PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

 

1) S. Venkatasubba Naidu, S/o Venkataiah Naidu,

2) S. Hymavathi, W/o Venkata Subba Naidu, Hindu,

3) S. Narayanamma, D/o S. Venkataiah Naidu,

4) K. Nagaiah, S/o K. Naidaiah, Hindu, aged about 45 years,

 

1) Super Agro Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director,

2) Sri Krishna Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor, 16/1085,

3)  Agson Seeds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its managing Director,

4) Pabbisetty Subramanyam, S/o Tirupalaiah,

                                                                                                                                     

 

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 27-7-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R1 to R3 and Sri G.M.B Muralikrishna, Advocate for R4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The Respondents 1 & 3 were engaged in production and marketing of sun flower seeds namely SSH – 48 Arjun super Seeds and Bhanu Agsun 95 respectively and doing business throughout South India through their dealers and agents. The R2 was the authorized dealer of R1 and R4 was authroised agent of R3. 

 

3.                The complainant No. 2 was the wife and complainant No. 3 was the sister of complainant No. 1 and complainant No. 4 was the relative of other complainants.   They were agriculturists by raising crops in their own land situated at S.R. Palem of Pullempeta Mandal, Kadapa Disrict.  On 9-10-2008 the 1^st complainant on behalf of other complainants purchased 14 bags of Hybrid Sunflower seeds, containing 2kgs in each bag bearing SSH – 48 Arjun Brand with lot No. AVR 78480682 manufactured and marketed by R1, from R3 who was authrised dealer for Rs. 9,000/-. The R3 issued a receipt No. 13/46, dt. 9-10-2008. 

 

4.                The complainants purchased 15 bags Bhanu Agsun 95 brand sunflower seeds containing 2kgs in each bag with lot No. DUPR801 manufactured and marketed by R2 from its authorised agent R4. The R4 used to sell seeds of R3 to the ryots in and around Pullampeta Mandal, Kadapa District.   R4 never used to issue receipts for sale of the seeds. The R2 and R4 assured the ryots of good yield from the seeds produced by R1 and R3.  

 

5.                The complainants sowed Super – 48 (SSH-48) and Arjun brand Hybrid sunflower seeds in their respective lands in between 14-10-2008 to 18-10-2008 during rabi season.  The period of crop was 110 – 120 days. But there was premature harvest with small size sunfowoers which was not up to the mark both qualitatively and quantitatively as assured by R2 and R4 at the time of purchase. The crop was badly affected with Helicoverpa and Larva on some flower heads, leaves and pupal and severely damaged the standing crop. The complainants spent huge amount for cultivating the crops. Due to substandard seed marketed by the respondents, the complainants  suffered a lot and sustained a loss of Rs. 14,000/- per acre. The loss sustained by the complainants were shown as below. 

 

6.                The 1^st complainant brought it to the notice of R2 and R4, who assured to compensate. But they did respond later. Therefore, the complainants suffered mengal agony and filed the complaint for Rs. 1,31,460/- to the 1^st complainant, Rs. 71,960/- to the 2^nd complainant, Rs. 1,35,240/- to the 3^rd complainant and Rs. 71,260/- to the 4^th complainant, totaling Rs. 4,09,920/- towards loss of crop in a total extent of Ac. 29.28 cents together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. 

 

7.                The R1 filed a counter adopted by R2 with a memo. The 1^st complainant purchased voluntarily 14 bags of SSH – 48 Arjun super Hybird Sunflower seeds of 2kgs each bag with a lot No. 78480682 for Rs. 9,000/- from R2. One bag was sufficient per acre.   The seeds produced by R1 and sold by R2 were with high quality and genuine seeds. The 1^st complainant purchased the seeds at Nellore. There was no complaint from any one including 1^st complainant about the germination or genetic purity of the seed. The Mandal Agricultural Officer informed the respondent to attend the field inspection on 12-1-2009.   The Marketing Executive by name Sri Althaf Hussain attended the filed inspection along with the team consisting of Dr. A. Veeraiah, Coordinator, DAATTC, Kadapa Sri K. Sunil Kumar, SMS (Ento) KVK, Utukur, Sri R. Ramesh, ADA, Kodur and Sri B. Suresh Babu, Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pullampet. On 12-1-2009 they inspected about 35 acres of land. By the time of inspection the crop was approximately 90 days old.  There was no water facility.   The existing live plant showed the flowering, flower head size and seed setting was normal and no deviation from genetic characters.   The land was not fit for sunflower crop. It was rocky, shallow, sloppy and very poor soil, not useful for sunflower crop. The total crop was badly affected with Helicoverpa and Larva was present on some flower heads on the existing live crop.   There was pupal stage of Helicoverpa present on the leaves. There was drought conditions present at the time of inspection. There was no proper management by the ryots.   It was not due to defective seed. There was no complaint from any one against the seed with lot No. AVR 78480682. It was not correct that there was premature harvest and small size flowers. The complainant admitted that the crop was badly affected with Helicoverp and larva on some flower heads, casuing damage to the crop. So it was due to failure of crop management but not due to bad seed quality. It was not correct that the complainants spent huge amount for agricultural operations. It was not correct that the complainants sustained Rs. 14,000/- per acre as loss. The complainant invested Rs. 650/- per acre towards seed cost only.   No amount was invested for crop management. It was proved during the inspection of the crop. The fertilizer bills and pesticides bills were manipulated. After securing the bills and empty bags of R3 the complaint was filed.   The seed testing report was not filed. Therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 & 2 and there was no casue of action for the complaint. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

