Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/86

G.Purushotham Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Agriculturist - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, A.P. Staqte Seeds Development Corporatiion Ltd., Hyderabad and another - Opp.Party(s)

E.Padma Reddy

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

                                                                                          Friday, the 29^th day of July, 2011 

 

        Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                        Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

 

C.C.NO. 86  Of   2010

 

Between:-

G. Purushotham Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ayyavaripally (Komsanpally) village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.   

        … Complainant

 

And

1. The General Manager, A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., 5-10-193, Haca Bhavan, Hyderabad – 500 004. 

2.  Aadhaar Seeds Private Ltd., Represented by its Manager, D.No.1-5-12/2/2, New Maruthinagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad – 500 035. 

                                                                                                     … Opposite Parties

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 19-7-2011 in the presence of Sri E. Padma Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri Ch. Shyamsunder Rao, Advocate, for the OP-1, and Sri B. Kantha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the OP-2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards costs of crop yield and to pay  Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony, financial stress and for deficiency of service and also costs of the complaint.   

 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is an agriculturist having land bearing Sy.Nos.417 and 418 to an extent of 2 acres situated within the limits of Ayyavaripally (Kamsanpally) of Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. On the advice of the Agricultural Officer, Farooqnagar on 16-12-2009 the complainant purchased 2 bags (4 Kgs.) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seeds from OP-1 vide Bill No.121104 for Rs.860/-, at that time the complainant was given assurance that the seeds are good quality and give 8 to 10 quintals yield per acre.  The complainant has sowed the seeds in his land in the last of December, 2009, that he has taken necessary plant protection and well care and all kinds of precautions and provided required fertilizers, pesticides etc. But the seeds not germinated and the complainant intimated the same to the concerned Agricultural Officer within the stipulated time, that the Agricultural Officers visited the fields and given report as seeds not germinated properly.  Later on 23-1-2009 the complainant has submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar narrating the above facts that the opposite parties have not supplied good quality of Sun Flower seeds, that due to supply of inferior quality of seeds by the opposite parties the complainant suffered loss of Rs.40,000/- through loss of crop, using pesticides, fertilizers and labour charges.  The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties for which they gave incorrect reply.  The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice to a consumer.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the above said reliefs.    

 

3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant is an agriculturist having 2 acres of land at Kamsanpally, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.  It is also denied that the OPs.1 and 2 sold the said seeds namely Hybrid Sun Flower on the advice of the Agricultural Officer, Farooqnagar on 16-12-2009 and purchased 2 bags (4 Kgs.) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seeds from OP-1 vide Bill No.121104 by paying Rs.860/-.  It is also denied that the   OP-1 assured the complainant that the seeds are of good quality and give 8 to 10 quintals yield per acre.  Further the OP-1 denies that the complainant has not taken crop management properly and not used the said seed to sow in proper month and the complainant has not taken plant protection as well as crop care and also not used fertilizers and pesticides. The seed is produced by the Aadhaar Seeds (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and the OP-1 is only purchaser and distributor to the farmers. Therefore, the OP-1 is not responsible for any loss or damage or compensation as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant’s soil is not fit for cultivation of Sun Flower crop and he has not taken required care and seeds are having germination, purity, that the complainant has not shown proper proof for spending the amount for crop management and loss or damage as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant lodged a complaint with the District Collector without any jurisdiction but only to get sympathy and also get amount by filing a false complaint on the ground the seed was defective one.  The OP-1 submits that the complainant made number of corrections in the purchase bill dated 16-12-2009 and sowed the seed in the last week of December, 2009.  Naturally, germination gets effected during the very low temperatures in the last week of December, especially the Sun Flower seed.  It is further stated that the number of farmers have purchased from the A.P.S.S.D.C. Corporation and sowed the said seed i.e., 28,768 Kgs., (14,384 acres) during the year 2009-2010 in Mahabubnagar District, but there are no complaints from any farmer except the present complaint.  The complainant has not informed any defect or problem of said seed to the A.P.S.S.D.C. Limited at appropriate time or to the concerned Agricultural Officer. As per the Agricultural Officer’s report, the poor germination is only 10% but the complainant is claiming Rs.40,000/- which is against the Seed Act and Rules.  The OP-1 is not a seed producer and only seed distributor, therefore not liable for any compensation as alleged by the complainant in his complainant.  Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against OP-1.

 

4. The opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint.  The allegation that the complainant purchased 2 bags (4 Kgs.) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seeds from OP-1 vide Bill No.121104 on 16-12-2009 by paying Rs.860/- is denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that during the year 2009-2010 the OP-2 has sold 28,768 Kgs., of seeds through OP-1. The complainant is not a direct consumer of OP-2 herein and he has paid money to the OP-1.  A simple perusal of the bill filed along with the complaint discloses that there are number of corrections with regard to brand, price and total of the amount.  The corrections in the bill itself throw light on the suspicious circumstances on the case of the complainant.  The complaint against the OP-2 is not at all sustainable.  Not even a single complaint is received from any other farmer though OP-2 supplied 28,768 Kgs., of seeds of Sun Flower during the relevant period of 2009-10 as regards the quality of seeds supplied.  What could be the reason for the complainant to sustain loss is to be explained by the complainant alone.  There was no kind of assurance either directly or indirectly by this OP-2 stating that seeds will give such particular yield on harvesting.  There is no lot number and no mention of seed variety in the bill relied on by the complainant.  Hence it is highly difficult to find the roots and the cause etc.  The alleged report of the Agricultural Officer that seeds not germinated properly is not a ground to file this complaint.  The complainant ought to have brought it to the notice of any one of the opposite parties about the said problem within 10-15 days after sowing the seeds for proper inspection and diagnosis within the time by concerned Mandal Agricultural Officer as well as the authorities of the OP-2.  Hence the present complaint at belated stage is of no help to the complainant.  The complainant though alleged that the soil is of good quality and fertile, he has not filed any such report from any authority much less from Agricultural Department Authorities. The complainant purchased the seeds in December, 2009 and sowed the seeds in the last week of December, 2009 and naturally germination gets effected during very low temperature of December and January months (especially in regard to Sun Flower crop).  The company after thorough test of the seeds for germination and genetic purity, each and every lot will be tested in the lab and by R & D Department before packing.  As per the Seeds Act for any genuine complaint of germination it is recommended only to pay seed cost plus expenses of sowing but the claim as could be seen from the complaint is highly excessive. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that there is any defective service on the part of OP-2 herein.  Hence the same is liable to be dismissed.  

 

5. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his proof affidavit and treated the same as evidence of P.W.1 and so also got filed third party affidavit of adjacent land owner who has purchased different variety of seed from OP-1 on the same day and treated his evidence as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12.  On the other hand, the OP-1 did not choose to file any proof affidavit but got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. The OP-2 filed his separate proof affidavit and the same is treated as the evidence of R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B-5 on his behalf.  

 

6.  The points for determination now are: 

 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

 

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased on 16-12-2009 2 bags (4 Kgs.) of Aadhaar Hybrid Sun Flower Seeds from OP-1 vide Bill No.121104 for Rs.860/- on the assurance of the Agricultural Officer, Farooqnagar. It is the further case of the complainant that he sowed the same seeds in the last December, 2009 in Sy.No.417 and 418 to an extent of 2 acres, though he has taken all kind of precautions and provided required fertilizers, pesticides etc., the seeds not germinated properly.Then he intimated the same to the concerned Agricultural Officer within stipulated time and also gave representation to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar.  The Agricultural Officer visited the fields and reported that seeds supplied by opposite parties not germinated properly.  In support of the said contention the learned counsel for the complainant while relying upon a decision of A.P. State Commission reported in II (2011) CPJ 476 (Syngenta India Ltd., Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy & Another).    And the documents Ex.A-1 Cash Memo, Ex.A-3 Spot Inspection Report of Agricultural Officer, Ex.A-4 representation submitted to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Ex.A-10 Photographs, Ex.A-11 empty labeled seed bag, and Ex.A-12 Pattadar Pass Book including the evidence of P.Ws., 1 and 2 the complainant clearly established the supply of the non standard quality of the seeds by the opposite parties resulting in his sustaining crop loss and mental agony and therefore the opposite parties are liable for adopting unfair trade practice and for deficiency of service, and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation.

 

8. On the other hand, it is the contention of OP-1 that the complainant made number of corrections in the purchase bill of the seed and the seed was purchased on 16-12-2009 and sowed the seed in the last week of December, 2009. Naturally, germination gets effected during the very low temperature in the last week of December especially the Sun Flower seed.  The seed is produced by OP-2 and OP-1 is only a distributor to the farmers and hence he is not responsible for any loss or damage.  It is the further contention of OP-1 that same type of seed sold in Farooqnagar Mandal to different farmers, but there are no complaints from any farmers except the present complainant.  

