Date of filing:06-06-2012
Date of Disposal:28-04-2014.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 28th day of April, 2014
C.C.NO.31/2012
Between:
S.Venkatanarayana @
Venkatanarayana Reddy
S/o S.Vannurappa
r/o Poolakunta Village
Anantapur Rural Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The General Manager,
Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.,
S.No.196 & 197, Kandlakol Village,
Medchal,
R.R. District – 501 408.
- P.Bhaskar Reddy
S/o P.Narayana Reddy
Proprietor, Sri Revathi Seeds & Pesticides,
13-708-E3, Prabhakar Complex,
Opp: RTC Bus Stand,
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Venugopal, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.Venkatesh Guptha, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.90,040/- towards loss of investment, Rs.1,43,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditure in total Rs.2,63,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of payment.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant purchased watermelon seeds of Madhubala (80) F1 from the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is producing and marketing of the above said seeds. The complainant stated that he is well experienced farmer as he born in a traditional farmer’s family and he used to attend several farmers training programmes conducted by Regional Horticultural Training Institute, Department of Horticulture, Anantapur and he is well aware of all the important cultural and management practices of watermelon cultivation. The complainant owns land bearing S.No.390 to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents at Poolakunta Village, Danduvaripalli Polam , Anantapur District. The complainant purchased 15 bags if watermelon seeds each containing 100 grams under bill No.7311 dt.30-11-2011 for Rs.7,500/- from the 2nd opposite party. The crop period is 3 months and planted the seeds on 06-12-2011. As per the advice of Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai the complainant sprayed the pesticide and manure. As per the advice of experience and professional horticulturists, he has taken all precautions. It is submitted that when the crop was ripe for harvest, the complainant found less yield and inferior quality of fruit. Then he approached the Horticulture Officer for inspection of the crop and report. The officials of the Horticulture Office visited the land on 04-02-2012 and gave a report on diagnostic filed visit of watermelon field and the officer opined that the fruit is of inferior size and the yield is poor. His concluding remarks are as follows:
(a) Nutritional deficiency or pest and disease symptoms on leaves and plants were not apparent. Inspite of all the necessary practices (fertilizers, pesticides etc.,) followed by the farmer (refer to the farmer’s document) flowering and fruit set wee beyond 8 and 10th node of vines in major portion of the field.
(b) Verify few fruits were set as the 4th and 5th nodes of vines.
(c) Fruits that were set also are of inferior size and did not grow to its full potential.
(d) Over all yield expected were also less (<4 tons/acre).
The complainant sold the yielded fruits on 16-02-2012, 17-02-2012 and 18-02-2012 to Kalesh Mastan Vali Mandai and the total yield was 10 tons and he sold the same for Rs.16,350/-. Hence it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as they promised that the yield of the crop will be 20 tonnes per acre whereas the complainant got only 10 tons of fruits instead of 50 tonnes of fruit in total. In the open market good variety of fruit costs Rs.5,000/- per ton, whereas the complainant could sold his fruit at the rate of Rs.1675/- per ton. It is a clear that the seed supplied by the 1st opposite party and sold by the 2nd opposite party is inferior and poor quality. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim made in the complaint.
3. The counsel for the 1st opposite party filed counter stating that they are unaware
of the fact that the complainant is having agricultural land bearing S.No.387 measuring Ac.2.50 cents at Poolakunta Village and the opposite party also contended that they are unaware and nothing to do with the contention of the complainant that the complainant is well experienced farmer and well experience in growing watermelon since several years and also they contended that they are unaware that the complainant attended several farmer training programmes conducted by the Horticulture Officer, Anantapur and they also denied that the complainant followed all important cultural and management practices. They contended that he was only mentioned for the purpose of filing the present complaint to have illegal gains for himself. In this regard, the complainant might have adopted experiments in farming. It may be one of the factors leading to low yield. The opposite party also stated that they are unaware and no knowledge of that the complainant has purchased watermelon seeds from the 2nd opposite party vide bill Nos.7311 on 30-11-2011 and they are also unaware that the complainant planted the same on 06-12-2011 and followed the advice of Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai. They submitted that due to wrong advice given by Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai, the yield in the field of the complainant might have affected and defectiveness does not arise if they have not followed agricultural practice. It is further submitted that the opposite party also unaware of the contention that the complainant crop was ripe for harvest and he found less yield and inferior quality of fruit and the opposite party also unaware about the visit of Horticulture Officer on 04-02-2012. The opposite party submitted that no notice is served on the opposite parties or authorized representatives before conducting alleged inspection and examination of the crop by the Horticulture Officer and inspection is behind back of this opposite party. If inspection was taken by the Horticulture Officer, report has to be submitted to the opposite parties, but they have not done so. It seems that purposely with a malafied intention the complainant might have obtained the report behind back of this opposite party without informing the date of alleged inspection only with an apprehension that true facts will come out. The report of the Horticulture Officer discloses that the report is only based on the information furnished by the complainant but not on individual assessment by themselves. The report states only physical features of the crop and no definite finding to the effect that the failure of the crop is only due to defect in the seeds. The opposite party also submitted that there are several reasons and a variety of factors like nature of soil, availability of ground water, moisture contents in the atmosphere, rainfall, temperature and application of require pesticides etc., which would have impact on yield of the fruits but not solely due to the defect in the seeds supplied by the opposite party. The opposite party used to produce and sell large quantity of seeds and there are no complaints from any of the ryots from the State of A.P. or from the District of Ananthapuramu. They also submitted that the complainant sold the yield on 16-02-2012, 17-02-2012 and 18-02-2012 at Kalesh Mastan Vali Mandi for Rs.16,750/-. The complainant might have sold yield to different persons and only with an intention to have illegal gain he produced only some receipts. Further the contention of the complainant that he spent a sum of Rs.90,040/- is absolutely false and the opposite party never promised/guaranteed that the yield is 20 tons of fruit. The present complaint is showing exaggerated expenditure. The complainant got issued legal notice with false claims to extract the money from the opposite party for this he has given suitable reply and it is a clear case of frivolous complaint filed by the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and only to extract the money from the opposite parties filed this unjust complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party filed counter stating that it is true that they are the dealers of the 1st opposite party and they used to supply Madhu Bala (80) F1 Watermelon Seeds produced by the 1st opposite party and they also admitted that the purchase of watermelon seeds from the 2nd opposite party on 30-11-2011 vide bill Nos.7311. The 2nd opposite party contended that they are unaware when the complainant planted the seeds and whether the complainant planted the seeds or not. The other allegations they have alleged that the complainant followed the advice of Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai is not known to this opposite party and they also mentioned that when the crop was ripe for harvest, the complainant found less yield and inferior quality of fruits and inspection of Horticulture Officer they do not know and they also unaware of the report of the Horticulture Officer. In fact during standing crop the complainant never informed about the crop and yield of the fruits to the 2nd opposite party or his Field Officers. They also unaware about the visit of the Horticulture Officer and there is no proof about the visit. If any inspection report filed by the complainant is not binding on the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the opposite party is selling the seeds for the past 8 years and they never received any complaints about the quality of seeds and yield of the crop. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the photos submitted by the complainant, crop was raised as inter crop with sweet lemon crop. Photos also show the size of the watermelon is good and yield of the crop also good. There is no deficiency of service on the opposite party and there is no communication between the complainant and the opposite parties and about selling of the fruits in the market is also denied. There is no proof about the yield of the crop and selling the same in the market. The entire crop is depending on the soil, water and other practice. If the complainant really suffered loss he could have filed the complaint before harvesting the crop. This complaint is filed only to harass this opposite party. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the 2nd opposite party with costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the watermelon seeds supplied by the opposite parties is defective and inferior quality?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?
3. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A13 documents. On behalf of the complainant, Assistant Director of Horticulture, Ananthapuramu has been examined as PW1 and the complainant has been examined as PW2. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2, evidence on affidavits of the opposite parties 1 & 2 have been filed and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The 1st opposite party filed written arguments.
7. Heard on both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:- The 1st opposite party filed a petition to summon the complainant and Horticulture Officer, who visited the field of the complainant and the petitions were allowed by this Forum and the complainant and Horticulture Officer were examined as PW1 & PW2. The complainant himself has examined as PW2. Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book and Ex.A2 is attested copy of adangal. He deposed that he has purchased Watermelon Seeds of Madhu Bala variety from the 2nd opposite party on 30-11-2011 under Ex.A3. A4 is bills for purchase of Fertilizers and Pesticides. Ex.A5 is Way bridge bills. Ex.A6 is fruit mundy bills. Ex.A7 is prescription issued by Aries. Ex.A8 is report issued by the Horticulture Officer, Anantapur. Ex.A9 is office copy of legal notice dt.09-04-2012. Ex.A10 is reply notice dt.26-04-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ex.A11 is postal acknowledgment of O.P.2 Ex.A12 is photographs and Ex.A13 is empty bags. The complainant narrated in his chief that he purchased Madubala Watermelon Seeds from the 2nd opposite party, who is the dealer of 1st opposite party. After purchasing the same immediately the complainant sowed the seeds in the lands and the complainant also deposed that at the time of harvest, he observed that the crop and fruit seize is very less. Immediately he informed the same to the Horticulture Officer to inspect his land. The Horticulture Officer inspected the land on 04-02-2012 and gave his report stating that the crop is very less yield and the same is due to defective and inferior quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties. The counsel for the 1st opposite party cross-examined the complainant. In the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he has not filed any certificate with regard to undergoing training in agriculture field and he also admitted that he has followed the advise of Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai but not the opposite parties. He also admitted that from the date of sowing till the date of selling the crop in the market, he has not issued any notice to the opposite parties. He also admitted that he has issued notice for the first time on 09-04-2012 before that he never tried to issue any notice. The complainant also admitted in the cross-examination that there is no evidence under Ex.A2 adangal that he sown watermelon crop. The complainant also admitted that the opposite party never canvassed that the yield of the fruit is 10 tons per acre. The complainant also admitted that crop will depend on the time management and applying pesticides and fertilizers. The opposite parties also examined Horticulture Officer, who visited the field of the complainant. After receiving summons he appeared before this Forum on 30-05-2013. He stated that he visited the field of the complainant on 04-02-2012 alongwith Phiroz Khan, Horticulture Officer, Dr.Nataraj Sreenivas, Senior Scientist, Rekulakunta and gave a report on 20-03-2012. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt by filing Ex.A2 which clearly shows that the seeds manufactured by the 1st opposite party, which he purchased from the 2nd opposite party and he sowed the same in his land immediately. When he observed that at the time of harvesting the crop the yield is very less. Then he informed to the Horticulture Officer, who visited the field of the complainant on 04-02-2012. The counsel for the complainant solely depending on the report of the Horticulture Officer and Photographs which are marked as Ex.A8 & A12. To decide the case of the complainant, he is solely depending on the report of the Horticulture Officer marked as Ex.A8 and Ex.A4 bills pertaining to purchase of pesticides. Whereas the counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that the complainant never informed neither to the 1st opposite party or 2nd opposite party at any point of time. For the first time the complainant informed about the defectiveness to the opposite parties through legal notice dt.09-04-2012. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant has not even informed about the inspection of the Horticulture Officer of his field and they kept the opposite parties in dark. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that the complainant himself admitted in the cross-examination about the non-issuance of notice to the opposite parties. The opposite party also submitted that the Horticulture Officer, who was cross-examined by the 1st opposite party also admitted the fact that he failed to give any prior notice about the inspection of visit of the complainant’s field but the Horticulture Officer stated that he tried to inform through phone. The counsel for the opposite party also argued that the complainant failed to prove about the defectiveness of the seeds and counsel also argued that the before filing of the complaint, the complainant never tried to send the seeds for testing. He also argued that as per rule 23A of Seeds Rules, 1968 action to be taken by the Seed Inspector if a complaint is lodged with him:-
“ If a farmer has lodged a complaint in writing that the failure of the crop is due to the defective in quality of seeds of any notified kind or variety supplied to him, the Seed Inspector shall take in his possession the marks or labels the seed containers and a sample of unused seeds to the extent possible from the complainant for establishing the source of supply of seeds and shall investigate the causes of the failure of his crop by sending the samples of the lot to the Seed Analyst for detailed analysis at the State Seed Testing Laboratory. He shall thereupon submit the report of his findings as soon as possible to the competent authority.”
9. Basing on the evidence adduced by the opposite parties and arguments advanced by both counsels. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Madhubala Watermelon seeds from the 2nd opposite party. Though the 1st opposite party contended that he was unaware about the purchase of seeds by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party, who is a dealer has admitted that he has sold the seeds supplied by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. So the 1st opposite party is manufacturer of Madhubala Watermelon Seeds and the complainant purchased the same seeds from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party also admitted that on 30-11-2011 the complainant purchased watermelon seeds from his shop. Only dispute with regard to sowing of seeds and procedure followed by the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 denying about the sowing of crop. As per the documents produced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the complainant purchased the watermelon seeds but there is no proof that when he sowed the seeds in his lands. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he followed the advice of Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai. The opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that the complainant never approached them to take advice for the agriculture methods. The 1st opposite party contended that loss may be due to wrong advice given by the above said Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai. As per Ex.A2 clearly shows that land belongs to the complainant is a dry land. The 1st opposite party elicited in the cross-examination of PW2, who is Horticulture Officer that “ it is true to say that watermelon crop is mainly water based crop “. In the cross-examination of PW2 he categorically admitted that he raised watermelon crop as inter crop with sweet lemon crop and the sweet lemon is absorbed more water than the watermelon. The counsel for the opposite party elicited that the supply of water for watermelon is less due to which also crop was less. The counsel also elicited in the cross-examination of PWs 1 & 2 that prior to inspection of the complainant’s land neither the complainant nor Horticulture Officer gave any information to the opposite parties. The Horticulture Officer is an agricultural expert. Usually it is the duty of the Horticulture Officer to issue notice to the opposite parties before visiting the farmer’s field. Being an expert in agriculture field, the Horticulture Officer simply saying in his cross-examination that he tried to inform through phone and he also stated that he is not having phone number of the opposite parties. He admitted that more than 40 days of inspection of land he gave his report. The 1st opposite party proved that there is no prior information about the inspection of the complainant’s land. The 1st opposite party also stated that the report prepared by the Horticulture Officer is based on the farmer’s complaint. Admittedly what type of complaint was given to Horticulture Officer to inspect the land is not filed. In his report i.e. Ex.A8 Horticulture Officer has clearly mentioned that based on the information given by the farmer, he noticed the points i.e.” fruits that were set also are of inferior size and did not grow to its full potential, overall yield expected were also less.” The Horticulture Officer admitted in his cross-examination that he has not taken any instrument at the time of visiting the field, only he observed with bare eyes. He also admitted that with bare eyes he cannot say quantum of pesticides, fertilizers and nature of pesticides applied by the farmer. In the entire cross-examination the Horticulture Officer not stated anything about the defect and inferior quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties. He never stated in his report what type of precautions the complainant was taken. He simply stated in cross-examination that the size of the fruits may be due to inferior quality of seeds. He is not sure about the defectiveness. The counsel for the complainant admitted that the complainant sold fruits in the market under Ex.A6 on 16-02-2012, 17-02-2012 and 18-02-2012 to Masthanvali Fruit Mandi wherein there is no recital about the tones of watermelon. They have simply mentioned that the name of the complainant and selling of watermelon for a sum of Rs.6,510/-, Rs.4,870/- and Rs.2,745/- on respective dates. The complainant sold watermelon fruits in the market on 16-02-2012 after visit of the Horticulture Officer to his field. The Horticulture Officer prepared his report more than a month after his visit i.e. on 20-03-2012. There is no recital in the report that generally how much yield will come per acre. He simply stated that expected yield is very less, no recital that the same was due to defective seeds. Documents filed by the complainant also does not disclose that the opposite parties canvassed that 10 tons of yield will come per acre and the same was admitted by the complainant in the cross-examination that there was no canvass by the opposite parties about the 10 tons of yield per acre and not filed any document for the same. The opposite parties argued that the complainant might have sold the fruits to different persons and he intentionally filed four receipts to gain unlawfully. For this there is no denial on the part of the complainant and he failed to convince that how much yield he will get per acre and how much he sold in the market. This Forum is not in a position to conclude the quantum of yield per acre, because the Horticulture Officer has not stated in his report that how much yield usually farmer will get and how much yield was not properly grown. The report simply stated that the yield is less. We believe the version of the opposite parties that the complainant might have sold watermelon fruits to some other fruit vendors and he intentionally failed to file those documents which have already sold to fruit vendors. The complainant estimated loss of Rs.90,040/- and loss of investment of Rs.1,43,000/- there is no recital how the complainant comes to this figure.
10. The complainant submitted a ruling reported in II 2008 CPJ 165 National Commission the Hon’ble apex court allowed the complaint made by the complainant basing on the report of the Horticulture Officer and the Hon’ble apex court has observed that the opposite parties failed to file counter report for the report of the Horticulture Officer. Hence the report of the Horticulture Officer is final and the complainant is entitled the claim as prayed for. When we go through the contents it was mentioned in the order that in the above case, plants were in 3 or 4 different types. It was observed by the Horticulture Officer and the same was not challenged. Basing on the above 3 or 4 different types of plants, the apex court comes to conclusion that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective seeds. Whereas in the present case is different and the complainant sold watermelon fruits in the market and the Horticulture Officer failed to prove that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are inferior and defective one. Counsel also filed another ruling reported in III 2008 CPJ 96 N.C. In the above case the apex court comes to conclusion that the carrot seeds supplied by the opposite parties is not yielded up-to 90% and crop inspected by the Senior Officers and there is no seeds test as contemplated u/s 13(1)© and the buyer of seeds not expected to set apart some quantity of seeds for testing . Hence the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective and the complainant is entitled to claim. This case is also not applicable to the present case, because in the above case the apex court observed that the growth of the plants 90% defective and the same tested by the experts in agriculture field. About the testing of the seeds as per section 13(1)© is not mandatory. The complainant was communicated about the defectiveness of seeds supplied by the opposite parties in the above case. Whereas in the present case the complainant totally exaggerated and avoiding the presence of the opposite parties and there is no information about the defectiveness or less yield of crop to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party is a manufacturer and if the complainant tried to inform about the less yield and defectiveness, the opposite parties might have given proper guidance to the complainant at the preliminary stage itself. Whereas the complainant never informed the same even to the 2nd opposite party, who is a dealer of 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party contended that if the complainant has approached them, definitely they would have sent their representatives to inspect the field. But the complainant never tried to inform about the defective seeds and yield. The Horticulture Officer also failed to inform about his inspection of the field of the complainant. When the same put in his cross-examination he simply stated that he informed through phone but there is no evidence for the same. Hence we are not relying on the decisions cited by the complainant because the above said ruling is not applicable to the present case. The Hon’ble National Commission observed in 2013 (IV) 186 N.C. Shamsheer Singh Vs. Seed Company that the complaint by farmers regarding quality of seeds, inspection committee has to be constituted comprising 2 officials of Agriculture Department, one representative of seed agency and scientist of Krishi Vigyan Kendra – said instruction not followed by Agriculture Department while giving their report. The complainant suffered loss due to poor quality of seeds not established by any scientific evidence. In the present case also the same facts applies. Hence the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are not defective one and the complainant failed to establish the same. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
11. POINT NO.2 - The complainant also failed to establish that the services of opposite parties are deficiency, when absolutely there is no information either to the defectives in seeds nor less yield to the opposite parties prior to issue of legal notice on 09-04-2012. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the seeds on 30-11-2012 and watermelon fruits sold in the market on 16-02-2012, prior to it the complainant never tried to communicate about the defects in the seeds to the opposite parties how the services of the opposite parties are deficiency. In 2011(3) CPJ 99 (NC) Myco Seeds Ltd, Vs. Venkatarayu held that if complainant report about the defects in seeds to opposite parties, who is manufacturer and no laboratory test was conducted – No defect in the seeds and no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties. In the present case, no laboratory test was conducted though the 1st opposite party is manufacturer. Hence, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and this point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
12. POINT NO.3 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed and both sides do bear their own costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 28th day of April, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
1. PW1 – Sri C.Siva Satyanarayana, Assistant
Director of Horticulture, Anantapur on
30-05-2013.
– NIL -
2. PW2 – S.Venkatanarayana Reddy, complainant
on 06-06-2013
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of Pattadar Pass Book relating to the complainant
Ex.A2 - Attested copy of adangal extract.
Ex.A3 - Original Cash Bill dt.30-11-2011 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the
complainant.
Ex.A4 - Fertilizer Pesticides Bills.
Ex.A5 - Waybridge bills.
Ex.A6 - Fruit Mundy bills.
Ex.A7 - Prescription issued by Aries Agro Ltd., Mumbai.
Ex.A8 - Report issued by the Horticulture Officer, Anantapur dt.20-03-2012.
Ex.A9 - Office copy of legal notice dt.04-03-2012 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A10- Reply notice dt.26-04-2012 got issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A11 - Postal acknowledgment signed by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A12 – Bunch of Photos relating to watermelon crop.
Ex.A13 - Empty packets of watermelon seeds.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE EPARTY NO.1
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE EPARTY NO.2
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
