Nagisetty Sreenivasa Rao,

S/o. Ramaiah,

R/o. D.No.10-71/A, M.V. Street,

Chebrolu Village and Mandal,

Guntur District.                                                        …Complainant    

AND

1. The Mandal Agricultural Officer,

   Chebrolu,

   Having Office near Mandal Resource Center,

   Chebrolu village and Mandal,

   Guntur District.

2. Senior Seed Certification Officer,

   Office at Haca Bhavan,

   A.P.S.S.C.A., Door No.5-10-193,

   Haca Bhavan, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Manager,

    M/s.Sri Matha Agri-tech,

    IDA, Rampur Mandal, Dharmsagar,

    Warrangal District.                                         …Opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-08-11 in the presence of Sri G.N. Durga Prasad, advocate for complainant,               Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy, advocate for 1^st opposite party,                         Sri G. Ramalingeswara Rao, advocate for 2^nd opposite party and of             Sri D. Bala Raju, advocate for 3^rd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act seeking  Rs.6,40,000/- towards loss of crop in an extent of 15 acres; Rs.4,35,000/- towards extra-ordinary expenses; interest at 24% pa., on purchase of seeds; Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of damage besides costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:    

        The complainant owned six acres of land in Chebrole village.   The complainant also took nine acres of land on lease in the same village.   The complainant and one Kondaveeti Tanicklas are cultivating the said extent.   Both of them purchased paddy seeds from the                1^st opposite party supplied by the 3^rd opposite party and certified by the 2^nd opposite party.    The complainant and the said Tanicklas on 20-06-09 purchased eight bags of paddy from the 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party issued a receipt.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 had given guarantee for germination of paddy seeds @80%.                     The complainant originally leased 9 acres of land spending                        extra-ordinary expenses @Rs.20, 000/- per acre.  The complainant also spent the same amount for his own land.  In all the complainant spent Rs.3, 00,000/- towards fertility of the land and proper germination and growth of the crop in fifteen acres.   The complainant raised paddy in the said extent of 15 acres.    The complainant used good pesticides for proper growth and germination. There was no  germination and no yield at all. Under those circumstances the complainant sustained heavy loss.  The complainant took hand loans from his neighbors. The complainant sustained Rs.4, 35,000/- towards ex-ordinary expenses and incurred loss of profit of RS.6, 40,000/- towards damage of crop.    After sustaining heavy loss and damage the complainant immediately informed the 1^st opposite party to take necessary steps to provide good seeds.   The 1^st opposite party neglected and did not take any necessary steps.  The complainant intimated the loss and damage to the 1^st opposite party who kept quite.   The complainant got issued legal notice for which the 1^st opposite party gave reply with false allegations.    On account of loss the complainant suffered mentally and physically.   The seeds supplied by the 1^st opposite party are defective and it amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed. 

3.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur allotted paddy seed to Chebrole Mandal, Guntur district for distribution to farmers on subsidy during khariff 2009.   The seed was supplied by through APSSDC and produced by the 3^rd opposite party.   The role of Mandal agricultural officer, Chebrole is confined only for issuing of permits to the farmers.    Receipt for the purchase of seeds will be issued at the delivery point only.     The 1^st opposite party gave a suitable reply.    The 1^st opposite party neither convinced nor assured anyone including the complainant regarding quality of the seed.   The 1^st opposite party has nothing to do with quality of seed standards.    The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4. The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The 2^nd opposite party did not certify the lot code No.9947 referred to in the bill No.734407 and as such the 2^nd opposite party has nothing to do with that lot.   The seed in lot bearing No.40531 i.e., paddy/BPT -5204 was registered with APSSA, Karimnagar by M/s Sri Matha Agri Tech in the name of farmer P. Kaladhar of Sirsapalli village, Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar district.   Right from the field level to packing level the entire process has been done as per the procedure of Indian Minimum Seed Certification standards under the supervision of the concerned Seed Certification Officer from time to time.   The 2^nd opposite party did not receive any complaint from any other farmer though they supplied 336 bags of paddy/BPT-5204 in lot No.40531.   Eight bags are sufficient for eight acres only.   The grower might have mixed the seed from lot No.9947 which was not certified.   The complainant and another used eight bags for raising paddy in 22 acres of land.   The complainant had to approach the 1^st opposite party and after due inspection a report will be submitted to the higher authorities.   No such thing happened.   The claim is exaggerated.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are false and invented by the petitioner to suit his claim.  

