent of three Acres. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 supplied foundation Sunflower certified seed DRSF-108 variety of 9 KGs. Ex.A1 is the cash receipt da td 26-01-2007 showing the purchase of 9 KGS of DRSF-108 Sunflower seed by the complainant from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 in its written version admitted that the seed given to the complainant was supplied by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 nowhere denied the supply of 9 KGs of DRSF-108 Sunflower seed to the complainant. The complainant also filed EX.A5 copy of statement showing the particulars of seed received by the certification officer A.P.S.S.C.A. Gadwal. It is mentioned in Ex.A6 that the complainant raised DRSF-108 Sunflower seed in his three Acres of land.
8. The complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation etc., on the ground that the opposite parties before supplying the seed adopted unfair trade practice by representing that his land is suitable for growing the Sunflower seed DRSF-108 and that yield would be Six Quintals per Acre. The complainant purchased the seed from opposite party No.2 on 26-10-2007. The complainant nowhere in the complaint mentioned the designations or the names of the officials of opposite parties 1 and 2 who visited his land prior to 26-10-2007. The date on which the official of opposite parties 1 and 2 visited the land of the complainant and informed that his land is fit for cultivation of DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower is also not mentioned in the complaint. In the sworn affidavit of the complainant also there is no mention the date on which the official of opposite parties 1 and 2 visited the land of the complainant and informed that his land is fit for cultivation of DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower crop. Except the affidavit evidence of the complaint that the officials of opposite party No.1 informed that the DRSF-108 variety of seed would give yield of Six Quintals per Acre, there is no independent evidence on record. It is for the complainant to prove that the officials of the opposite parties 1 and 2 made false representation and basing on their false statement he purchased the seed from opposite party No.2. Admittedly no documentary evidence is produced by the complainant to show that the officials of the opposite parties visited the land of the complainant before he purchased the seed from the opposite party No.2. It is also the case of the complainant that subsequent to 31-01-2008 the Scientist of the Director of Oil Seeds Research, Hyderabad inspected the land of the complainant and other farmers and the said Scientist informed in the presence of officials of opposite parties 1 and 2 that the seed supplied by the opposite parties is not suitable to that area. The complainant did not choose to file at least the affidavit of the said Scientist who visited the land of the complainant and others and informed that the area is not suitable for raising DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower. It is not the case of the complainant that the seed supplied by the opposite parties is defective. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the seed supplied by opposite party No.2 is defective and as a result there was partial failure of the crop. The complainant for the first time in his written arguments in Para 18 has submitted that the opposite parties supplied defective variety of seed. There is no expert evidence to come to the conclusion that the seed supplied by the opposite party No.1 is defective. There is also no evidence to believe that the land of the complainant is not suitable to raise DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower crop. There is no expert evidence to come to the conclusion that the land of the complainant is not suitable for cultivation of DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower crop. Merely because the complainant got poor yield from the Sunflower crop raised by him it cannot be presumed that the land of the complainant is not suitable for raising DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower crop.
9. It is the case of the opposite parties that the crop in the land of the complainant gave less yield because of poor crop management, change in climatic conditions etc. According to the complainant the official of opposite parties 1 and 2 along with village committee etc., visited land of the complainant on 31-01-2008 and observed that the seed filling was very less. The complainant in support of his contention filed the sworn affidavit one Sri V.Maheswar Reddy and relied on Ex.A3 Panchanama. As seen from Ex.A3 and supported by the affidavit evidence of Sri V.Maheswar Reddy it is very clear that the officials of the opposite parties visited the land of the complainant on 31-01-2008 and observed 30 to 40% seed filling. No mention is made in Ex.A3 that the seed supplied by the opposite party No.2 is defective or that the land of the complainant is not fit for cultivation of DRSF-108 variety of Sunflower crop. The yield of any crop depends on crop management, climatic connections and fertility of soil. Merely because the complainant realized poor yield from the crop, the opposite parties who supplied the seed cannot be blamed. Anyhow the complainant could not establish that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and made the complainant to purchase DRSF-108 variety of seed.
10. POINT No.2 :- The complainant filed the present complaint stating that he delivered 598 KGs of cleaned seed to opposite party No.2 and that opposite party No.2 failed to pay value of the said seed at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal. As seen from Ex.B1 agreement between opposite parties 1 and 2 it is very clear that opposite party No.2 is organizer of opposite party No.1 company for certified seed production program in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Opposite party No.1 shall organize the program for and on behalf of the opposite party No.1 during Rabbi-2007 – 2008 production seasons. Under the agreement opposite party No.2 organizer is empowered to enter into an agreement with different farmers. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the opposite party No.2 is the agent of opposite party No.1 and that both of them are liable to pay compensation and value of the cleaned seed delivered to opposite party No.2. Opposite parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.B1. It is mentioned in clause 27 of the agreement that the organizer shall be solely responsible for the losses caused if any to the farmers and or to the company. It is also mentioned in clause 30 that the company (i.e.,) opposite party No.1 will not be responsibility for any loss sustained by the seed grower. Is also mentioned that the company is not liable to pay any compensation to anybody on what so ever reason. As per the terms of the agreement between opposite parties 1 and 2 the company i.e., opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the grower of the seed on what so ever reason.
11. It is the contention of the complainant that he delivered cleaned seed to the opposite party No.2. Ex.A4 is the receipt issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of the complainant dated 03-06-2008. As seen from Ex.A4 it is very clear that on 03-06-2008 the complainant delivered DRSF-108 Sunflower seed to opposite party No.2. According to opposite party No.2 it delivered the said seed to opposite party No.1. No material is placed by opposite party No.2 to show that it sent the seed given to it by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 in its written version clearly stated that it did not receive the complainant’s stock to its go-down and that it is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. There is material on record to show that opposite party No.2 received the seed from the complainant. The complainant claims the value of the said seed at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal. The complainant did not place any evidence on record to show that the DRSF-108 Sunflower Seed was selling at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal in the year 2009. Admittedly the complainant purchased the foundation seed from opposite party No.2 under Ex.A1 @ Rs.70/- per KG. In the absence of evidence that the price of seed was at Rs.20,000/- per Quintal, it is just and proper to value of the seed delivered by the complainant to opposite party No.2 at Rs.70/- per KG as stated in Ex.A1. According to the complainant he delivered 598 KGs seed to opposite party No.2. The value of the said seed at Rs.70/- per KG comes to Rs.41,860/-.
12. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of the legal notice got issued by him the opposite parties did not pay the value of the seed supplied by him. Ex.A6 is the office copy of the legal notice along with acknowledgement. Opposite party No.2 received the said notice but opposite party No.2 did not pay the value of the seed to the complainant. The failure on the part of opposite party No.2 to pay the value of the seed delivered by the complainant amounts deficiency of service. Opposite party No.2 is liable to pay Rs.41,860/- @ of Rs.70/- per KG seed.
13. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.41,860/- towards the value of the 598 KGs of seed with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order i.e. 13-06-2011 till the date of realization. The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13thday of June, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Receipt for purchase of foundation seeds dated
26-10-2007 of Muralidhar Seeds Corporation, Kurnool.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Form No.1 issued by A.P.S.S.C.A. bearing
NO.114074.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Panchanama conducted by the Official of opposite party No.1, dated 31-01-2008.
Ex.A4 Receipt issued by opposite party No.2 for delivery of
raw seeds, dated 03-06-2008.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of S.T.L. report of A.P.S.S.C.A. Gadwal,
dated 16-04-2008.
Ex.A6 Office copy of legal notice dated 22-01-2009 along with acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of reply notice of opposite party No.1
dated 06-05-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of agreement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 dated 18-10-2007.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of letter issued by Maharastra State Seed Corporation Limited.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Credit bill No.226 for Rs.1,39,800/-
dated 30-08-2007.
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 :
