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.50/2006
M.Pedda Subba Reddy, S/o Ramakrishnudu, Age d 39 Years, Agriculture,
Pamulapadu Village and 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.50/06
1. This case of the complainant is for a decree against the opposite parties for Rs.2,08770/- towards the cost of the seald, fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural expenses and crop loss 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.4.50 cents in Sy.No.415,416 of Pamulapadu Village, yielded 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 A9 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.058 Dt 03-12-2005 said to have been issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. It envisages sale of 9 packets of western ground nut seed each of 20kgs weight of lot No.G-11-002 at a rate of Rs.1395/- per packet to a sum of Rs.12,505/- on 03-12-05 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 13 bills for sale of pesticides and fertilizers mentioned therein on various dates. Among those bunch of 13 bills while the bill No.199 dt:30-11-2005, bill No. 300 dt:22-02-2000 and bill No.50 Dt:20-01-2006 envisage the purchase of chemical fertilizers all worth Rs.14,569/- by the complainant, the bill No.388 dt:19-01-2006 bill No.4 Dt:26-12-2005, bill No.,224 Dt:14-11-2005, bill 93 Dt:12-01-2006, bill 22 Dt:21-12-2005 and bill No.205 Dt:26-11-2005 envisages the purchase of pesticides by the complainant of the pesticides all worth Rs.5,160/-. The bill No.123 dt:01-01-2006, bill No.65 Dt:16-12-2006 doesn’t intelligibly mention the name of the purchaser and his village as to the purchase of pesticides mentioned therein worth Rs.2820/-. The bill No. 133 Dt:10-01-2006 mentions one M.P. Subba Reddy, of Mittakandala purchased the pesticides worth Rs.870/- mentioned thereunder. As the complainant in this case is of chillimalla village the supra stated bills No.123,65,and 133 remains with any relevancy to this case. Therefore, the total incurred expenditure of complainant towards fertilizers and pesticides under the supra stated bills identifying the complainant works out to Rs.19,729/- (i.e., fertilizers bills all worth Rs.14,569 + pesticides bill all worth Rs.5160/-. while the complaint alleges the value of pesticides used by the complainant was Rs.9520/-.vide particulars mentioned at the fag end of Para No.1 at page No.2 of complaint. In the light of above in consistencies there appears any bonafidies in the said claim of incurred expenditure of fertilizers and pesticides .
7. The complaint alleges the expenditure for fertilizers was Rs.16009/-.The The relevant bills of Ex.A2 discussed in supra para as to purchased of fertilizers envisages the purchase by complainant on various dates chemical fertilizers all worth Rs.14,569/-. Even though the alleged field of complainant was in Sy.No.415, and 416 of Pamulapadu village, where in western 44 variety was said to have been cultivated was found by the M.A.O. in his report, but the figure of expenditure in Ex.A2 is not agreeing with the figure of Rs.16009/-alleged by 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., Pamulapadu seeking inspection of his land of A.c.4.50 cents in Sy.No.415,416 of Pamulapadu a where he cultivated western-4 variety ground nut seed purchased on 03-12-2005 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.A4 (A).
9. Even though the Ex.A4 (A) inspection report dt:04-03-2006 of M.A.O. Pamulapadu says of his inspection of the field of the complainant where western-44 variety ground nut seed was used in cultivation with reference to its sy.No.and extent but his said report remains of any avail to the complainant as the said M.A.O. was not examined in proof of said Ex.A4 (A) report .
10. Secondly as it no where assigns the alleged failure of crop or loss of yield to any inherent defect in the said seed except saying 3 to 7 pods under grain filling stage 2 to 3 pegs at formation stage and 2 to 3 plants at flowering stage on the date of his inspection at the age of 80 days of said crop In the absence of any clear finding in Ex.A4 (A) 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 eight labels of western-44 variety. The seed packets said to have been purchased by the complainant under Ex.A1 cash bill is of same lot number as mentioned in Ex.A6. But while the packets said to have been purchased under Ex.A1 were 9 the labels produced under Ex.A6 are Ex.8 only and hence the said usage of 9 packets said to have been purchased under Ex.A1 remains in doubt, especially when the complainant did not file any adangal of his land as to cultivation of said crop.
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 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 Seed bill of complainant of Sri.Venkateshwara fertilizers dated
03-12-2005 for Rs.12,555/-.
Ex.A2 A Bunch of (13) fertilizers pesticides purchase bill (Ex.A7).
Ex.A3 Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 01-03-2006 to M.A.O.
Ex.A4 Attested Xerox copy of letter of Mandal Agricultural Officer (M.A.O.) dated 04-03-2006 to Joint Director Agricultural, Kurnool along with Part-A.
Ex.A5 Seeds pamphlet of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A6 A bunch of seed truthful labels (8) of opposite party No.1
Ex.A7 Attested Xerox copy of show cause notice dated 18-03-2006 issued by Joint Director of agriculture Kurnool.
Ex.A8 Explanation of S.Narendra (opposite party No.3 dated 25-03-2006.
Ex.A9 Letter date d 10-08-2006 of Joint Director of agriculture Kurnool address to M.Pedda Subba Reddy, Pamulapadu Village and Mandal (3 Pages).
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Certified copy of 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 :