 

9. Likewise, it is the contention of OP-2 that there are number of corrections with regard to brand, price and total amount in the bill submitted by the complainant along with complaint. The complainant has no direct connection with OP-2 since the bill under which he purchased the goods, the money paid by him is to the OP-1 only, hence the complaint against  OP-2 is not at all sustainable.  The alleged report of the Agricultural Officers that seeds not germinated properly is not a ground to file this complaint.  The OP-2 after thorough test of the seeds for germination and genetic purity, each and every lot will be tested in their lab.  It is the further case of OP-2 that during the relevant period of 20009-10 the OP-2 supplied 28,768 Kgs., of Sun Flower seeds through OP-1 to the farmers and not a single complaint is received from any other farmer as regards the quality of seed supplied. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that there is any defective service on the part of OP-2.  Therefore the complainant cannot attribute that there is a defect in the seeds and fasten the deficiency of service to the opposite parties.

 

10. As stated above, it is the contention of the opposite parties that there are no complaints of the present nature from any agriculturist except the complainant and the complainant filed the present complaint with untenable allegations to get wrongful gain from the opposite parties.  But, we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that simply because there are no complaints of the present nature from any agriculturist, the complaint cannot completely be ruled out on that score.  But at the same time, it is the duty of the Forum to carefully scrutinize the material placed on record by both sides because the facts and circumstances will differ from each case.   

 

11. It is the case of the complainant that on the assurance given by the Agricultural Officer that he would get good yield, he purchased the said Sun Flower seeds from OP-1 under Ex.A-1 but the same have not grown properly and then he intimated the same to the Agricultural Officer, who in turn inspected the fields and gave report Ex.A-3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant made number of corrections in the purchase bill of the seed and the seed was purchased on 16-12-2009 and sowed the seed in the last week of December, 2009. Naturally, germination gets effected during the very low temperature in the last week of December especially the Sun Flower seed.  The alleged report of the Agricultural Officers that seeds not germinated properly is not a ground to file this complaint.  In respect of corrections in the bill issued by OP-1, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has not made any corrections but the official who issued the bill Ex.A-1 has made such corrections.  Further, OP-1 failed to produce any valid document or affidavit evidence in support of the said contention.  There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant for the reason that OP-1 failed to comply his obligation to produce valid document i.e., duplicate copy of the bill available with them in support of said contention.  Further, the OP-1 failed to submit affidavit evidence though sufficient opportunity is given to him by this Forum.  Mere denial of OP-1 in respect of genuineness of the bill for supply of Sun Flower seeds under Ex.A-1 does not escape from his liability of deficiency of service to the complainant.  Further simple denial of genuineness of the bill could not throw burden of proof on other side.  Hence we are unable to agree with the contention of the opposite parties on this aspect.

12. It is also the further case of the complainant that he sowed all the seeds purchased under the bill Ex.A-1 in his land and taken all precautions and provided fertilizers, pesticides etc.  But the seeds not germinated. Then he intimated the same to the concerned Agricultural Officer within stipulated time.  The Agricultural Officer visited the field and gave report under Ex.A-3 stating that seeds not germinated properly.  It is also the further case of the complainant that at this juncture, he presented a representation to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar under the original of Ex.A-4 by communicating its copy to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar.  The District Collector in turn directed the ADA(R), Shadnagar to enquire into the matter and submit report within 7 days as under Ex.B-3/A-4.  A perusal of the recitals of Ex.A-3 clearly goes to show that there is some truth in the case of the complainant, for the reason that as per Ex.A-3 which was the field inspection report of the Agricultural Officer, Farooqnagar Mandal submitted to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Shadnagar on the complaint given to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, as per Ex.A-3 it is clear that the Agriculture Officer visited the field on 23-1-2010 and on his verification he found only 10% population stand in the field as seed has not germinated.  On this aspect, the contention of the opposite parties is that the report of the Agricultural Officers that the seeds not germinated properly is not a ground to file this complaint.  But we are unable to agree with said contention for the reason that the opposite parties failed to submit any valid documentary or oral evidence except Exs.B-1 to B-4 out of which Ex.B-1 is the copy of the bill Ex.A-1 submitted by the complainant and so also Ex.B-2 is the copy of the field inspection report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-3 submitted by the complainant. Likewise, Ex.B-3 wherein there is an endorsement of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar directing ADA(R), Shadnagar to enquire and submit report within 7 days i.e., copy of Ex.A-4.   It appears that Exs.B-1 to B-3 communicated to O.P.1 by ADA(R)Shadnagar  in view of the directions on the complaint submitted by the complainant to the Collector under Ex.A-4/B-3, Ex.B-4 is the copy of reply notice of OP-2 to the complainant and Ex.B-5 is the copy of quality control lab report of OP-2 which do not helpful to their contention for the reason that when the complainant could prove that that he has purchased the seeds manufactured by the O.P.2,and when the Agriculture Officer has categorically opined that they do not have characteristics of notified variety, it is for the O.Ps to prove that the seeds which were released in the market were actually certified by the competent certificate agency. Producing their own Lab Report Ex.B5 would in no way prove that  the very same seeds were sold to the complainant through O.P.1 Further, the cross examination of P.W.1 by OP-2 by way of interrogatories has not elicited any valid proof in support of the case of opposite parties.  So, the report of the Agricultural Officer under Ex.A-3 is clear, specific and definite that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties being defective, the complainant sustained loss in his agriculture which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   

 

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking cognizance of these factors in M/s. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, reported in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC), upheld the report of the Agricultural Officer when he held that the seeds were defective. They approved the opinion of the Agricultural Officer by stating:

 

“In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate.  In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis.  Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory.  But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory.  Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis.  In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory”.                      

 

14. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and  since facts and circumstances of the latest  decision  of A.P. State Commission reported in II (2011) CPJ 476 which was relied upon by  the learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case, which  by and large are the same, and since the material available on record show that no effort was made by the opposite parties to prove that the seeds supplied to the complainant were in conformity with all characteristics by filing a certificate obtained from a competent authority before releasing the seeds to the market as per the Seeds Act. Further, the opposite parties could not file any valid documents in order to refute the evidence of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable for the relief sought for by the complainant.   

 

15. As far as their liability is concerned, both the opposite parties thrown blame on each other by saying that OP-1 is only a purchaser and distributor to the farmers, therefore he is not held responsible for any loss or damage or compensation as alleged in the complaint. Likewise, OP-2 contended that the complainant has no direct connection with this OP-2 since the bill under which he purchased goods and the money paid by him is to the OP-1 only. Hence the complaint against OP-2 is not sustainable. The above contentions of O.P.1 and 2 can not entertainabe for the simple reason that admittedly O.P1 is the distributor of the seeds supplied by O.P.2 who in turn sold the same to the farmer and the complainant.  So, in view of the said situation and since it is a fact borne out from the record that the OP-1 sold the seeds which were supplied by OP-2 to the complainant and the complainant has clearly established that he could not get proper yielding as per the norms and specifications given due to supply of non standard seeds, we hold that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

 

16. As far as the compensation claimed by the complainant is concerned, the complainant except his self styled testimony that he has invested amounts using pesticides, fertilizers and spent labour charges and suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- per acre due to supply of substandard seeds on account of unfair trade practice made by the opposite parties, did not produce any proof in that regard. Though third party affidavit filed by the complainant which is treated as evidence of P.W.2 it does not disclose how much worth of yield he got by sowing other variety of sun flower seed in the adjacent land of the complainant.  In the absence of any oral or documentary proof produced by the complainant with regard to the market rate of Sun Flower seed in those days and taking into consideration of the extent of the land  the loss of the yield of Sun Flower seed sustained by the complainant and the expenditure of sum of Rs.860/- spent towards purchase of the seeds as per Exs.A-1/B-1 cash memo, we are of the view that awarding of some reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint will meet the ends of justice and both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the same.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.      

17. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards crop loss besides a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.    

 

   I agree                                                                                           I agree                                                  

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties: 

 

P.W.1: G. Purushotham Reddy                      R.W.1: Srinivas

P.W.2: G. Golpal Reddy

  

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Cash Bill, dt.16.12.2009.

Ex.A-2: Original Cash Bill, dt.16.12.2009.

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.24.1.2010.

Ex.A-4: Copy of Letter, dt.23.1.2010.

Ex.A-5: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.26.4.2010.

Ex.A-6: Original Postal Receipt, dt.26.4.2010.

Ex.A-7: Original Postal Acknowledgement.

Ex.A-8: Original Letter, dt.5.5.2010.

Ex.A-9: Original News Item in Andhra Jyothi Daily News Paper.

Ex.A-10: Original Photos.

Ex.A-11: Labeled Seed Bag.

Ex.A-12: Photostat copy of Pattadar Pass Book.

    

On behalf of OPs.:                  

Ex.B-1: Photostat copy of Cash Bill, dt.16.12.2009.

Ex.B-2: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.24.1.2010.

Ex.B-3: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.23.1.2010.

Ex.B-4: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.5.5.2010.

Ex.B-5: Photostat copy of Quality Control Lab Report.

  

 

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                            

Copy to:-

1. Sri E. Padma Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri Ch. Shyamsunder Rao, Advocate, for the OP-1.

3. Sri B. Kantha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the OP-2.