BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 9^th day of February 2018.

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

C.C. No. 9/2014

Between:

Ubbana Gopala Swamy, S/o. Subbaiah,

Age: 61 years, Occu: Agriculturist,

R/o. H.No.6-154, Ambedkar Nagar,

Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.                                                     

…Complainant

And

1. The Co-operative Society,

Rep. by its Manager,

Kalluru Village and Mandal,

Khammam District.

2. The A.P. State Development Corporation Ltd.,

Regd. Office: 5-10-193, H.A.C.A. Bhavan,

Rep. by its M.D.,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

                                                                         …Opposite parties

        This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of         Sri. Peddi Hayagreeva, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. Anamchinni Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; opposite party No.1 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and doing agriculture over an extent of Ac.9-00 at Survey No.284/AA, 290, 1040 and 268 and 974 of Kalluru Village.  The complainant submitted that he had purchased the paddy seeds in 6 bags from opposite party No.1, which have been guaranteed by opposite party No.2, for sowing in order to reap the yield of Samba Masuri quality of paddy, the opposite party No.1 by receiving an amount of Rs.4,500/- under bill No.914983, had supplied the Paddy Seeds of BPT 5204 to the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that by reposing confidence on opposite party No.1 and 2, he planted the seeds and the plantation was utilized in his respective land, after few months, because of the existence of several variety of seeds mixed together in the given seeds, the adulteration started suffering with de-budding.  The complainant also submitted that altogether the quality of paddy after de-budding which ever has yielded lost the quality which do not fetch the price of Samba Masuri which the complainant wanted to yield in his agricultural land.  The complainant submitted that he was put to loss of money, time and expected yield, as a result of purchase of seeds from the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, he approached the agricultural department, who inturn conducted inspection of the paddy fields, wherein the paddy was planted, and the plants were sent for analysis.  The complainant further submitted that due to the selling of the inferior and adulterated seeds in the name of best quality seeds not only amounts to cheating but also amounts to deficiency of service.  As the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are responsible for the loss sustained by the complainant by way of compensation, damages apart from the expenditure involved in raising the crop for that the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 12-11-2013 addressing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation per Acre and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages per acre apart from the expenditure.  Inspite of receving the legal notice the opposite party No.1 and 2 did not yield to the demand made through legal notice and not made efforts for inspection, for that the complainant filed this complaint to an amount of Rs.1,53,000/-.    

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5. 

Ex.A-1:- Receipt No.914983 for Rs.4,500/- issued by opposite party

              No.2 dt. 27-06-2013.

Ex.A-2:- Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the

              opposite parties No.1 and 2 along with postal receipts.

The counsel for complainant filed a petition along with documents and the same was allowed on 09-10-2015, wherein the petitioner / complainant filed the documents i.e.

Ex.A-3:- Photocopy of letter received from the Joint Director,              Agriculture (FAC), Khammam dt. 19-11-2013.

Ex.A-4:- Photocopy of letter addressed by Sri. Dr. D. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Asst. Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station, Warangal to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Khammam dt. 24-10-2013.

Ex.A-5:- Photocopy of paddy field inspection report.

4.       On receipt of notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter opposite party No.3 admitted that the complainant purchased the paddy seeds of paddy BPT 5204 from the opposite party No.1 under subsidy, for that the opposite party No.1 has issued cash bill, they sold 270 quantities of paddy seeds in Sathupally, Kalluru Mandal and throughout the District through opposite party No.1 on subsidy basis, but nowhere made any complaint in the Mandal level and District level except this complaint.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that they are selling the seeds with subsidy and the said seeds are came to Market after thoroughly verifying and scanning the seeds for its germination and after certifying the ISI Department the seeds will come into market, the complainant did not give any information or letter to the A.P. Seeds.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the complainant took up cultivation of paddy crop for commercial purpose and he purchased the seeds for getting crops in production in huge quantities were not for domestic use or consumption, which indicates that alleged yield was to resell for commercial basis, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the term “Consumer” defined under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act.  The opposite party no.2 further submitted that the complainant filed the complaint in the month of December, 2015, i.e. after completion of the crop period and genetic purity of seeds cannot be assessed and that the complainant failed to file any scientific analysis report to prove his claim.  Also submitted that as per Sec. 13(1) (c) of the C.P. Act., the seeds should be sent for analysis since the complainant alleged that the seeds supplied to him by the opposite parties are defective and inferior.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the documents filed along with the complaint are fabricated and created for the purpose of wrongful gain.  The crop can fail due to various reasons i.e. poor Agriculture practice followed by the complainant and poor soil condition, inadequate rain fall or irrigation poor quality of fertilizers and also due to poor quality of inadequate or overdose of pesticides and insecticides and also failure to take proper steps for irrigation and use of timely manure, Fertilizers,  Pesticides, Insecticides and sprayers.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that there is no genetic disorder in the seeds manufactured by the opposite parties and it is only a false ground raised by the complainant, the seeds are genetically procured and thoroughly tested in the laboratories before releasing into the market.  The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant never informed to the opposite parties about the cultivation of the crop nor made any request them to send any person for personal inspection.  The opposite parties further submitted that they did not receive any complaint from any wherein, if the soil is not good for yielding then only be the crop was not yield properly.  As per the survey, it came to know that the applicant’s lands are not suitable for the proper yielding, as such the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

5.      One behalf of opposite parties no documents filed.

6.      On behalf of complainant and opposite party No.2 written arguments filed. 

7.      Upon perusing the material available on record now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

Point:

          It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased BPT-5204 seeds from the opposite parties.  To support their case, the complainant filed cash receipt Ex.A-1, dt. 26-07-2013 issued by opposite party No.2.  the case of the complainant is that having purchased the seeds from opposite party No.1 and 2, sowed the seeds in his field and provided sufficient water and taken all measures for good yielding.  Inspite of making all efforts, there is no yield in the crop and because of the existence of several variety of seeds mixed together in the given seeds, the crop started with de-bidding, which caused last of the quality of the paddy which do not fetch the price of Samba Masuri, due to the seed fault.

In the present case, the complainant filed photocopies of paddy field inspection report which is marked as Exhibit A3, which is furnished by the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station, Warangal dt. 24-10-2013 Ex.A2.  As per the report, their scientists MAO’s and other officials visited the paddy filed located in Lalapuram Village of Konijerla Mandal and Pullaiah Banjara Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam district on 11-10-2013 and furnished their report.

As per the complainant averments the complainant is doing agriculture over an extent of 9 Acres at Survey No.284/AA, 290, 1040, 268 and 974 of Kalluru Village.  The report of Associate Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station, Warangal is crucial and important to decide whether they visited the crop of the complainant and the seed supplied by the opposite parties is of good quality or defective.  In the present case the Associate Director of Research reported that their scientists visited the paddy fields located in Lalapuram Village of Konijerla Mandal and Pullaiah Banjara Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District on 11-10-2013 and the schedule of the land pertaining to the land of complainant was not shown in the above report.  According to the opposite parties the crop can fail due to various reasons i.e. poor agriculture practice followed by the complainant, poor soil conditions, inadequate rain fall and use of timely manures, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers.  The seeds are genetically procured and thoroughly tested in the laboratories before releasing into the market and the complainant never informed the opposite parties about the condition of the crop nor made any request to them to send any person for personal inspection.

From the documents available on record, we are of the opinion that the data provided by the Associate Director of Research Ex.A-2, the land / crop of the complainant was not visited by the team of scientists and other officials as such we cannot fasten any liability against the opposite parties without the cogent evidence or field inspection report.  From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant failed to prove his case, as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant. 

7.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 9^th day of February, 2018.

                   Member             President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

                   Member             President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.