 

8.                The R3 filed a counter denied that R4 was the authorized agent of R3. The R3 was not concerned with R4. It was not correct that the R3 issued a receipt No. 13/46, dt. 9-10-2008. The R2 was not the manufacturer of Bhanu Agsun – 95 brand sun flower seeds.   The respondent was nothing to do with the allegations of purchasing of Bhanu Agsun – 95 sunflower seed by the 1^st complainant from R4. R4 never dealth with the seeds of R3. The R4 had no authority to sell the company seeds of R3. The seed packets showing the name of R3 had the date of package as 25-10-2008. But the date of sowing of the seed was from 14-10-2008 to 18-10-2008.  The respondent never sold the seed to the complainants and so complaint was not maintainable.   The complainants never informed withregard to bad quality of the seed during the Rabi season 2008. The value of the land per acre was Rs. 3,600/-. As per field visit report, there was no defect of the seed. It was not correct that the complainants sustained a loss due to defective seeds. The loss of crop was due to high infestation as per Mandal Agricultural Officer report. Thus there was no  casue of action and there was no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of R3 and the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

 

9.                The R4 filed a counter denied that it was agent of R3. The R4 was a small dealer at Rajampet town. The authorized representatives of R3 dumped Bhanu Agsun – 95 brand sunflower seeds to the shop of R4. The representatives used to bring seeds from the dealer of R3, who was running a shop at Proddatur, Kadapa District. 

 

10.              On behalf of the agents of R3 the respondent sold sunflower seed packets to the complainant No. 1 and collected the amount and handed over to the authorized agents of R3. The respondent had only to get commission on each packet. The respondent was not concerned with the manufacturing of seeds. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

11.              On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

 

12.              On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A14 were marked and on behalf of respondents Ex. B1 to B6 were marked.    

 

13.              Point No. 1& 2.   The 1^st complainant was husband of 2^nd complainant and brother of the 3^rd complainant. The 4^th complainant was relative of complainants 1 to 3. All the complainants had landed property in S.R. Palem, Pullampet Mandal, Kadapa District. Ex. A1 was Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of the 1^st complainant, hanving landed property in Survey No. 6/1-3 an extent of Ac. 5.14 cents and survey No. 124/2 an extent of Ac. 4.25 cents. Both were dry lands, totaling Ac. 9.39 cents. Ex. A2 was Photostat copy of Pattadar passbook of 2^nd complainant having land in survey No. 6/1/2 an extent of Ac. 5.14 cents dry under DKT patta. Ex. A3 was Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of 3^rd complainant in survey No. 122/1 in an extent of Ac. 4.96 cents and survey No. 124/1 an extent of Ac. 4.70 cents. Both were dry lands, totaling Ac. 9.66 cents. Ex. A4 was Photostat copy of pattadar passbook of 4^th complainant having land in survey No. 127/3 an extent of Ac. 5.09 cents dry under DKT Patta. Thus the total extent of all the complainants land was Ac. 29.28 cents. All the complainants intended to raise Hybrid sunflower crop in their respective lands. The 1^st complainant purchased 14 bags of hybrid sunflower SSH – 48 Arjun super seeds of 2 Kgs per each packet @       Rs. 650/- per packet. Under batch No. 78480682 for Rs. 9,000/- on 9-10-2008 under bill No. 13/46 from Sri Krishna Agencies, Nellore, who was the R2 in the complaint.  Under Ex. A5 a Photostat copy of the cash bill. The complainants disclosed that the 1^st complainant purchased the seed from R2 manufactured by R1 company on behalf of all the complainants. They filed Ex. A11 seed covers (13 Nos.) showing the date of testing on 30-8-2008 and the date of packing dt. 6-9-2008 with validity upto 29-5-2009 and lot No. AVR 78480682 and the physical purity was 98% and germination minimum was 70% and genetic purity minimum was 95%. So the Hybrid SSH – 48 super seed was purchased at Nellore but not within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum, Kadapa.

