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.48/2006
V.Nadipi Chennaiah, S/o Nanchari, Aged 45 Years, Agriculture,
Chilimilla Village, Pamulapadu 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
CC.No.48/2006
1. This case of the complainant is for a decree against the opposite parties for Rs.2,28,709/- towards the cost of the sealed, fertilizers and pesticides and agricultural expenses and Rs.25,000/- toward s 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 in Sy.No.17/2 of Chilimilla Village, yielded a poor yield of 1 qt per acre as against promised of 16 qt per acre and the opposite parties did not care to visit inspite of compliant and the said los of yield was obviously on account of defect in said sealed supplied by the opposite parties. But the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pamulapadu visited the field of complainant and submitted his report as to poor yield.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum s 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 complainants side has taken reliance on Ex.A1 to Ex.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 to B3 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 a pair of the cash bills No.052,057 Dt:01-12-2005, and 03-12-2005 respectively said to have been issued by the opposite party No.3 to one Nadipi chinnaiah of pamulapadu village, and nadipi chinnaiah resident of Chillimili village respectively for the ground net seed sold there under. While the bill dated:01-12-2005 envisages sale of 10 packets of western ground nut seed each of 20kgs weight of lot No.G-11-2002 at a rate of Rs.1300/- per packet to a sum of Rs.13000/- on 01-12-05 to one Nadipi Chinnaiah, resident of pamulapadu village, the bill dt:03-12-2005 envisages sale of 3 packets of western ground nut seed to one Nadipi Chinnaiah resident of Chillimilla village, at the rate of Rs. 1395/- for a sum of Rs.4,185/-. As a complainant is V.Nadipi Chinnaiah rsident of Chillimilli as per his complaint and sworn affidavit, there appears any relevancy of the bill No052 dt:01-12-2005 to this case as said nadipi chinnaiah concerned therein is resident of pamulapadu village. In the absence of any rebuttal from the opposite party side as to the said bill dt:03-12-2005 the purchase of seed envisaged thereunder by the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,185/- remains conclusively proved. In the absence of any cogent material as to the purchase of seed worth Rs.17,185/- there appears any bonafidies in the said claim of the complainant.
6.The Ex.A2 is a bunch of 7 bills for sale of pesticides mentioned therein on 24-12-2005, 09-01-2006 by Satish Traders of Atmakur, and on 14-12-2005 04-01-2006 01-12-2005 14-10-2005 and 28-12-2005 by vasundara fertilizers Atmakur to nadipi chinnaiah resident of chillimilli-complainant. The total investment made as per those bills towrds purchase of pesticides mentioned therein works out to Rs.5,900/-. The bill dt:03-12-2005 standing in the name of the complainant envisages the purchase of pesticides all worth Rs.5,900/- by the complainant, while the complaint does not allege in specific the value of pesticides used by the complainant.
7.Even though the complaint does not specify the value of fertilizers used by him in cultivation of his field but the Ex.A6 a bunch of 6 bills envisages the purchase of fertilizers mentioned therein by the complainant for a total value of Rs.26,809/-. The M.A.O. merely observes as the alleged field as to said western-44 variety crop in an extent of A.c 6.5 acres said to be of complainant and not in reference to identity if said field with any of its Survey Number, . the figure of expenditure as to p[esticides and fertilizers that was found under Ex.A2 and A6, there appears any definiteness of the use of said pesticides and fetilizers in cultivation of the crop in the alleged Survey Number of the complainant when the complainant is silent as to extent of cultivation in said Survey Number and thereby kept any availability to say the land inspected by M.A.O. and alleged in complaint is one and same.
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 in Sy.No.17/2 of Chillimalla village where he cultivated western-44 variety ground nut seed purchased 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 but his said report remains of any avail to the complainant as firstly it does not envisage the Survey number of the said field he inspected to identify with definiteness that the said field he inspected was nonelsethan what the complainant alleges in compliant with reference to its survey number , as the extent of land was not given by the complainant, the said field inspected by the M.A.O., cannot be identified by the mere extent of land inspected mentioned in Ex.A4(A)- of M.A.O.’s report. Further the said M.A.O. was not examined in proof of Ex.A4 observation. None the complainant filed any adangal as to the filed where in the said western-44 variety was cultivated by him. There appears any bonafidies in the cultivation of complainant in Survey No.17/2 of Chillimilla village. Hence, in the above inconsistent circumstances the very cultivation of complainant of his field and his probable expenditure towards the cost of the seed pesticides and fertilizers as alleged by the complainant remains in high doubt.
10.Further the Ex.A4(A) –M.A.O.s report, 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 alleging 3-4 pods under seed developing stage, 2-3 pegs under formation stage and 2-3 flowers appearing for plant on the date of his inspection which was said to be at the age of 85 days of the crop. In the absence of any finding in Ex.A4(A) – M.A.O.s report – 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. It 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 three 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. G-11-002 and the lables in Ex.A6 are also relate to same lot Number. But while the packets said to have been purchased were 13 and the produced under Ex.A6 being mere 3, the alleged purchased of 13 packets remains in high doubt. Especially when the first bill No.052, dt:01-12-2005 as to purchase of 10 packets remained in high doubt on the point of identity of the complainant.
13. The Ex.A8 being a memo of Joint Director Agriculture Kurnool directing the Mandal Agricultural Officer, to advise the complainant to approach the consumer forum for redressal since the M.O.U is not there, it remains of any avail to the case of the complainant as it appears to be merely taking shelter under the non existence of M.O.U. not expressing its feeling as to M.A.O.s report and as to any defect in seed .
14. The Ex.B1 is the show cause notice dt:14-03-2006 of Joint Director, Agriculture Kurnool to the opposite party No.3 calling for the laters explanation for contravening the term and condition 11 of seed license for a distributing of said seed which is not having permission for commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P. Hyderabad. The Ex.B2 is the explanation offered by opposite party No.3 to Ex.B1 show cause notice enclosing there to the Ex.B3- the form C’ issued by licensing authority and Additional Director of Agriculture II commissionerate of Agriculture A.p. Hyderabad for sale and storage said seed to M/S. Western Agri Seeds Pvt., Limited, M/s. Omkar Agri Tech. C & F agent, Magna Chambers No.8 Ivth floor Lenaine Estates, Abids Hyderabad-I from which the opposite party No.3 had the said seed. The perusal of Ex.B1 to B3 makes out the show cause explanation called for was baseless and appears have to taken to show that its has taken an action on the grievance of the complainant and M.A.O. report whether it relevant or not being fail to find any defect in the seed which was said to have ensured loss of yield to the complainant.
15. 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 or 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.
16. 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 A bunch of (2) seeds purchase bills of complainant.
Ex.A2 A Bunch of (7) bill for purchase fertilizers.
Ex.A3 Office copy of complainant to M.A.O., dated 01-03-2006
Ex.A4 Copy of letter of M.A.O., to Joint Director Agricultural, Kurnool dated 04-03-2006.
Ex.A5 Pamphlet of seeds by opposite party No.1
Ex.A6 A banch of (3) types of seeds pamphlets.
Ex.A7 A bunch of (6) fertilizers bills.
Ex.A8 Memo of Joint Director of Agricultural, Kurnool dated 18-03-2009.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Show cause notice dated 14-03-2006.
Ex.B2 Explanation dated 25-03-2006 (Ex.B1).
Ex.B3 Certified copy of license.
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 :
