DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR. PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member, Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member, Wednesday the 27th day of January, 2010 C.C.No.99/2005 Between: 1. Kanala Venkatesh @ Venkateswar Reddy S/o Venkatappa 2. Kanala Thippamma W/o Venkateswara Reddy 3. Kanala Venugopal Reddy S/o Venkatesu 4. Kanala Latha W/o Late Siva Reddy 5. Gopu Narappa S/o Thippaiah 6. Gopu Adinarayana @ Adinarayana Reddy S/o Narappa 7. Gopu Prakash @ Prakash Reddy S/o Linga Reddy 8. Ganta Venkatalakshmi W/o Venkatarami Reddy 9. Ganta Venkatarami Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy 10. Ganta Venkata Reddy S/o Ussainappa All are majors, Hindu, Cultivators, residents of Muttala Village H/o Goridindla, Atmakur Mandal Anantapur District. … Complainants. Vs. 1. AIMCO Pesticides Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Akhand Jyothi, VIII Road, Santa Cruz (East) MUMBAI – 55. 2. Sri Sai Krishna Traders rep. by its Proprietor N.Venkatesh Babu, Room No.7, Round block, Police Welfare Complex, Anantapur. … Opposite Parties. This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, advocate for the complainants and Sri K.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,56,320/- at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre with costs and future interest as the complainants sustained loss due to failure of their Groundnut crop on account of use of misbrand Pesticide “ Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos “ and 20% E.C. manufactured by the 1st opposite party which was sold by the 2nd opposite party to the complainants. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - All the complainants are residents of Muttala Village of Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District and all of them are agriculturists owning agricultural lands in Goridindla Village as follows: Sl.No. | Name of the complainant | Survey No. | Extent | 1. | Sri Kanala Venkatesu @ Venkateswara Reddy. | 182-P | Acs.6.50 Cents | 2. |
Smt.Kanala Thippamma
| 182 277 | Acs.6.70 cents Acs.5.26 cents | 3. | Sri Kanala Venugopal Reddy | 593-3 | Acs.5.25 cents | 4. | Smt.Kanala Latha | 593-2 | Acs.5.05 cents | 5. | Sri Gopu Narappa | 174-2 174-16 584-4 | Acs.2.17 cents Acs.3.50 cents Acs.2.35 cents | 6. | Sri Gopu Adinarayana @ Adinarayana Reddy | 584-3 594-1 | Acs.2.90 cents Acs.2.05 cents | 7. | Sri Gopu Prakash @ Prakash Reddy | 210 | Acs.4.35 cents out of it Acs.3.00 | 8. | Smt. Ganta Venkatalskmi | 182-P | Acs.5.00 | 9. | Sri Ganta Venkatarami Reddy | 673-2 | Acs.4.75 cents | 10. | Sri Ganta Venkata Reddy | 591-1 | Acs.5.12 cents out of its Acs.2.56 cents |
On 15-07-2005, the 1st complainant herein purchased 4 tins of Pesticide with a trade name of “ Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos “ and 20% E.C. of 1 liter each from the 2nd opposite party under bill No.216 dt.15-07-2005. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the said pesticide. All the labels contain the content batch No.HC/04 manufacutring: 6/05, expiry: 7/07. The 1st complainant Sri Kanala Venkatesu @ Venkateswara Reddy purchased the said pesticide for the benefit of all the complainants including him. The said pesticide is meant to prevent attack of Groundnut crop by root crab pests. All the complainants used the pesticide at the time of sowing of Groundnut crop in their respective fields. There are very good rains in this region, after spell of drought continuously for the previous 4 years. Everywhere, there is good growth of Groundnut crop in the District. Unfortunately, in the fields of the complainants, the crop has miserably failed. There was no germination of 75% of the seeds sown, the remaining plants also did not grow as usual because of failure of peg penetration of roots, while there is a very good crop in the adjacent fields. Crop in the fields of the complainants failed miserably inspite of good and timely rains this year. On enquiries by the complainants, it revealed that the pesticide namely “Pyriban “used by them caused this failure. Throughout the District all the farmers, who used the particular batch of the said pesticide suffered damage to their crops. As there were complaints to the District Administration, the Agricultural Department referred the matter to the Research Centre of N.G.Ranga University situated at Rekulakunta Village of Anantapur District. They tested the said pesticide and came to conclusion that it contains poisonous contents more than its permitted level and submitted a report to the Agricultural Department to that effect and that it is unfit for use. Had there been an usual crop as in the fields of others, the complainants would have harvested a good crop valued at Rs.8,000/- per acre. Because of defective pesticide manufactured by the opposite party No.1, they suffered a total crop loss. The complainants made oral demands on the 2nd opposite party to reimburse for the crop loss. The 2nd opposite party promised to get the amount from the opposite party No.1, but failed to do so. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount as prayed for in the complaint with costs. 