This complaint is coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of       Sri. M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri. A. Rama Rao, Advocate for Opposite party No.2; Notice to Opposite party No.1 served; called absent; complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed; and opposite party No.4 is appeared in person; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainants Nos.1 to 13 are the agriculturists and residents of Lalapuram village of Konijerla Mandal, Khammam district.  The complainants having own land and also taken the lands on lease for growing paddy.  Having attracted to the vide publicity of opposite parties, purchased paddy BPT – 5204 seeds @Rs.28/- per one kilogram from the opposite party No.4, marketed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and sowed the same in their fields.  The particulars regarding extent of land cultivated by the complainants and it’s survey numbers as follows:-

The complainants have followed all the precautions and procedures by using pesticides and fertilizers for good yielding.  Surprisingly, there was no proper growth and yielding because of defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, upon which, approached the opposite parties by informing the huge loss, sustained by them.  Thereafter, approached the Mandal Agricultural Officer, as there was no response from the opposite parties.  The M.A.O., who inspected the fields, opined that the crop was damaged due to defective seeds.  The complainants further submitted that they spent Rs.20,000/- per acre towards purchase of seeds, pesticides, preparation of land for sowing, engaging of coolies and other charges.   They also stated that inspite of following all the procedures and precautions, sustained heavy loss @ Rs.11,08,250/- i.e. Rs.20,000 X Ac.55.16½ gts and also lost Rs.15,000/- towards income per acre, in total all the complainants were sustained loss of income @ Rs.15,000 X 55.16½ gts = Rs.8,31,186/-.  In total the complainants 1 to 13 are claiming Rs.19,39,436/- towards compensation and damages of Rs.2,000/- to the each complainant towards mental agony and costs.    

3.       On behalf of complainants No.1 to 13, the complainant No.1 filed Affidavit along with documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.

4.       On receipt of notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed counter through their counsel by denying the averments of the complaint except sale of BPT – 5204 paddy seeds to the complainants through the opposite party No.4.  The opposite parties submitted that the M.A.O, who visited the crops for inspection, did not inform them for their attendance at the time of inspection and without having any right, inspected, the crop.  She did not conduct soil test whether it was suitable to cultivate paddy or not and she did not observe the cultivation methods, followed by the complainants as directed by the opposite parties.  The M.A.O. had given her report directly to the complainants, without submitting to the higher authorities, clearly shows, the influence of the complainants.  Further they also submitted that they sold 270 quintals of paddy seeds throughout the district, except this complaint, no complaint was lodged against them.  They marketed the seeds, after conducting thorough tests and after obtaining seed certification from the ISI Department.  The complainants did not inform the opposite parties for personal inspection regarding the crop condition as alleged.  The complainants purchased huge quantity of seeds, shows they raised commercial crops, therefore, they are not come under the definition of the word ‘consumer’ under C.P.Act. Accordingly, this complaint is not maintainable.  The present complaint was filed after completion of crop period, so the genetic purity of seeds cannot be assessed at that stage, if there is defectiveness or inferiority in the seeds, the complainants have to send the same to the government laboratory for scientific analysis under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act.  The complainants did not inform the opposite parties at the time of inspection, done by the Commissioner/Advocate along with M.A.O.  The inspection report did not contain the official seal.  All the documents filed by the complainants were fabricated for the purpose of filing of present complainant for wrongful gain.  Failure of crop depends upon various factors like poor agricultural practices, inadequate rain fall, soil condition, in adequate usage of fertilizers and pesticides and insecticides etc.  The opposite parties also stated that they came to know that the lands of the complainants were not suitable for raising paddy crops.  Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

6.       Along with the complaint, the complainants filed a petition for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner to inspect their crops for assessment of loss.  Upon hearing, appointed the Advocate/Commissioner with a direction to inspect the standing crops and assess the damage of paddy crops with the help of M.A.O. & V.A.O.  The Advocate/Commissioner along with the M.A.O. & V.A.O. inspected the crops in dispute on 25-11-2013 and filed his observations by mentioning that other than BPT – 5204 variety was found in the fields of the complainants.  And also stated that other variety plants were grown 20 centimeters excess than BPT  variety plants.  The crop was lodged up to 50 to 70% due to falling of other variety plants on BPT variety Plants.  In her report, the M.A.O also came to the same conclusion.  The reports of Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. along with photographs were marked under exhibit C1.  After having observed the standing crops, the M.A.O. had given separate reports in the name of each complainant.  According to her observation “in paddy fields other than BPT – 5204 variety was seen and that variety paddy plants grown excess 20 cm. height than BPT paddy plants.  The crop was different height because of other than BPT paddy variety was seen in the fields.  BPT – 5204 variety came to harvest 15 days late than other paddy variety.  Other paddy variety plants are lodged on BPT 5204 plants.  So, crop was lodged up to 50 to 70%”.  

7.       In support of their averments, the complainants filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in the complaint.

8.       In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

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

Point:-        

It is an admitted fact that the complainants purchased BPT – 5204 variety of paddy seeds from the opposite party No.4, marketed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 and sowed the same in their fields by taking all precautions as required and followed all the requirements from time to time.  It is the case of the complainants, despite, taking all the steps, they sustained heavy loss due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No.1&2.  Upon which, approached the opposite parties and the agricultural officer on their grievance and also made representations to the District level officers, concerned, after all efforts were futile, filed the present complaint by praying to award damages of Rs.19,39,436/- due to poor quality of crop in an extent of Ac.55.16 ½ gts  of land.  At the time of filing of complaint, the complainants filed a petition vide IA.No.156/2013 for appointment of Advocate/commissioner to assess the loss.  After having perused, this Forum appointed the advocate/commissioner for assessment of loss with help of M.A.O. & V.A.O. concerned.  The advocate/commissioner, who appointed for the said purpose inspected the crop on 25-11-2013 along with M.A.O. &V.A.O. and filed his report, marked under exhibit C1,  wherein, the M.A.O. categorically stated that the crop was lodged upto 50 to 70% due to fall of other variety on BPT plants.  Upon seeing, it is clear that the said 50 to 70% plants were of different variety and longer than BPT variety, in this way, there is a possibility of loss of about 50 to 70% due to bad quality of seeds.  But the opposite parties contended that the M.A.O. inspected the crops in dispute without having any authority and without obtaining proper instructions from the higher officers.   However, the seeds Act speaks that all the agricultural officers are the technical persons and experts in the agricultural science, so, the report of M.A.O. cannot be discarded.  The opposite parties did not produce any evidence the show the genuineness of seed.  Therefore, there is no reason to reject the report, given by the M.A.O., presumption of truth is attached with it.  Accordingly, it is clear that the farmers did suffer a loss as a result of supply of seeds by the opposite parties, in which, there was substantial mixing of other variety of paddy seeds.  But the opposite parties averred that the complainants failed to send the seeds for scientific analysis under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act. and also failed to file scientific analysis report from any government laboratory after getting the seeds tested.  However, we are not able to agree with the plea taken by the opposite parties because a farmer who has obtained land on rent from someone, cannot be expected to retain sample of seeds after purchasing the same from the opposite parties and more so, the burden of proof did not lies on the farmers when the supplier of seeds is a government agency.  In this regard, we have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in National Seeds Corporation limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. II (2012) SLT 51=I (2012) CPJ 1 SC.  In the light of above decision, we have opined that the complainants have created a high degree of probability of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, thus, onus will shift on the other side to discharge the onus to prove their denial.  Once, the complainants have lodged their grievance with the District level officers and filing of report of agricultural officer during the proceedings of present complaint, it can be safely presumed that the complainants have sufficiently discharged their onus to prove that the seeds in question were of defective quality, the same was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex court in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chennamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136.  Therefore, the objection raised by the opposite parties regarding non-sending of seeds for laboratory testing is not considerable.

Thus, as per report of the M.A.O, it is clear that the complainants were suffered loss in their paddy crops to the extent of 50 to 70% on account of substandard quality of seeds sold by the opposite parties.  While taking the same into our consideration, we have arrived to a conclusion that the average loss is at 60% per acre.  In general the average expected yielding in paddy crop is at about 30 bags i.e. 22.50 quintals per acre.  Since, the admixture of other variety to the extent of 60% per acre, the loss of crop also @ 60% per acre.  Thus, the loss in terms of quantity of crop was 18 bags per acre.  To determine the monitory loss of crop, we have collected the data from the official website of Telangana State Agricultural marketing department.  According to which, the model price of paddy in Wyra Mandal Agricultural Market, Khammam district is @ Rs.1,400/- per quintal.  So the price for 1 bag is @ Rs.1,050/-.  As per exhibit A2  and Exhibit C1  the complainants 1 to 13 cultivated the paddy crop to an extent of Ac.14.14 gts, 2.05 gts, 2.03 ½ gts, 2.03 gts, 3.13 gts, 2.10 gts, 5.09 gts, 5.00 gts, 1.32 gts, 4.30 gts, 3.00 gts, 5.16 ½ gts and 4.00 gts respectively by purchasing the adultered seeds from the opposite parties No.1&2.  So, the complainants 1 to 13 are sustained loss of 18 bags per 1 acre, accordingly, they entitled Rs.1,050/- per bag as per present market rate as follows:-

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,71,215-00, Rs.40,162-50, Rs.39,453-75, Rs.39,217-50, Rs. 62,842-50, Rs.42,525-00, Rs.98,752-50, Rs.94,500-00, Rs.34,020-00, Rs.89,775-00, Rs. 56,700-00, Rs.1,02,296-25, Rs.75,600-00 to the complainants Nos. 1 to 13 respectively towards compensation for crop loss.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the each complainant towards costs.  The complaint against opposite parties No.3 & 4 is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum on this the 21^st day of March, 2016.

          Member                  FAC President              

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

Ex.C1:-Report of Commissioner/Advocate including the report of M.A.O., and photographs along with C.D.

 Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam