BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM-KURNOOL
Present Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 20th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 4/07
Between
M. Madhusudhan Reddy,
S/o. Late M. Narasimha Reddy,
Agriculturist,
Brahmanakotkur Village,
Nandikotkur Mandal,
Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
- The District Manager,
APSSDC Limited,
Regional Office, 16-21,
Industrial Estate,
Kurnool - 518 003.
- The Managing Director,
APSSDC Limited,
Regional Office,
5-10-193,
Haka Bhavan,
Hyderabad -500 004.
- Proprietor,
M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds,
D.No.12/107-2, K.V.R.Complex, K.G.Road,
Nandikotkur,
Kurnool District. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for opposite parties 1 and 2, and Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No. 4 /07
7. The Ex.A3 is a Xerox of representation dated 8-8-2006 said to have been given by the complainant to Mandal Agriculture Officer, Nandikotkur as to loss of yield in his field and seeking compensation for the said incurred loss. The Ex.A7 is bundle of the truthful label of the seed said to have been purchased by the complainant. It envisages Black gram T-9 seed concerned therein relating to lot No.R05-06-KKL- SLVS-5035. But the Ex.B1 cash bill as to purchase of seed by the complainant as is not envisaging the lot number of the seed concerned therein the Ex.A7 remains with any relevancy to this case of the complainant.
8. The Ex.X1 is the letter dated 17-8-2006 of Agricultural Officer, Nandikotkur addressed to the Assistant Director of Agricultural Nandikotkur. It envisages the visit of team consisting of M.V.Krishnaji - Scientist D.A.T.T. Centre, Kurnool, Mandal Agricultural Officer, Nandikotkur, Mahaboob Basha, A.E.O, Brahmanakotkur on 17-8-2006 to the fields of ryyots mentioned there in among which the complainant is one and their observing the age of crop as 50-60 days, no flowering except plant growth even though the flowering is expected in 40-50 days of sowing and the admixture to the extent of 85 and causing economic loss to the ryyot. As to the above Ex.X1 said Mahaboob Basha (P.W.1), M.V.Krishnaji (P.W.3) and Raghoba Rao (P.W.2)-Joint Director of Agriculture were examined by the complainant side.
9. The evidence Mahaboob Basha, A.E.O, Brahmanakotkur (P.W.1) says the visit to the field of complainant where T-9 variety black gram was said to have been sown and the observation of non flowering and it was due to sterility to the seed. The evidence of M.V.Krishnaji (P.W.3) Scientist District Agricultural Advisory and Transfer of Technology (D.A.T.T) Centre, Kurnool, says of his visit to the land of the complainant along with P.W.1 and Seshapani Rao-M.E.O Nandikotkur on 17-8-2006 and observed the failure of T- 9 variety of black gram due to non flowering and admixture of seeds even though plant growth is satisfactory and no pests to it and 85 of the plants are of different type other than T-9 variety and the said non flowering was due to sterility of seed and the said feature of non flowering and non budding cannot be attributable to heavy rains or any agro environmental conditions .
10. As the names of P.W. 1 and 3 are appearing in Ex.X1 report, their not writing separate reports of observations at the field does not appear to be material especially when their evidence is consisting to each other and in support of the observations mentioned in Ex.X1. The evidence of Raghoba Rao (P.W.2) envisages the receipt of Ex.X1 report as to the failure of T-9 variety black gram crop in the fields where it was sowed and the said fact remained un impeached in the absence of any cross examination to him.
11. The said evidence of P.W. 1 to 3 adduced on complainant side being not discredited otherwise, the failure of crop in complainants field appears to be on account of admixture of seeds and their sterileness in the seed sowed. As the said seed was said to have been purchased by the complainant vide Ex.B1 the opposite parties who produced them and marketed them are remaining equally liable for the said defect in the seed which ensured the total loss of the crop to the complainant.
12. If there is no inherent defect in the seed complained of the opposite party would have invoked the powers of this forum U/S.13 (1) ( C ) of C.P.Act to get tested the residuary samples of said seed to establish the genuineness of the seed and its free from any defect and their failure to perform said obligation has to be held against them as no buyer of the seed or farmer are expected to set apart some quantity of seed for testing on the presumption of that seeds would be defective and he would be called upon to prove the same through laboratory testing - as per the decision of Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in India seed house Vs. Ramjilal Sarma and another reported in III 2008 CPJ 96 (NC) and in South Eastern Seeds Corporation Vs. R.Sekhar and Sridhar reported in I (2008) CPJ 158 (NC ).
13. The decision of Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Indo American Hybrid Seeds and another Vs. Vijaykumar Sankar Rao and another reported in II (2007) CPJ 148 (NC)
relied by the learned counsel for the opposite party, says that when no evidence on record or any report indicating the seeds to be of non standard quality, the un fair trade practice not remains proved as courts to be led by evidence and proof on subject. But as the Ex.X1 observation report senses no other abnormalities other than admixture of more than of 85 for the said fate of total loss of yield and the evidence of P.W 1 and 3 in reference to Ex.X1 observation report being not only consistant to the said report but also says of the sterility of the seed, it cannot be said that there is no evidence or proof on the subject of the seed defect and a proper decision as has to be arrived on such cogent material the supra stated decision is remaining of any avail to the opposite party side .
14. The other two decisions relied by the learned counsel for the opposite party are of the Honourable Uttarpradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Prabhari Sachiv Kshetriya Sadhana Sahakari Samithi Vs.Gyan Chandra Sharada and others reported in II (2006) CPJ 488 and of the Honble Maharashtra States Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Khamgaon Taluka Bagyatdar Shetkari and Fale (Fruits) Vikri Sahakari Sanstha Khambaon Vs. Babu Kutti Daniel reported in III (2006) CPJ 269. While the former holds the forum has erred in dismissing the case in the absence of any report or record as to defect or deficiency in supplying seeds, the latter holds that where no evidence regarding substandard or adulterated quality of seed no deficiency could be held for poor germination which may be due to agro climatic factors. As the evidence of P.W 1 and 3 and the Ex.x1 observation report as to the failure of the black gram crop, in the complainants field, is consistent in observing the admixture of the seed more than 85 and sterility of the seeds, the above two decisions too have any relevant application to the circumstances of this case especially when the C.P.Act is a consumer oriented legislation to the welfare of consumers and for protecting them, from being exploited by the traders and their unfair trade practices, the technicalities will count less when there is satisfactory evidence or proof is there as to sub standard of seed, which ensued the total loss of the crop.
15. The Ex.X1-observation report, observing the fate of the crop in the lands where the said T-9 black gram variety was cultivated assess total loss of yield for want of flowering and budding even after the lapse of expected time and says of normal yield of said variety as 4 to 5 quintals of black gram per acre in dry lands and it as 8 to 9 quintals per acre in irrigated lands. As per Ex.A1 adangal, the land where the black gram T-9 variety was cultivated being a dry land the normal expected yield works out to quintals 51.16 ( i.e., Acs.12.79 X 4 ). Hence, the complainant is remaining to have suffered a total loss of quintals 51.16black gram yield which values as per Ex.A8 and evidence of P.W.4, even at a minimum rate of Rs.3,500only per quintal, to Rs.1,79,060only ( i.e., quintals 51.16 X Rs. 3,500only).
16. The Ex.B2 is Xerox of agreement dated 19-4-2006 for supply of T/L, T9 variety of black gram seed entered in between A.P.State Seed Development Corporation Limited by its Managing Director (opposite party No.2) M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Seeds, Nandikotkur (OP.No.3) for supply of thousand quintals of black gram seed of T9, T/L variety in a packing of 4 k.gs quantity as per the standards and time schedule given there under by the OP.No.3 to OP.No.2 with responsibility for its quality and payment of compensation in case of dispute as to seed supplied. It is placed by the opposite party No.2 seeking the shifting of its liability for complainants claim on to opposite party No.3. But the said memo of understating being one between the opposite parties 2 and 3 alone and the complainant being having any privy to said Ex.B2 agreement, the rights and liabilities if any arising on account of any disputes as to the quality of the seed supplied by OP. No.3 to OP.No.2 has to be settled and sorted out between the Ops.2 and 3 only on its seeking an appropriate civil court for implementation of the terms and conditions of the said Ex.B2. Therefore the Ex.B2 finds any relevancy for its appreciation on Ops side in adjudication of the complainants grievances and fix any liability of opposite party No.3 especially when the complainant seeks any relief against the opposite party No.3 and any cogent material is on record showing concern of OP.No.3 in the seed furnished to the complainant under Ex.B1.
17. The Honourable Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in R.M. Subramanyam V/s Director of All India Radio and others reported in III (2005) CPJ 105 holds the joint liability of the opposite parties for refund of deposited amount and commission amount received from complainant to the agents of the opposite parties for the deficiency of the delay in broadcasting the advertisement as against the order placed for daily broadcast as the opposite parties have panel of agents through whom their negotiate and accept advertisements. But the fact and circumstances of the complainants case herein being not of that sort with which the complainant is having any direct contact with the opposite party No.3, the OP.No.2 cannot shift the liability to the opposite party No.3, especially when the liability of opposite party No.1& 2 is joint and several on account of the nature of the seed supplied to the complainant.
18. The Honourable Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Vimal Chandra D.Desai V/s Pune Municipal Corporation and others reported in IV (2005) CPJ 659, wherein a drowning occurred due to negligence and deficiency in service of a club which is in contract with Municipal Corporation to which the said swimming pool belongs to, holds that the liability of municipal corporation can not be escaped on ground of absence of privity of contract with complainant as supervisory control of said swimming pool retail by corporation. In the present case of the complainant even though the Ex.B2 agreement subsists verbally between Ops.2 and 3 there being any cogent record showing the concern of OP.No.3 to the seed furnished to complainant under Ex.B1 and no claim against the OP.No.3 in complaint the opposite parties 1 and 2 only jointly and severally liable to complainants claim on account of the nature of the seed supplied to the complainant through OP.No.2
19. The Honourable Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in Star India Private Limited and another V/s between Vipin Semwal and others reported in II (2005) CPJ 385 holds consumer disputes not confined only to direct consumer and service provider but also to the beneficiaries of services and so entitled to raise such disputes and claim relief even in the absence of any privy of contract. But in this case being any cogent material showing the concern of OP.No.3 to seed sold to complainant under Ex.B1 and any direct privy of complainant to the OP.No.3 as to seed purchased by complainant under Ex.B1 and when no relief was sought by complainant against OP.No.3, the above stated decision is having any relevancy and its application to the case of the complainant.
20. The decision of Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in T. Appara Rao V/s Merfin (India) Limited and another reported in IV (2005) CPJ 16 (NC) is having any relevancy and applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case as they differ with the circumstances of this case as the facts of this case concern with scrips sold through un authorized agents.
21. When there is total loss of yield and loss suffered by complainant, the dealer who sold seeds not personally liable for defective seed is held not acceptable by the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M. Subba Rao V/s Avula Venkat Reddy reported in I (2008) CPJ 269 (NC).
22. The decision of Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Jai Industries V/s N.Babhraiah Acharya and others reported in I (2008) CPJ 326 (NC) also holds when there is great loss to the complainant on account of defects in the goods the seller and manufacturer are jointly liable.
23. The scope and the aim of the incurring any expenditure in agriculture being to have a good yield which may cover not only the incurred expenditure but also some amount of profit for the pains he has taken in said cultivation, any farmer who complains of loss of yield is entitled to the value of good yield only and not to the incurred expenditure in addition to the value of the good yield as any amount of his endeavour in agriculture would provide at the most a good yield alone. Therefore the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case to the value of 51.16 quintals of black gram at the rate of Rs.3,500only per quintal as envisaged in Ex.A8-the market yard price list of the concern period, towards the loss of yield ensued at the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties in furnishing the sterile and admixture seed and no other reason contributed to said non flowering/non budding leading to the total loss of the yield. As the complainant was driven to the forum for redressal of his grievances the complainant is entitled besides to the value of loss of yield a compensation for mental agony and cost of the case at the joint and several liability of the opposite parties.
24. As neither any cause of action alleged nor any relief was sought against Op.No.3 and there being any cogent material on record linking the concern of OP.No.3 to the seed complained, the case against OP.No.3 is dismissed.
25. consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant value of 51.16 black gram per acre Rs.3,500only per quintal besides to a compensation of Rs.10,000only for mental agony and Rs.5,000only as cost of this case within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to complainant the supra award amount with 9 interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of August, 2008.
Sdonly Sdonly
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant - For the opposite parties -Nil
PW.1. Deposition of PW.1 M. Mahabub Basha dated 24-5-2007.
PW.2. Deposition of PW.2 S. Raghoba Rao, dated 5-6-2007.
PW.3. Deposition of PW.3 M. V. Krishnaji, dated 16-6-2007.
PW.4. Deposition of PW.4 dated 22-8-2007 (S. Venkata Subbanna-Senior
Marketing Assistant(Prices Assistant Director Marketing, Kurnool)
List of exhibits marked for the complainant-
Ex.A1. Adangal for fasli 1416/07/07 of Sy.No.686/B of
Vademanu Village.
Ex.A2. Two bills for purchase of fertilizers for Rs.6,305only and
Rs.2,160only, dates 28-6-2006 & 20-7-2006.
Ex.A3. Office copy of representation of letter, dated
8-8-2006 of complainant to MAO, Nandikotkur, Marking
its copy to JDA, MD, APSSDC & District Collector, Kurnool,
along with their postal acknowledgments.
Ex.A4. Two photographs along with negatives.
Ex.A5. Letter, dated 9-4-2007 of Tenali Agricultural Committee
addressed to the complainant.
Ex.A6. Letter, dated 25-6-2007 of Agricultural market Committee
Kurnool addressed to complainant.
Ex.A7. A bundle of twenty (20) truthful labels.
EX.A8. Letter, dated 25-7-2007 issued by Sr. Marketing Assistant
(Prices) O/o. Assistant Director of Agricultural Marketing
Kurnool.
Ex.X1. Report of Sri. Seshaphani Rao, Mandal Agricultural Officer,
Nandikotkur.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties-
Ex.B1 Carbon copy of the cash bill for Rs.4,466only
dated 27-6-2006 (As to purchase of seeds)
Ex.B2 Agreement, dated 9-4-2006 between
Opposite parties 2 & 3 (No. in 4 papers)
Sdonly Sdonly
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 -