3. The opposite party No.1 filed a counter and denied all the allegations in the complaint and contended that there is no documentary proof that the complainants purchased the product of the opposite party No.1 “Pyriban “from the 2nd opposite party for the benefit of all the complainants. Therefore, all the complainants including the 1st complainant do not come under the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The label of the container clearly shows that the pesticide is to be used for control of “Aphids, Galimidge, Stermborer, white fly, Bollworm, shoot and fruit borer, scale insect, black bug, white grubs, terminates prodenia. Germination is totally depended on the quality of seed and weather conditions, soil condition etc., It is very obvious on perusal of the complaint that the complainants used the pesticide at the time of sowing the Groundnut crop in their respective fields appears that the complainants have used the pesticide on the seeds at the time of sowing. The pesticide “ Pyriban “ shall be used on the crops i.e. grown crops standing in the field and it is not at all recommended at the time of sowing to be used on the seeds. The label on the pack of every container and the leaflet inside the package gives the complete information and instructions for use. The complainants have miserably failed to follow the instructions and thus the opposite party No.1 can not be held liable for the fault of the complainants. Damage to the crops can occur due to many reasons like “ weather conditions, deficit rain and also fluctuations in temperature etc., “ Further, the other facts like various inputs like Seeds, Fertilizers, Micro-nutrients and Plant Growth Regulator (Giberallic Acid) contributes to the yield of the product and also can cause damage to the crops, if not used properly. Pesticides kill the pests and protect the plant. The manufacturer does not have direct control over the use of the product. As such, the manufacturer after supplying a good quality product in sealed pack does not assume any responsibility for damage to the crops since it can occur due to many reasons beyond the control of the manufacturer as stated supra. The alleged report, if any of the Research Centre of N.G.Ranga University of Rekulakunta is not conclusive and it can not be relied on. The said testing laboratory is meant for Seed Testing purpose only but not for examination of pesticides. The complainants failed to produce a copy of the alleged report in support of their claim. The said institution does not have Insecticide Testing Laboratory and the product should be sent for test to an approved Insecticide Testing Laboratory. Even assuming for a moment without admitting the contents of the report of the said Research Centre, higher poisonous content as reported has nothing to do with the growth of the crops. There are no demands in any form to the opposite parties and there is no complaint from the complainants at any point of time. The complainants are not entitled for any relief much less for an award of Rs.4,56,320/-. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the alleged deficiency of service is nothing but sham, moonshine and illusory. Therefore, the complaint is liable to dismiss with costs. 4. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed by 1st opposite party. 5. Basing on the above pleadings the following points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether all the complainants are the consumers as defined under 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the “ Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos “ and 20% E.C manufactured by the 1st opposite party purchased by the complainant No.1 from the 2nd opposite party is misbranded one as a result of which the complainants who used the same for their ground nut crop suffered loss on account failure of the ground nut crop? If so whether the complainants are entitled for compensation from the opposite parties 1 and 2? If so to what amount? 3. To what relied? 6. In order to prone the case of the complainants the affidavits of the complainant’s No. 1, 6 and 9 filed and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 the affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed and Exs.B1 to B6 are marked. 7. Heard both sides. 8. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainants contended that the 1st complainant for him and for the benefit of all the complainants purchased 4 tins of pesticide with a brand name of “Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos and 20% E.C. “of 1 liter each from the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A1 bill No.216 dt.15-07-2005. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the said pesticide. He contended that as per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 who ever purchases goods for him and for the benefit of others then all the users of the said goods becomes the Consumers. The 1st complainant for him as well as for the benefit of the complainants 2 to 10 purchased the said pesticide. Hence, the complainants 2 to 10 also come under definition of “Consumers” under Ex.A1. Therefore, the complaint filed by all the complainants against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is maintainable. 