 

14.              The complainants contended that they purchased Bhanu Agsun – 95 variety of hybrid sunflower seed from R4 manufactured by R3 of 15 packets each of 2kgs under a lot No. DUPR 801 with date of testing on 28-9-2008 and date of packing on 25-10-2008 with validity upto 27-6-2009 with physical purity minimum as 98% and germination as minimum 70% and genetic purity as 95%. They filed Ex. A12 seed covers (2 Nos.). There was no bill for 15 bags purchased from R4. It was not mentioned anywhere in the complaint on which date, at which rate the 15 bags Bhanu Agsun – 95 brand sunflower seed was purchased from R4 manufactured by R3.   However, the R4 in its counter admitted sale of seeds to the 1^st complainant. But colleced the amounts and handed over to the authorized agents of R3, who was running business at Proddatur. Therefore R4 was not a dealer of R3 but only a Commission agent of R3.  Even the counter of R4 was also silent regarding the dae of sale and amount. Moreover the seed Bhanu Agsun – 95 was sowed in between 14-10-2008 to 18-10-2008 as per complaint. But on verification of Ex. A12 the empty bags of Bhanu Agsun – 95 sunflower seed the date of packing was 25-10-2008.   So, there was no explanation from the complainants when the packing was on 25-10-2008, how they have sowed the seed in between 14-10-2008 to 18-10-2008 i.e. prior to packing of the seed. The sowing of seed should be later to 25-10-2008 and it should not be earlier to 25-10-2008.   Therefore, Ex. A12 did not relate to the seed purchased by the complainants from R4. They would have collected the empty packets from other farmers and filed in the case.    If really they sowed the seed Bhanu Agsun – 95 mixed with SSH – 48 Arjun brand they would have purchased Bhanu Agsun – 95 seed earlier to 14-10-2008.    The date of packing should be much earlier to 14-10-2008. No ryot or farmer would be silent without demanding a bill for purchase of seeds. When the complainants secured a bill under Ex. A5 from R2 for 14 bags of seed for Rs. 9,000/- on 9-10-2008 they should have demanded a bill from R4. So the purchase of seed on 9-10-2008 from R4 was in doubt. 

 

15.              The R1 filed Ex. B1 copy of germination report of the seed with lot No. AVR 78480682 of 92%. The R1 filed Ex. B2 a copy of its dealers to whom the Hybrid Arjun variety seed with lot No. AVR 78480682 was supplied. In Ex. B2 the seed was supplied to M/s Bharath Seed Agencies, Proddatur. So the complainants instead of purchasing the seed at Proddatur they had purchased seed from R2 at Nellore.   The Arjun variety seed was not supplied to R2 by R1 as per Ex. B2.   Ex. B3 was Photostat copy of lable of Bhanu Agsun – 95 seeds produced by R3 and the same was shown on the empty packets. 

 

16.              After sowing the seed the complainants found that the crop was badly affected with Helicoverpa and Larva on some flower heads, leaves which caused much damage to the standing crop. The period of the crop was 110 to 120 days. After the complainants found Helicoverpa and Larva on some flower heads and leaves they addressed a letter on 16-12-2008 to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pullampeta to grant compensation for loss of the crop @ Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 14,000/- per acre. The Photostat copy of representation was Ex. A8. Ex. A6 and Ex. A7 were Photostat copy of paper cuttings to show the damage of crop. A copy similar to Ex. A8 was filed by the respondents under Ex. B4.   On the basis of Ex. A8 the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pullampeta addressed a letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa stating that the crop reached to the flower stage within 30 days and the crop was attacked with pests causing the loss of 95% and requesting the Joint Director of Agricuture to depute Agriculture Scientist for examination and testing of the crop. The photostate copy of the report of the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pullampeta was Ex. A9. Similar to it was filed by the respondents under Ex. B5. Subsequently, a team consisting of Dr. A. Veeraiah, Coordinator, DAATTC, Kadapa, Sri K. Sunil Kumar, SMS (Ento), KVK Utukur, Sri R. Ramesh, ADA ®, Kodur and Sri B. Suresh Babu, MAO, Pullampet visited the Sunflower fields of the complainants on 12-1-2009 and submitted the report and found that 95% of crop flowered and dried up completely with small flowers and 5% of plants which was live in both varities were at maturity stage in few patches and observations of live plants showed the flowring, flower head size and seed setting was normal and no deviation observed in both the hybrids.   The topography of the land also sloppy, rocky, undulated, shallow and poor soils which might prevented the root penetration of sunflower crop and the plants which already dried up showed very poor growth in major area of cultivated land.  The existing live crop in cetain patches also affected with Helicoverpa and Larva also observed in some flower heads and heavily damaged leaves also observed and pupal stages of Helicoverpa also observed on leaves.  Multiple heads were observed in hybrid Agsun 95 up to 2 to 3% which would not reduce the yield significantly.  Sunflower crop flowered earlier than the normal time of flowering.   The Photostat copy of the field visit of the scientists was Ex. A10 and it was filed by the respodnnets under Ex. B6.  The complainants filed Ex. A13 were bills for purchase of fertilizers and Ex. A14 bills for purchase of pesticides. 

 

17.              In view of Ex. A10 the land was sloppy, rocky, shallow and undulated and poor soils and it might have prevented the root penetration of sunflower crop. Therefore, the loss of crop was due to topography of the land which casued prevention of root penetration of sunflower crop.   Moreover, the plants were affected with Larva and Helicoverpa and on some leaves, pupal stage Helicoverpa was found. It was not due to substandard quality of the seed. The pests should be controlled with proper pesticides with the Assitance of Mandal Agricultural Officer or other Officials of the Agricultural Department.  Generally any type of crop either paddy or Groundnut or Cotton pests would attack at different stages and could be controlled with proper pesticides.    The claimatic conditions was also an important aspect to get loss of the crop.   On perusal of Ex. A10 it was clear that the loss was due to prevention of root penetration, because the soil was poor.   There was no explanation at what intervals fertilizers and pesticides were applied and in case the pests were not controlled what steps had been taken to prevent it with more powerful pesticides with the consultation of the Agricultural Department. There was no proof of yield in the previous years and in 2008. The complaint was silent.   There was no calculation to arrive at the figure of loss by each of the complainants. 

 

18.              The complainants purchased SSH – 48 Arjun Super seed from R2 at Nellore manufactured by R1.   Another variety of seed Bhanu Agsun – 95 was purchased from R4 manufactured by R3.  As discussed, there was no date and amount of purchase of the seed from R4 anywhere in the complaint.   It was vague. The complainants should not club R1 and R2 with R3 and R4 in one complaint. The R2 was within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum,  Nellore and R4 was within the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa. The variety of the seed purchased by the complainants from R2 and R4 was different variety. The complainants contended that under order 2 rule 3 of C.P.C “Joinder of Causes of action:-  (1) Save as otherwise provided, as plaintiff may unite in the same suit several cases of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such cause of action in the same suit”. So it would be against same defendant or defendants jointly. The complainants may unite in the same complaint several causes of action against the same Respondent or Respondents jointly and any complainant having causes of action in which they were jointly interested against same defendant or same defendants jointly unite such causes of action in the same complaint.  In the present complaint purchase of seed of different variety was at two different places produced by two different persons and hence, the causes of action was different.  The R4 was only a Commission agent of a dealer situated at Proddatur. There was no scope of joinder of causes of action as pleaded by the complainants. R4 was added for the purpose of jurisdiction. Therefore, Order 2 Rule 3 of C.P.C is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Thus there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondents. 

 

 

 

 

19.              Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 30^th July 2010

 

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

 

Ex. A1         P/c of pattadar passbook of 1^st complainant.

Ex. A2         P/c of pattadar passbook of 2^nd complainant.

Ex. A3         P/c of pattadar passbook of 3^rd complainant.

Ex. A4         P/c of pattadar passbook of 4^th complainant.

Ex. A5         P/c of cash/Credit bill No. 13/46, dt. 9-10-2008 from R2.

Ex. A6         P/c of paper cutting, dt. 28-12-2008

Ex. A7         P/c of paper cutting, dt. 19-12-2008.

Ex. A8         P/c of letter from complainants to M.A.O., dt. 16-12-2008

Ex. A9         P/c of letter from MAO., Pullampeta to J.D. Agriculture,

Ex. A10       P/c of field visit to sunflower fields at Sri Ranga Rajupalem, dt. 12-1-09.

Ex. A11      Sseed covers (13 Nos.) SSH-48 Arjun Seeds.

Ex. A12      seed covers (2 Nos.) Bhanu – Agsun – 95 seeds.

Ex. A13       Fertilisers bills, dt. 12-10-2008.

Ex. A14       Pesticides bills on different dates.

 

 

Ex. B1         Germination of the seed report issued by R1, dt. 8-6-2010.

Ex. B2         To whom soever it may concern certificate issued by R1.

Ex. B3         P/c of truthful label of Bhanu Agsun 95 seeds of R3.

Ex. B4         P/c of letter from complainants to M.A.O., Pullempeta, dt. 16-12-2008.

Ex. B5         P/c of letter from MAO., Pullampeta to J.D., Agriculture, Kadapa,

dt. 21-12-08.

Ex. B6         P/c of field visit to sunflower fields at Sri Ranga Rajupalem, dt. 12-1-09.

 

 

 

1)     Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.

2)     Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for R1 to R3.

 

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :