BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 30th day of May, 2006
CC No.159/2005
K. Chinna Maddaiah,
S/o. K. Ramudu,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o. B. Thandrapadu (V),
Kurnool (M & Dist). . . . Complainant.
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
The National Seeds Corporation Ltd,
Shed No.3 and 4,
Industrial Estate,
Kurnool.
2. The Regional Manager,
National Seeds Corporation Ltd,
17-11, Thukaram Gate,
North Lalaguda, Secunderabad-17. . . . Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri B. Murali Manohar, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and No.2, 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 field under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.37,800/- as compensation for loss of the crop, Rs.15,000/- towards incurred expenses of agricultural in-puts, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered at the deficiency of opposite parties and Rs.20,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice in selling defective seeds and Rs.2,000/- as costs alleging the opposite parties as holding the trade business in selling seeds having its office at Kurnool and at Secundrabad and the complainant purchasing 35 Kgs of “Maize Ganga -5” variety seed for Rs.770/- from the opposite party No.1 at the laters assurance of yield of 20 quintals per acre and its repurchase by FCI @ Rs.540/- per quintal and its sowing in his land of 5.0 acres in Survey No.90/3 and 92/1 of B.Thandrapadu village and his agricultural investment at Rs.3,000/- per acre and growth of the crop not satisfactory even after 45 days of its sowing and its brining to the notice of the opposite party No.1 and concerned Mandal Agriculture Officer and administration of urea at the advice of opposite party No.1 and even then there being no satisfactory development reporting the matter to concerned MAO on 23-8-2005 for inspection and report and its consequential inspection by MAO and his staff on 27-8-2005 and the observation of seed is not pure as 17precent ear heads were not proper seed setting and 26precent of ear heads only having full seed setting and the non responsive conduct of the opposite party No.1 on said impurity of seeds observed and in compensating the loss of yield to the complainant and said conduct amounts not only deficiency but also to unfair trade practice of selling impure seed and there by ensuing the loss of yield to him.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filing their written version denying any of their liability to the complainant s claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 adopted by the opposite party No.2, deny the complaint averments as to sale of impure seed and any unfair trade practice, assurance as to any expected yield, complainant incurring expenditure of Rs.3,000/- per acre for agricultural in-puts, the complainant complaining to the opposite parties as to the failure of the crop, and administration of urea at the advice of the opposite party. It alleges the failure of crop if any to the complainant was on account of heavy rains and not on account of defect in the seed, and the report of MAO is self confidictory besides to its inconclusiveness in assigning any defect to the seed and on the other hand recommending for inspection by scientist for ascertaining as to the quality of seed, it alleges the probable yield of said variety in normal agro environmental conditions as 12 to 15 quintals per acre only and non inspection of the said yield of the complainant s field by the scientist of agriculture department as the complainant harvested by the time the crop in the field for screening the evidence, the failure on the part of the complainant to send the alleged seed for analysis and report by any approved laboratory and the seed sold was defect free as sold to farmers after its due certification by A.P. Seeds Certification Agency issued on conducting relevant tests and no complaint from other farmers to whom the same lot No. seed was sold and so the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and so liable to dismiss with exemplary cause.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant s side relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.C1 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and the evidence of M.A.Khalam Azad-MAO, Kurnool as PW1, and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B3 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any alleged deficiencies, unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and there by their liability to the complainant s claim.
6. The Ex.A2 while his bill for purchase of 35 Kgs of said Maize Ganga-5 seed of lot No.36055 from National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, at Kurnool (opposite party No.1) by K.Chinna Maddaiah (complainant) on 30-5-2005 for Rs.770/-, the Ex.A3 is a bunch of 3 bills for purchase of chemical fertilizers and pesticides all worth Rs.7,995/- (i.e. Rs.2,245 + Rs.2,150 + Rs1,200 + Rs.2,400) by the same complainant and Ex.A4 is a hand receipt issued by one K.Dhanunjaya for Rs.7,500/- towards the cost of dung manure of ten tractors load and its laying in his 5.0 acres field of the complainant for raising Maize crop. In the absence of any contra material the above Ex.A2 to A4 remains proved to the material mentioned therein.
7. The Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the adangal of B.Thandrapadu village for the firstly year 1414 containing the particulars as to survey No.90/3 and 92/1 and they envisage the cultivation of maize crop on the extent of 5.27 cents and the said survey Nos. standing on the name of the complainant. In the absence of any contra material discrediting the above said material in Ex.A5 the contents of Ex.A5 remains conclusively proved on the complainant s side to the effect that the complainant has cultivated maize crop in his field in that particular year.
8. The Ex.X1 is the office copy of report of MAO, Kurnool called into the case records and the Ex.A1 is xerox copy of Ex.X1. While the Ex.X1 shows appended alterations as to survey numbers of land deleting from survey No.92/2 2.0 acres extent and 92/3 3.15 cents with 92/1 acres 2.5 cents and 90/1/3 acres 3.22 cents respectively and was said to have been made on 27-8-2005, the Ex.A1 bears the date of said alteration as 27-9 which means of as of one month later to 27-8-2005. Further while the complainant alleges the area of sowing of said maize on an extent of 5.0 acres in survey No.90/3 and 92/1. The Ex.X1 shows the total extent of area of cultivation as 5.27 cents without deleting the earlier area of 5.15 cents shown as cultivation extent, and the Ex.A1 shows the total extent of cultivated area as 5.15 cents only while the total of the alter extents works out to 5.27 cents. Further both these Ex.X1 and A1 says at Serial.No.10 that the crop was at ear head emerging stage inconsistent to the material at para No.8 and 9 of said report which says that 70precent ear heads are with poor seed setting and 26precent ear heads are with full seed setting and by that mean that the stage of the crop has crossed the seed setting stage.
9. The evidence of MAO, as PW1, who made inspection of complainant s said field on 27-8-2005 gives a wavering statement as to Ex.X1 and A1 at one stage as Ex.A1 is the copy of Ex.X1 furnished the complainant and at one stage that Ex.A1 is not the copy of Ex.X1 and at another stage of his evidence says that the report sent to the Joint Direction, Agriculture on said inspection of said complainant s field doesn t have any corrections as to extents and survey Nos. as seen in Ex.X1 and A1. While the Ex.X1 and A1 bears the date of such inspection by MAO as to 27-8-2005 in pursuance of the complainant s report dated 25-8-2005 the evidence of said MAO as PW1 says as to date of his inspection as 23-8-2005.
10. The evidence of MAO as PW1 says the reason for poor seed setting was genetic impurity of the seed. But neither the Ex.X1/A1 report nor his evidence as PW1 says anywhere as to how he has arrived at genetic impurity of seed or does the said Ex.AX1/A1 report says any where that the said poor seed setting was on account of genetic impurity of said seed except mentioning as to the percentage of poor ear head seed setting and proper seed setting.
11. While the Ex.B1 letter dated 6-9-2005 of the Joint Director, Agriculture Kurnool addressed to the Associate Director, Research R.A.R.S, Nandyal - the copy of which is marked to the MAO Kurnool (PW1) - say the MAO, Kurnool submitted his report in part-A requesting for inspection of the field of the complainant by scientist, the evidence of said MAO as PW1 says that he did not recommend to Joint Director Agriculture, Kurnool for inspection of complainant s field by scientist. In the Ex.B1- the copy of which is marked to MAO, Kurnool (PW1) Associate Direction, R.A.R.S Nandyal was requested to depute its scientist for inspection of the field of the complainant on 9-9-2005. But the PW1 says the said inspection did not took place and doesn t say any reason for such non inspection especially when he was also instructed in said Ex.B1 to accompany the team during the said field inspection. But the Ex.B2 letter dated 14-9-2005 addressed by Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation, Kurnool (opposite party No.1) to J.D. Agriculture, Kurnool - says that the crop in complainants field was learnt from A. Mallikarjuna Setty, A.O. as was already harvested and hence the inspection was cancelled.
12. The evidence of PW1 - who claims to have inspected the field of complainant and observations made in Ex.X1/A1 - says the maize is a cross pollinated one and its pollen could be washed away due to heavy rains and inspite of his office having rain data particulars he did not study the crop of complainant s field in the direction of rain data and there by not routing out the possibility of the crop failure in complainant s field due to continues rains at the time of flowering alleged in Ex.B3 observation report dated 11-8-2005 of National Seed Corporation Ltd., Quality Control on the complainants field and the crop there in.
13. The report in Ex.C1 issued by Sr. Seed Certificate Officer (Q.C) I/c Seed Testing Laboratory, A.P.S.S.C.A., Kadapa on being referred of the sample of the seed by this Forum on request of the opposite party, finds the germination percentage of said maize seed at 92precent. Hence in the circumstances discussed neither their appears any cogent material to doubt the germination percentage of said seed and there by any genetic purity of said seed nor there appears any material infusing confidence on the evidence of PW1 and the Ex.X1/A1 reports to arrive at as to any genetic defect of the said maize seed said to have been provided to the complainant for sowing in his field. Nor their appears any other cogent material from the complainant side to believe the seed provided to the complainant by the opposite parties was one which was suffering with genetic impurity are a substandard one and there by resulted in loss of expected yield to the complainant. Hence, the mere failure of the expected yield to the complainant on cultivation of said seed in the land of the complainant, cannot be credited to the liability of the opposite parties on account of the mere reason of the supply of said seed by the opposite party to the complainant.
14. Consequently the case of the complainant as to alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in furnishing defective seed resulting in loss of expected yield being not proved and there by any of the opposite parties liability to the complainant s claim remains, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of May, 2006.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIS OF EVIDNCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties :Nil
P.W1- M. Abdul Khalam Azed, MAO,
Kurnool.
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Office copy of Mandal Agricultural Officer (MAO) Kurnool.
Ex A.2 Purchase bill, dt 30.5.2005 of National Seeds Corporation Ltd,
Secunderabad, No. 15970 for Rs.770/-.
Ex A.3 Bunch (4) of bills for purchase of Pesticides and Fertilizers.
Ex A.4 Receipt for Rs.7,500/-.
Ex A.5. Certified copy of Adangal No. 1414 for year 2004-2005 of Sy No. 90/3
and 91/1 of B. Thandra Padu (V).
Ex X.1 Office copy of MAO report.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex B.1 Letter, dt 6.9.2005 addrssed by Joint Director of Agriculture to
Assistant Director of Research, R.A.R.S., Nandyal.
Ex B.2 Reply of opposite party No.1 to Joint Director of Agricultural, Kurnool.
Ex A.3 Investigating report by opposite party No.1 dt 11.8.2005.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri B. Murali Manohar, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