9. The counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that the 1st complainant has only purchased the pesticide with a trade name of “Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos and 20% E.C” on 15-07-2005 under Ex.A1 in his name alone. In Ex.A1 nowhere the names of the complainants 2 to 10 have been mentioned as purchasers of the said pesticide for their use. Further, the 1st complainant has not produced any authorization letter to show that on 15-07-2005 the complainants 2 to 10 have authorized him to purchase the said pesticide for their use also. In the complaint also nowhere it is mentioned that 1st complainant has purchased the said pesticide under Ex.A1 bill as he was authorized to purchase on behalf of complainants 2 to 10. Therefore, the complainants 2 to 10 do not come under the definition of “consumer” as defined under Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants 2 to 10 is not maintainable. 10. In the decision reported in IV (2004) C.P.J. 63 (NC) between Agsun Seeds (India) Ltd., Vs. N.Nagendra Reddy & others, wherein it was held that:- “There is no disputing the fact that it was the respondent No.12 who had purchased the seed from the petitioner. In the written version filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, they had challenged the ‘locus’ of the complainants as they had not purchased the seed from the petitioner. We have seen the order of the District Forum and State Commission and find that they have been rather indulgent while dealing with this particular point. The learned counsel for the respondents also stated that it is a common practice among the Villagers, who are illiterates to authorize a certain person on their behalf to purchase the seed. But this authorization has not been produced either before us or for that matter before the State Commission or District Forum. “ In our view, both the lower Forums in treating the respondent Nos.1 to 11 as consumers in the absence of any letter or authorization in favour of 12th respondent as also fact that the respondents 1 & 2 were not privy to the purchase of seed, we are unable to appreciate the locus of the respondents/complainants 1 to 11. In our view both the lower Forums should have considered this preliminary objection raised by the petitioners before the District Forum and State Commission. They have dealt with this issue are cursorily, which we are unable to appreciate. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and whatever may be the practice in the Villages, under the law, we can not hold the respondent Nos.1 to 11 as consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of this, we allow this revision petition. The order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission is set-aside. (Paras 4 & 5). 11. In view of the above decision, it is very clear that if one of the complainant purchases the goods for his benefit as well as for the benefit of other complainants then the other complainants should have authorized him to purchase the goods on their behalf for their use also. Then only the other complainants also will be considered as consumers; other-wise they will not be considered as consumers. In the instant case, the 1st complainant has not filed the authorization letter of 2 to 10 complainants to purchase the pesticide for their use also. Therefore, in the absence of the authorization letters of 2 to 10 complainants, it can not be said that the complainants 2 to 10 also comes under definition of consumer as defined under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and the above decision, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants 2 to 10 have no locus-standi to file this complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 as they are not consumers. So for as the 1st complainant is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold that the 1st complainant alone is the consumer since he has purchased the pesticide from the 2nd opposite party for his use. Therefore, the 1st complainant alone is entitled to file this complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 but not the complainants 2 to 10. Accordingly, this point is answered. 12. POINT No.2:- The counsel for the complainants contended that the 1st complainant purchased Pyriban/Chloropyriphos 20% E.C. under Ex.A1 four tins of 1 litter each under bill No.216 dt.15.07.2005 manufactured by 1st opposite party from its the 2nd opposite party and used the same for their Groundnut crop at the time of sowing. But there was no germination of 75% of the seed sowed. The remaining plants also did not grow as usual because of failure of peg penetration of roots. As a result, the Groundnut crop in the filed of the complainants miserably failed and sustained loss of Rs.8,000/- per acre. He contended that Exs.A2 to 4 reports clearly proves the fact that the pesticides Pyriban/ChloroPyriphos 20% E.C., batch No.HC-04, manufactured by the 1st opposite party is misbranded. He contended that as per the said reports, the pesticide of the same batch purchased under Ex.A1 reveal that it is misbranded. Thus it clearly goes to prove the fact that the complainants, who used the pesticide purchased under Ex.A1 sustained loss as their Groundnut crop failed. He further contended that as per Ex.A5 the information submitted by the Joint Director of Agriculture of Anantapur to Justice Sri M.Ranga Reddy, Farmer Judge of A.P.High Court, Anantapur, it reveals that the 1st opposite party agreed to pay compensation of Rs.25,740/- to the four farmers(1st complainant and three other complainants) mentioned in the said letter based on the preliminary report on ground pesticide purchased by them which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party mentioned under Ex.A1 was misbranded. He further contended that as per Ex.A7, it clearly goes to prove the fact that the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Anantapur after verifying the land of the complainants estimated the loss at Rs.6,000/- per acre on account of loss of Groundnut crop since they used the pesticides Pyriban/ChloroPyriphos 20% E.C purchased under Ex.A1. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for the compensation as claimed in the complaint. 13. The counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that the complainants have not sent the samples to the Chemical Analyst for analysis to find out whether the pesticides purchased under Ex.A1 is misbranded or not. He contended that as per the directions of the A.P.State Commission, this Forum has sent the samples to the chemical analysis which were produced by the 1st opposite party and the Chemical Analysis reported that since the sample sent to them was after expiry date therefore, the sample could not be tested. He contended that at the instance of the 1st opposite party the samples for analysis was and the report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Dharmavaram, which was marked as Ex.B6 and it shows that the pesticides manufactured by the 1st opposite party confirmed to the relevant specifications in the test conducted. He contended that the report submitted under Ex.A4 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad cannot be taken into consideration as the Laboratory in which it was tested is not the authorized laboratory to test the pesticides. Therefore, the report under Ex.A4 and the notes submitted under Ex.A2 cannot be taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that the pesticide purchased under Ex.A1 by the 1st complainant is misbranded. He further contended that the pesticides purchased under Ex.A1 can not be used for seed treatment and it has to be used only when the plants are grown and attacked by insecticides to kill the insecticides. Further, when the pesticide is banned for use of particular method and when it is used the complainants can not be awarded compensation. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the reported decision III (1998) C.P.J. 356 between Northern Minerals Ltd., Vs. Kanishi Ram & others. He further contended that when the samples were not sent to the analyst for analysis and report, then prejudice will be caused to the opposite parties and on that ground also the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the reported decisions (1) 2002-Supreme – 5-549 between Gupta Chemicals Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2) 2006-A.L.T.(Cri)-2-471 between De-Nocil Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of A.P., (3) 1999-SCC-8-190 between State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid Private Limited and (4)1996-SCC-11-613 between State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited. He further contended that the lands of the complainants were not properly identified and also extent of the lands in which they raised Groundnut crop and the Commissioner without following the memo submitted by the opposite parties has calculated the loss on his own accord. Therefore, the loss estimated by the Commissioner can not be accepted. He further contended that in any event, the complainants are not entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint as the claim of the complainants is excessive. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs. 14. Having regards to the arguments advanced by the counsels for the complainants and the opposite parties 1 & 2 and on perusal of the decisions submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2, we are of view that the decisions cited by the counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 do not apply to the facts of case because the opposite parties have not placed any material before this Forum to show that the pesticides purchased under Ex.A1 was banned for treating Groundnut seeds at the time sowing the same. Further, the decisions cited by the counsel for the opposite parties with regard to fact of not sending the samples of pesticides to the analysis is not applicable to the facts of this case because in this case when the complainants orally requested this Forum to send the residue of pesticide in the tins purchased under Ex.A1 produced before this forum the opposite parties opposed to send the same on the ground that those tins were not sealed and there is likelihood of adulteration in the contents of residue in the said tins. This Forum rejected the said plea of the opposite parties and the opposite parties preferred appeal against the said order before the A.P.State Commission, wherein they have submitted the sealed tins of pesticide of the same batch and asked A.P.State Commission to send the samples from it for analysis and accordingly A.P.State Commission allowed their revision and directed this Forum to send the samples contained in the tins submitted by the appellants and accordingly this Forum sent the samples to the chemical analysis and Chemical analysis returned the samples on the ground that by the time it was sent for analysis, expiry date was over and hence the samples can not be tested. Thus, the attitude of the opposite parties clearly shows that when the complainants want to send the residue of pesticide contained in the tins purchased under Ex.A1, they opposed it and thereafter they only submitted the pesticide of the same batch, which was purchased under Ex.A1, which date of expiry, was already over. Therefore, on account of the lapses on the part of the opposite parties only, the sample contained in the pesticide tins purchased under Ex.A1 could not be sent by this Forum. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the opposite parties that the appellants were prejudiced for not sending the samples to the analysis can not be taken into consideration. Further the above decisions relates to the criminal cases filed against the manufacturers of the pesticides. Therefore, the above decisions do not apply to the facts of this case. With regard to Ex.B6 report submitted to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Dharmavaram which shows that the pesticides manufactured by the 1st opposite party confirmed to the relevant specifications in the test conducted cannot be considered because the sample that tested relates to the batch No.HC 04 date of Mfg June 04 Date of Exp May 06 is entirely deferent with that of the pesticide purchased under Ex.A1 in respect of date of Mfg 6/05 Date of Exp 7/07. 15. On perusal of Ex.A2 letter dt.06-06-2006 addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to this Forum (District Consumer Forum Anantapur), it goes to show that he submitted the report of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Research Centre dt.26-07-2005, which was submitted by the Principoal Scientist, Dry Land Agriculture to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur dt.26-07-2005. The said report is extracted as under:- “On 14-07-2005 Sri Eswarappa, ADA, Madakasira have brought just germinated seedlings of Groundnut with the problem of radical bulging and improper germination.These seedlings were collected from Villages of Rolla and Agali Mandals. He also brought the chemical i.e. Chlorpyriphas, which was used for seed treatment by the farmers for its testing at Agricultural Research Station, Anantapur. The Groundnut seed is treated with the same Chlorpyriphas at different does of 3 ml, 6ml, 9ml, 12ml, 15ml and 20 ml/kg, seed and sown the seed on 15-07-2005 in the field. After one week the seedlings were observed that the seed treated with even at 3ml/kg concentration also shown bulging of radical. The seed treated with more than 3 ml/kg. i.e. 6ml, 9ml and 12 ml/kg. were shown more bulging of radical without further proper growth. Even at higher does i.e. 15ml and 20 ml/kg resulted highly abnormal growth of seedlings observed, whereas the germination of untreated seed is quite normal. Therefore, it is suspected that the problem of bulging is due to chemical seed treatment. Hence, the chemical may be sent for pesticide laboratory for analysis”. Signed by Sri N.C.Venkateswarulu. 26-07-2005. Basing on the said report the said pesticide was sent to Deputy Director of Agriculture, PTL, Hyderabad for analysis. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, PTL & Coding Centre, Hyderabad sent analysis report under Ex.A4 basing on Ex.A3 report. Ex.A4 report is extracted as under:- “The sample of Pyriban/ChloroPyriphos 20% E.C. bearing batch No.HC-04 manufactured by AIMCO Pesticides Ltd., having manufacturing date June, 2005, expiry date May, 2007 with C & DA sticker No.19/XVI/126 and drawn by K.M.Ganesh, M.A.O., Hindupur, Anantapur on 20-07-2005 has been analyzed to active ingredient 20.124 and acidity 0.06% (acidity shall be not more than 0.05 percent as per BIS specification). Hence, it is declared as misbranded by the A.D.A., PTL, Tadepalligudem”. Thus the sample, which was sent by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur relating to the pesticides manufactured by the 1st opposite party is misbranded. The complainants also purchased the same batch of the pesticides with manufacturing date June, 2005 and expiry date May, 2007. Therefore, considering the said facts and circumstances we to hold that the “ Pyriban/Chlor Pyriphos “ and 20% E.C manufactured by the 1st opposite party which was purchased by the 1st complainant under Ex.A1 from the 2nd opposite party is misbranded. 16. Since the pesticide purchased under Ex.A1 by the 1st complainant is misbranded and in view of our finding on point No.1 that the 1st complainant alone is entitled for compensation. Therefore, we have to consider what amount the 1st complainant is entitled for compensation. 17. The next contention of the counsel for the opposite parties is that the Commissioner has not taken the services of the Surveyor and other revenue authorities to fix the loss of the complainants while assessing the damage caused to the Groundnut crop raised by the complainants. The opposite parties were represented by their counsel and also by the employees of the opposite parties at the time of inspection of the commissioner and they did not raise the dispute that the lands in which the Groundnut crop raised by the complainants do not belong to the complainants and that it belongs to some other parties. When they have not raised the said objection, then the finding of the Commissioner has to be accepted as correct. Therefore, the said contention also holds not good. 18. According to the Commissioner’s report, the 1st complainant raised Groundnut crop in Sy.No.182-P an extent of Acs.6.50 cents and he stated that the germination and yielding of the Groundnut crop in the first complainant’s land was distantly less than in other adjacent lands. Further in his report at page 22 mentioned that in respect of item No.I, the yield of the Groundnut crop is 6 ½ bags in 252 kgs., The Commissioner has stated the 1st complainant has raised Groundnut Crop in Acs.6.50 cents, the same extent was shown in the complaint by the complainants. In Ex.A7 report, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Anantapur has stated that Kanala Venkateswara Reddy S/o Venkatappa i.e. 1st complainant raised crop in Sy.No.182-P an extent of Acs.6.50 cents and mentioned that the 1st complainant along with three other persons treated with 2 liters for Acs.23 of seed and mentioned that he has conducted discussions with other farmers about pesticides seed treatment to Groundnut seed taken by 3 farmers and all Villagers are agreed that the said treatment with Pyriban/ChloroPyriphos 20% E.C. taken by Sri Venkatarami Reddy, Adinarayana Reddy and Venkateswara Reddy fields are affected covering area of Acs. 43.32 with loss of Rs.6,000/- per acre and also statement of the Villagers are enclosed for kind perusal. 19. Thus, the Commissioner’s report as well as Ex.A7 report clearly goes to prove the fact that the 1st complainant raised Groundnut crop in Acs.6.50 cents by treating Groundnut seeds with Pyriban/ChloroPyriphos 20% E.C. and has sustained loss of crop on account of misbranded of the said pesticides. Therefore, considering the said facts and circumstances, we are of view that the 1st complainant is entitled for Rs.6,000/- per acre and if it is calculated for Acs.6.50 cents, it will come to Rs.39,000/- as loss sustained by him. Therefore, the 1st complainant is entitled for Rs.39,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. The 1st complainant is also entitled for Rs.640/- towards costs of the pesticide purchased under Ex.A1. In view of our finding, on point No.1 that the complainants 2 to 10 are not entitled for compensation. Therefore, the complainants 2 to 10 are not granted compensation in respect of the loss sustained by them for their Groundnut crop. Accordingly, this point is answered. 20. POINT NO.3 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.39,000/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., from 15-10-2005 till the date of realization. The 1st complainant is also entitled for Rs.640/- towards costs of the pesticides purchased under Ex.A1. The opposite parties shall also pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the 1st complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay the said amounts to the 1st complainant within one month from the date of this order. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 27th day of January, 2010. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES -NIL - - NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS Ex.A1 – True copy of bill No.216 dt.15-07-2005 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the 1st complainant K.Venkatesu @ K.Venkateswara Reddy. Ex.A2 – Letter dt.06-06-2006 addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to the President, District Consumer Forum, Anantapur alongwith report. Ex.A3 – Xerox copy of Report of Insecticides Analyst of Coding Incharge, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. Ex.A4 - Xerox copy of Rapid Action Report issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (IA), PTL & Coding Centre, Hyderabad. Ex.A5 – Xerox copy of letter dt.21-11-2006 addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to Sri M.Ranga Reddy, Farmer, Judge, A.P.High Court, Anantapur. Ex.A6 – Xerox copy of letter dt.30-09-2005 addressed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to the Regional Manager, AIMCO Pesticides Ltd., Vijayawada. Ex.A7 - Xerox copy of report dt.21-09-2005 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Anantapur to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur. Ex.A8 - Xerox copy of representation of the Villagers of Muttala, Atmakur Mandal dt.24-10-2005. Ex.A9 - Xerox copy of Crop Cutting Experiment report dt.24-10-2005 issued by the Mandal Agricultural Office, Atmakur, Anantapur District. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES Ex.B1 - Attested copy of Certificate of Incorporation issued by Registrar of Companies, Maharastra. Ex.B2 - Xerox copy of Certificate of Registration of Insecticides issued by Directorate of Plant Protection, Faridabad. Ex.B3 - Xerox copy of specifications of Pesticide manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Ex.B4 - Attested copy of details of Pesticides. Ex.B5 - Attested copy of letter dt.27-01-2004 of AIMCO Pesticides Ltd., Vijaywada. Ex.B6 - True copy of letter dt.23-12-2005 addressed by the Deputy Director (Chemicals), Faridabad to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Niranjan Babu
......................Sri. C.Thyagaraja Naidu | | 
