BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., Hon’ble President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 17th day of January, 2007
CC No.47/2006
B.Narayana, S/o Venkata Swami, Age d 58 Years, Agriculture,
Nallakalva Village Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, Western Agri Seeds Private Limited,
D.No.802/11, Western House, G.I.D.C., (Engg.), Estate, Sector No.28, Gandhi Nagar-382 028, Gujarat.
2. The Managing Director, Omkar Agri Tech, Magna Chambers,
Room No.8 IV Floor, Lenin Estate,Abids, Hyderabad.
3. The Managing Partner,
Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation,
51-16, Prakash Complex,
Shop No.2, Near New Bus Stand, Kurnool. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant and Sri.P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Honourable President
C.C.NO.47/06
1. This case of the complainant is for a decree against the opposite parties for Rs.57,170/- towards the cost of the seald, fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of this case alleging deficient conduct of service of the opposite parties in selling western-44 variety ground nut seed, which on cultivation of it in his land of Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.425 of Nallakaluva Village, yielded 7 to 8 pods to each plant and thereby a poor yield of 1qt per acre as against promised of 16 qt per acre and the opposite parties did not care to visit inspite of complaint and the said loss of yield was obviously on account of defect in said seald supplied by the opposite parties.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused there appearance through their counsel and denying their liability and requiring the strict proof of complaint averments contested the case filing written version of opposite party No.1 and its adoption by the other opposite parties.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on Ex.A1 to A8 besides to its sworn affidavit and replies of the opposite parties to its interrogatories, the opposite parties side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 besides to its sworn affidavit and the replies to the interrogatories caused.
4. Hence, the point for the consideration is whether the complainant has made out any defect in the seed resulting in loss of yield and thereby any liability of the opposite parties to the claim of the complainant.
5. The Ex.A1 is the cash bill No.99 Dt:16-11-2005 said to have been issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. It envisages sale of 8 packets of western ground nut seed each of 20kgs weight of lot No.1 at a rate of Rs.1400/- per packet to a sum of Rs.11,200/- on 16-11-05 to the complainant. Nothing to rebut the bonafidies of the said cash bill comes fourth from the opposite parties side, the said purchase of seed under it by the complainant remains established conclusively.
6. The Ex.A2 is a bunch of 3 bills for sale of pesticides mentioned therein on 10-09-2006, 12-08-2005 and 01-12-2006. While the bill dt:10-09-2006 is standing on the name of B.Venkataramana S/o. Chinna Naganna resident of Tatipadu, the other two are standing in the name of the complainant. The said B.Venkataramana being having any privy to this case the said bill dt:10-09-2006 as to sale of pesticides there under finds any relevancy to this case. The other two bills standing in the name of the complainant envisages the purchase of pesticides all worth Rs.1295/- by the complainant, while the complaint alleges the value of pesticides used by the complainant was Rs.2,570/-. Hence there appears any bonafidies in the said claim of Rs.2,570/- by the complainant towards pesticides for want of any cogent material in substantiation of the same.
7. The complaint alleges the expenditure for fertilizers was Rs.2,200/-.The Ex.A7- a bunch of 8 bills- envisages the purchase by complainant on various dates chemical fertilizers all worth Rs.23,924/-. As the alleged field of complainant was in Sy.No.425 of Nallakaluva village, was not found by the M.A.O. as to said western –44 variety crop and the figure of expenditure in Ex.A7 is not agreeing with the figure of Rs.2,200/-alleged the complaint towards the cost of fertilizers, there appears any bonafidies as to their alleged use by the complainant in the field alleged by the complainant to hold any of its liability on the opposite parties.
8. The Ex.A3 is said to be the office copy of application dt:01-03-2006 of complainant addressed to M.A.O., Atmakur seeking inspection of his land of A.c.3.50 cents in Sy.No.425 of nallakaluva where he cultivated western-44 variety ground nut seed purchased on 16-11-2005 from the opposite party No.3 and sustained loss of yield. The Ex.A4 is the office copy of covering letter dt:04-03-2006 addressed by M.A.O. to joint Director Agricultural Kurnool, for transmission of his inspection report in Ex.A8.
9. Even though the Ex.A8- inspection report dt:04-03-2006 of M.A.O. Atmakur says of his inspection of the field of the complainant where western-44 variety ground nut seed was used in cultivation but his said report remains of any avail to the complainant as the said Ex.A8 says the field he inspected of the complainant where western-44 variety was used is in Sy.No.89/1 and 208/2 while the complainant alleges the field where in said western-44 variety was cultivated by complainant, is in Sy.No.425 of Nallakaluva village. The said M.A.O. was neither examined in proof of said Ex.A8 report nor to identify the land inspected by him was none else than what the complainant alleged in the complaint. In the absence of the complainant filing any adangal as to the field where in the said western-44 variety of cultivated by him, in the above in consistent circumstances arising in contrast with Ex.A8, the very cultivation of complainant’s field as alleged in the complaint remains in high doubt.
10.Further the Ex.A8 even remains of any help to the case of the complainant as it no where assigns the alleged failure of crop or loss of yield to any inherent defect in the said seed except giving a comparison to T.M.V-2 variety as yielded 18 to 23 pods for plant and western –44 variety yield 3 to 9 pods for plant. In the absence of any clear finding in Ex.A8 regarding the quality of seed supplied to the complainant, as per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sonekaran Gladioli Growers Vs Baburam reported in (II) 2005 C.P.J.94 (N.C.) no inference can be taken as to quality of seed as non standard quality of seed not proved, the complainant remains failed in establishing his alleged failure of crop or loss of yield due to the defect in seed supplied to him by the opposite parties and thereby of any liability of the opposite parties for the complainant’s claim.
11.The Ex.A5 is the xerox of broucher relating to western-20, western-44 western-55, and western-22 seed. It is said to have been issued by the opposite party No.1. Its says of the expected yield of western-44 variety is 35 to 40 qts per hectare.
12. The Ex.A6 is the bunch of mere seven lables of western-44 variety. The seed packets said to have been purchased by the complainant under Ex.A1 cash bill is of lot No.1 and the lable in Ex.A6 doesn’t say they are of lot No.1, the Ex.A6 remains with any relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
13. The Ex.B1 is the xerox license in form C the original of which was said to have been issued by Additional Director of Agriculture – II, Hyderabad to M/S. western agri seeds (P) Limited, C/o. M/s. Omkar Agri Tech (C & F agent) Magna Chambers No.8, Ivth floor lenaine estate, Abids Hyderabad to carry on its business of sale and storage of said product. Hence the said variety of seed of western Agri Seeds Pvt., Limited was one license for sale also. Hence there appears no much merit and force in the written arguments contentions of the complainant that the said seed was not permitted for sale.
14.In the light of the discussion made in supra paras as there is any material as to any specific defect as to the Quality of the seed which must have contributed the alleged failure of crop or loss of yield and there being any cogent material as to cultivation of the said variety of seed in the alleged field of the complainant and the alleged incurred expenditure being also not consistent to the material on record, there appears any entitleness to the complainant for the claim made in the complaint at the liability of the opposite parties.
15. Consequently, the case of the complainant being without any merit and force the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances each party to the case bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the open bench on this the 17th day of January, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:Nill For the opposite parties:Nill
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Seeds purchase bill dated 16-11-2005 of complainant for
Rs.11,200/-.
Ex.A2 Bunch of (3) fertilizers bill dated 10-09-2006 for Rs.2,570/-, dated
12-08-2005 for Rs.695/- & dated 01-12-2005 for Rs.600/-.
Ex.A3 Office copy of complaint to M.A.O. date d 01-03-2006.
Ex.A4 Attested letter of Mandal Agricultural Officer (M.A.O.) to Joint Director Agricultural, Kurnool dated 04-03-2006.
Ex.A5 Attested Xerox copy of Pamphlets of opposite party No.1
Ex.A6 Bunch of (7) labels of the seeds Pamphlets of western Agri Seeds Private Limited.
Ex.A7 Bunch of (8) fertilizers bills.
Ex.A8 field inspection report of M.A.O., Atmakur dated 04-03-2006.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 License of carry on the business in Form-C issued by Additional Director Agriculture-II, Hyderabad.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri.G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri.P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
