BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 24th day of February, 2006.
C.C.No.165/2005
K. Veera Reddy,
S/o. Ranga Reddy,
Aged about 51 years, Agriculturist,
R/o. Dudekonda (V &P),
Pattikonda (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
M/s. Zuari Seeds Limited,
Yalahanka New Town,
Bangalore, Karnataka State.
2. Krishna Reddy, Owner of M/s Sree Lakshmi
Seeds and Pesticides Dealers,
D.No. 15/158-2-1,
Government Hospital Road,
Adoni (V) and (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 22.2.2006 for hearing in the presence of Sri C. Kantappa, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant , Sri N. Joseph Deva Veera, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, Hon ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is that he cultivated his land with the hybrid cotton seed purchasing it from opposite party No.2 and the said seed was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and he sustained the loss of crop inspite of good filed and crop management using necessary manures, pesticides and taking all possible care and caution and attributes the said event to the defect in the seed supplied to him by the opposite parties and so claims an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- as compensation for the failure of crop due to defective seed and Rs.1,74,000/- towards the agricultural in-puts and expenditure and the interest there on along with costs.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.1 contested the case causing its appearance through advocate and filing written version, the opposite party No.2 remind exparte.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant s case disputes the bonafidies of the cause of action of complainant s case and his entitleness to the claim denying any defect in the seed. And the failure crop if any due to various other reasons and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary material record in Ex.A1 to A23 and the affidavit of himself, the opposite party has merely filed the written version not even filed any sworn affidavit in rebuttal of the complainant s sworn affidavit and material marked.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the cause of action against the opposite party and there by his entitleness to the claim made.
6. No documentary record placed by the complainant side says the failure of the crop is on account of the defect in said seed supplied by the opposite party even though they envisage the loss of crop. But there appears every bonafidies in said grievance as he addressed of his grievances to the opposite parties on 1-12-2004 and 17-2-2005 vide Ex.A20 and 21 which were not respondents by the opposite party. The observation of Mandal Agriculture Officer in Ex.A19 addressed to Joint Director of Agriculture on 14-3-2005 also finds infirmity as in the crop lending support to the grievance of the complainant which lead to the failure of the expected yield.
7. As per the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Maharastra Hybrid Company Ltd., V/s Alvalapati Chandra Reddy and other reported in 1998 (3) CPJ page -8 (SC) the complainant cannot be found fault for not sending the alleged defective seed for analysis and test as contemplated under Section 13(1) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act as there is every possibility with him for the consumption of entire seed in sowing and it was laid further there in it as responsibility of the seed provider to send the seed sample of said batch for analysis and test resorting to the procedure prescribed under 13(1) C.P. Act and held the dismissal of complaint by District Forum finding fault with complainant for not sending the seed for test analysis as bad and in the present case the opposite parties has taken any said venture to hold the seed supplied to the complainant by them was defect free and reason for failure of the crop was not on account of defect in said seed, the loss of the crop canvassed by the complainant is attributing to the defect in seed, is remaining worthy of acceptance especially when the documentary record in Ex.A1, A3 to A9 envisages proper field and crop management and Ex.A2 envisages the rising of said crop in the said filed of the complainant and the non responsive conduct of the opposite parties to Ex.A10 and A12, A19 and A20 being not able to establish the genuiness of the seed supplied to the complainant.
8. Therefore, there appears every bonafidies in the cause of action and claim of the complainant and the liability of the opposite parties for making good of loss of the complainant on they failed to establish the seed supplied was free from any defect.
9. Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to make good of the complainants claim to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint i.e. Rs.2,16,000/- plus Rs.1,74,000/- total Rs.3,90,000/- towards the failure of the crop and agricultural in-puts and expenditure along with interest at 12 percent per annum from the date of complaint till realization and costs of Rs.10,000/- within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 24th day of February, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party :Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Bill of purchasing seeds of opposite party No.2 dt 20.5.2004.
Ex A.2 Adangal issued by Dudekonda Village Secretary for year 2004-05.
Ex A.3 Pesticides bills total 10 by opposite party No.2.
Ex A.4 Sri Mallikarjuna Fertilizers and Pesticides bills by Pattikonda.
Ex A.5 Tractor receipt bill for Rs.10.400/- dt 15.5.2004.
Ex A.6 receipt bill for Agricultural Operation Charges for Rs.11,100/-.
Ex A.7 Receipt bill for Labour charges for Rs.34,500/-.
Ex A.8 Receipt bill for Water charges for RS. 15,000/-.
Ex A.9 Sprying charges for Rs.24,096/-.
Ex A.10 Office copy of legal notice dt 27.12.2004 by complainant counsel to
Opposite party No.1.
Ex A.11 Postal acknowledgement by opposite party No.1.
Ex A.12 Office copy of legal notice dt 25.12.2004 to opposite party No.2.
Ex A.13 Postal Acknowledgement addressed by opposite party No.2.
Ex A.14 Broucher (Jai Kissan Zuari Seeds Ltd).
Ex A.15 Original Hybrid Cotton Polaris Seeds Pocket.
Ex A.16 Xerox copy of complainant letter dt 20.12.2004 to the Dist. Collector,
Kurnool.
Ex A.17 Acknowledgement by Grievance Cell Collector s Office, Kurnool.
Ex A.18 Xerox copy of complainant letter dt 28.3.2005 to Joint Director,
Agricultural, Kurnool.
Ex A.19 M.A.O Objection report dt 14.3.2005.
Ex A.20 Office copy of personal notice dt 1.12.2004 issued to opposite party
No.1.
Ex A.21 Reminder notice, dt 17.2.2005 with opposite parties acknowledgement.
Ex A.22 Photos with negatives.
Ex A.23 Cash bill for Rs.300/- of Harika Studio, Pattikonda dt 14.12.2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
s
1. Sri C. Kantappa, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri N. Joseph Deva Veera, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Krishna Reddy, Owner of M/s Sree Lakshmi, Seeds and Pesticides Dealers,
D.No. 15/158-2-1, Government Hospital Road, Adoni (V) and (M),
Kurnool Dist.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