5.     The contention of the 3^rd opposite party in brief is thus:

        This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The complainant purchased the paddy seed from the 1^st opposite party under subsidy and it is the 1^st opposite party only who has to answer the claim of the complainant.     The 3^rd opposite party purchased the paddy variety BPT-5204 from M/s Kanaka Durga Seed and process firm.   NGR Agricultural University was breeder of the said variety of the paddy and it supplied the same to the selected farmers in AP State for production of seed and for the purpose of foundation seed only.   A.P. Seed Corporation certified the said seed as pure.   The 3^rd opposite party purchased 100 quintals and 80 kgs of foundation seed and packed them into 336 bags each containing 30 kgs.   From out of those 336 bags the 3^rd opposite party supplied 150 bags to AP Seed Corporation who in turn supplied them to their dealers and also a dealer at Chebrole.   The 3^rd opposite party sold each bag at Rs.625/- to AP Seed Corporation.   The 3^rd opposite party did not receive any complaint from any farmer.   The 3^rd opposite party has nothing to do with the code No.9947 and it never sold to AP Seed Corporation or sent to the Tahsildar, Chebrole.   The signatures on the bills filed into the Forum did not belong to the complainant.   As per guidelines of agricultural department 30 kgs of foundation paddy is sufficient for one acre only.    The complainant might have mixed lot No.9947 which was not certified.   Eight bags of paddy containing each 30 grams is sufficient for 8 acres only.   Proper yield depends upon the soil, climate, use of fertilizers and rains in appropriate time.   The complainant is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs.   Rests of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are false and are invented by the complainant to suit his claim.

6.     Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 on behalf of 3^rd opposite party, and Exs.B-3 to B-7 on behalf of the 2nd opposite party were marked.      

7.     Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the seeds purchased by the complainant were defective?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom?
4. To what relief?

8.    POINTS 1&2:-      In the 1^st instance the complainant herein and one Kondaveeti Tanicklas filed complaint vide SR.No.21 dated                               05-01-10.   The registry raised an objection regarding maintainability of common complaint.  On that both of them filed individual complaints.  The complaint filed by Kondaveeti Tanicklas was numbered as CC 144 of 2010.

9.    The complainant purchased eight bags of paddy seed under cash bill No.734302 dated 20-06-09 and one Kondaveeti Tanicklas purchased four bags of paddy seed under cash bill No.734407 dated 23-06-09.   Both the above cash bills were together marked as Ex.A-5.   The complainant i.e., Nagisetty Srinivasa Rao is concerned with the purchase of paddy seed under cash bill No.734302 dated 20-06-09.  The lot number mentioned under the said cash bill is 40531.   The 3^rd opposite party in its version and affidavit admitted that they have supplied 336 bags of paddy seed BPT-5204 in lot No.40531.   The 2^nd opposite party in its version and affidavit mentioned that they have certified the said lot as standard.   Ex.A-8 revealed that lot No.40531 was certified by AP State Seed Corporation Limited while Ex.A-7 contained the contents of the seed in the said lot. It can therefore be said that the AP State Seed Development Corporation certified the genetic purity of the said lot.  

10.   The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties promised and guaranteed germination of the seed.   In para 4 (f) of his complaint the complainant mentioned as detailed infra:

“The complainant submits that he had taken more efforts for the growth of the crop, but in fact, the opposite parties did not choose to give good certified seeds to that effect, the entire crop of Ac.15.00 cents of land got spoiled and there is no germination along with there is no yield of crop. In this circumstances, the complainant sustained heavy loss and damage to the extent of Ac.15.00 cents” (emphasis supplied).

11.   Considering the above averments it can be said that there was no germination at all.  Before filing the complaint the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties and one JSK Gourinath (Ex.A-1, A-2 and A-4).   The 1^st opposite party on 30-10-09 gave a reply under Ex.A-3.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-3 is extracted below for better appreciation:

        “Client (1) and (2) never approached me regarding their   crop condition.

        In the process of seed supply to the client and (2) the role      of MAO is only issuing of permits as per the Government norms      in the distribution of subsidy seed to the farmer.  The damage to the client (1) and (2) has to be decided by the team as for the    rules in vogue.   As per the rules the clients has to approach the       MAO., then the MAO., report will be submitted higher authorities       i.e., Assistant Director of Agriculture & Joint Director of       Agriculture (District Level Team).

        I finally state that the entire process has to be decided by       the District level committee after inspection of the field as per the rules in vogue”.

12.   The complainant on 26-07-11 filed xerox copy of notice said to have been addressed to Mandal Agricultural Officer on 28-09-09.    Ex.A-9 was not referred to by the complainant in his affidavit filed on 19-04-11 or in the complaint or in Ex.A-1 notice.   It can therefore be said that the complainant pressed Ex.A-9 at a belated stage.   Ex.A-9 did not contain the signature or seal of the receiving authority.   The complainant did not file postal receipt or acknowledgment to show that it was posted.   Ex.A-9 is extracted below for better appreciation:

“

13.    The contents of Ex.A-9 revealed that there was germination.   Ex.A-9 falsified the contention of the complainant that there was no germination at all.

14.    The counsel for the 3^rd opposite party contended that  the yield depends not only on the purity of the seed but also other conditions and the complainant did not inform the opposite parties regarding the condition of crop and relied on the decision reported in 2011 (3) CPJ  99 (NC).   In Mahyco seeds limited vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and others 2011 (3) CPJ 99 (NC) it was held  

                “The report of the agricultural officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous.   As already pointed out by Counsel for petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible.  The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crops.  In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.   We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the Respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds.   Respondent’s action in not informing the Petitioner about the so-called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect.   On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect.  On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory.   Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the petitioner but on the respondent.   This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2005) SLT 569”.

15.   In Chenna Rayudu vs Prabhat Agri Bio-tech Limited & Another 2010 (1) CPR 50 it was held in paras 12 and 13,

                “The complainant never tried to send the said seed to scientific analysis as required under section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Had the complainant was vigilant and sent the seed to an expert, he would have got whatever the compensation claimed.

                In the light of evidence of expert it cannot be said that the seed is defective.   Necessarily, the complainant has to prove that he used the fertilizers, pesticides, manure etc., at appropriate stages.  He had to prove that there was sufficient moisture in the soil at the time of filling of the seeds”.

16.  The decisions relied on by the complainant reported in 2000 (2) CPJ 167 and 2000 (4) CPJ 655 are not binding in view of the decisions reported in 2010 (1) CPR 50 and 2011 (3) CPJ 99 (NC).  

17.   In this case the complainant did not inform the Mandal Agricultural Officer regarding improper germination and to find out the reasons for it at the earliest stage.   Further in this case there was no report from any agricultural officer.        Burden is on the complainant to prove that there was defect in the seeds.   Taking a clue from the above decisions we are of the view that the complainant miserably failed in proving that the seeds purchased under the cash bill No.734302 dated 20-06-09 vide batch No.40531 are defective.   Under those circumstances there was no deficiency of service. Therefore we answer these points against the complainant.  

18.   POINT No.3:- In view of our findings on points 1 and 2 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   

19.   POINT No.4:- In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 27th day of August, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT