These complaints coming up before us for final hearing on                    30-03-10 in the presence of Voluntary Organization in Interest of Consumer Education representing on behalf of complainants and of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2 and Sri R.N.Vamsee Krishna, advocate for opposite parties 3 & 4, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:-   These batch of cases are filed by the complainants claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- per acre towards loss suffered by them in paddy crop on account of supply of spurious seeds by the opposite parties herein and also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and suffering and legal expenses.

        The complainants herein are the farmers of different villages of Guntur district and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are common in all the cases.  The dispute to be resolved in these cases being common, the evidence on record and the contentions raised by both sides are also common, they are being disposed of by a common order.

        The case of complainants is as follows, the complainants herein are the farmers of various villages of Guntupalem, Bhaskarnagar, Mathukumalli, Muthanapalli, Karumanchi, Kakani, Kunkalagunta, Thungapadu, Santhagudipadu, Vadlamudivaripalem of Guntur district.  Some of the farmers are cultivating their own land and some of them cultivating by taking the land on lease/koul. 

        The 1^st opposite party is the proprietor of Sri Vijaya Durga Seeds, Vinukonda who is selling paddy in retail to the farmers as distributed and marketed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 namely Suneetha Enterprises, Tenali and Sri Vijayalakshmi Agro Agencies, Islampur, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District, Karnataka State.                     M/s Krishi seeds, vadderahatti village, Ganagavathi taluk, Koppal District, Karnataka State (OP.No.4) is producer of paddy seed known as NLR 34449 and marketing the same in the state of Andhra Pradesh through 2^nd opposite party.

        All the complainants have purchased paddy seed NLR 34449 in the quantity as per their requirement from OP1 for raising paddy crop in their respective fields.   The opposite parties herein have assured the farmers that 500 grams of seed bag is sufficient enough to sow in an extent of 1½ acre land, the yield would be 35 to 40 bags per acre.   It is alleged by farmers that after sowing the seed, it has resulted in irregular maturity and chaffy panicles caused complete damage, thereby causing huge loss to the farmers.   The aggrieved farmers approached opposite parties 1 and 2 and also agricultural officers of their respective Mandals.    The agricultural officers have inquired into the matter and sent the seed for testing to the concerned laboratory in respect of its quality on 29-12-08.   The farmers also approached the District Collector and Joint Director of Agricultural for necessary relief.  The scientist report speaks that there was admixture in the seeds which is evident from the field inspection report.   The District Collector, Guntur has constituted field verification committee who visited the lands of farmers and gave their report.

        Thus the seed produced by OP4 is spurious in nature and caused huge loss to complainants.   The yield is below 5 bags per acre.   The similar seed supplied by other companies brand yielded around 35bags per acre.   Thus complainants have suffered loss about Rs.30,000/- per acre for which all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible.  The District Collector, Guntur and Joint Director of Agriculture have initiated proceedings for settlement of issue.               On 31-12-08 opposite parties 1 and 2 have entered into an agreement and gave an undertaking to pay compensation to the affected farmers.   Subsequently, the opposite parties are postponing the matter and evading to pay compensation and to settle the issue.   The farmers have also approached the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur.  But the opposite parties have shown no interest in payment of compensation.  Thus the above referred facts constituted cause of action in filing these complaints against the opposite parties for selling spurious seeds to farmers and also went back in payment of compensation as agreed earlier, which amounts to deficiency of service.   Hence, the complaint.

        The 1^st opposite party in his version denied allegations made in the complaint and submits that he is only the dealer and after due verification that he is having principal certificate and license, he is engaged in selling branded seed to the ryots.   The OP2 is whole saler.   The OP3 is marketing agency in the state of AP and OP4 is the producer of seed NLR 34449 (paddy seed).   Therefore, the opposite parties i.e., OPs 2 to 4 are liable to pay compensation if any deficiency arises.   This particular seed was invented by Nellore Lam Farm and the complainants have not made them as party.  This opposite party is doing business since long time and there is no blemish record to him.  The compensation arrived by the complainants is based on wrong calculation.   The yield is subject to proper crop management method and environment condition.   No accurate result would come by testing the field.   There is no evidence on behalf of farmers that they own the land and sowed the seed.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.   Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

        OP2 has filed its separate version denying the allegations made in the complaint.  He claims that he is no way concerned with the case and is not a direct supplier of any seeds to any retailer.   The seeds will be directly delivered by the producer as per order placed by this opposite party to the retailer.   He does not receive seeds directly from producer.

        As far as his knowledge goes, OP4 is genuine producer of the seed and he used to release the same after testing by authorized laboratory.   The 4^th opposite party never indulged in sending spurious seeds.   There is no evidence that the 1^st opposite party sold the seeds supplied by the 4^th opposite party.   This opposite party is not aware infact 1^st opposite party sold seeds to farmers.   The bills produced by the complainants do not contain any serial number.

        The alleged agreement dated 31-12-08 contained signature of this opposite party was made under pressure at the instance of police in the guest house surrounded by hundreds of farmers headed by one Mundru Hanumantha Rao of Mathukumalli village. The said Hanumantha Rao was a chronic litigant.  He approached this opposite party demanding money and as he refused to pay the same, he has created all this havoc and he is behind this litigation only to get wrongful gain.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and he prayed to dismiss the complaint against him.

        OP3 and 4 have filed their common version questioning the maintainability of complaints.  They submit that they are no way concerned with this case.   The 4^th opposite party is the producer of the seed and he never supplied the same to the           1^st opposite party.  It is no way concerned with the 1^st opposite party and has no acquaintance with him.   The 4^th opposite party does not know what type of seed sold by the 1^st opposite party to the farmers at what point of time.   The bills enclosed to the complaints do not bear any serial number. 

        The 3^rd opposite party is only distributor of seed produced by the 4^th opposite party. The seed variety NLR 34449 produced by                        4^th opposite party are genuine. The seed was tested by                               Seed Analyst-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing Laboratory Oddarvatti Camp, Gangavathi, an organization of the State of Karnataka in Seed Analyst Report No.EOI/08-09 dated 04-03-09.  The lot number is K-06-555.  Another quantity was also tested by Seed Testing Laboratory, Devangere in Seed Analyst Report No.5780 of the same lot.   Both the reports are filed herewith. 

        The producer of the seed is not at all responsible once it releases its premises.   The producer cannot release any seed without testing by authorized laboratory.

        There may be so many reasons for less yielding of crop.  The less yielding crop may be due to natural calamities, like cyclone, lack of water, lack of rain or due to heavy rain.   It may be due to use of less quantity of fertilizers or excess quantity of fertilizers as well as pesticides also. It depends upon quality of fertilizers used.   Sometimes, it may depend on personal labour that worked in the field by the farmers.  If the supervision and management is not proper, it also may be the reason for less yielding.

        The field verification committee is not constituted as per rules.   The committee shall consist of producer and a scientist.  The loss expected by the Committee by field verification is not based on Scientific method.   The last sentence of Committee Report clearly reveals that the report is not final and is not scientific.   There is no evidence on record that the seed purchased by the farmer was supplied by these opposite parties.   These opposite parties are no way concerned with variety of NLR - 145.  In any case they are no way responsible.  Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

        Both sides have filed their respective affidavits and also produced evidence.  On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-3 are marked and on behalf of OP1 Exs.B-1 to B-12 and on behalf of OP3 and OP4 Exs.B-13 to B-15 are marked.  

        During the course of hearing in similar batch of cases the officers of the o/o Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur were summoned to appraise the Forum in respect of field verification and the report submitted by the committee, including the report obtained from the scientists and also produce the material with regard to paddy/agronomic practices adopted in the District of Guntur, further the list of farmers affected with an estimation of loss basing on the scientific data and on usual cultivation.  Accordingly they were present before the Forum on two occasions and gave required information by producing the material.   Both sides have been heard in detail. 

        Now the points for determination are that,

1.          Whether the opposite parties have supplied sub standard paddy seeds of the variety NLR 34449 to the farmers/complainants in Guntur district and indulged in unfair trade practices?

2.          Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation as claimed?

3.          If so to what extent?

POINT No.1:-   All the complainants herein have produced their respective bills for purchase of paddy seed NLR 34449 issued by OP1 (retailer) vide Ex.A-1 for different quantities and copy of agreement dated 31-12-08 entered into in between them and OPs 1 and 2 and Seema hybrid seeds, Narasaraopet, the retailer which is concerned with other batch of cases vide Ex.A-2 and copy of field inspection report vide Ex.A-3.   This apart they have also filed other material which consists of list of farmers of different villages and extent owned by them.  The correspondence that went on from the District Collector, Guntur to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and to the Commissioner of Agriculture, Karnataka State,  the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur addressing a letter to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, AP and the proceedings of Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur canceling license of the 1^st opposite party and as well as M/s Seema Hybrid seeds, Narasaraopet, the copy of FIR registered by police Savalyapuram U/S 420 IPC against the opposite parties herein.

        From the above material on record, it is evident that the farmers of different villages stated above in Guntur district have purchased the paddy seed NLR 34449 from OP1 as distributed, marketed and produced by opposite parties 2 to 4 during kharif season of the year 2008-2009 and sowed the same in their respective fields expecting normal crop as assured for the said seed.   After sowing the seed they experienced loss in the yield and approached the Agricultural Officers of their respective area as well as the office of Joint Director of Agriculture and the District Collector, Guntur complaining the same.   As all the farmers are in agetative mood affected by far less in the yield of paddy crop, he has constituted field verification Committee to make field inspection and assesse the crop loss.   In compliance of the proceedings dated 30-12-08 the team members have visited Potturu, Mothukumalli, Bhaskaranagar, Gunturpalem and Vykallu in Savalyapuram Mandal, Lingamguntal, Ikkurthi, Ravipadu in Narasaraopet Mandal and Indragiri, Muttemapalli, Vadlamudivaripale, Annavaram in Rompicharla Mandal on 05-01-08 and 07-01-08 respectively along with Mandal Agricultural Officers and affected farmers of the respective villages concerned.   They have observed that there is admixture in the seed of NLR 34449 and NLR-145 varieties.   Pollination has taken place only in 4 to 5 main tiller and all the panicles of secondary tillers have become chaffy as there was pollination problem.  There is no uniformity in all the fields and the yield losses are expected to be 40% to 50%.   The appearance of the grain and height of the plants is not of NLR 34449 which is to be verified and confirmed by the Scientist (Rice breeding), ARS, Nellore. The report is submitted for favour of kind information to the Collector.   The team members constituted under this committee are as follows:

1. Assistant Director of Agriculture (R) Vinukonda

2. Assistant Director of Agriculture (R) Narasaraopet

3.  Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet

4. Co-ordinator, DAATT Centre, Guntur

5. President, Seed Dealers Association, Guntur

6. President, Farmers Federation, Peda Gottipadu, Prathipadu (Mandal)

        The material submitted by the Agricultural Department also includes scientist report on NLR 34449 along with JGL 384,                NLR 145 in respect of 4 villages as item No.3.   The report in respect of NLR 34449 is that, “there is 10 to 15% admixtures were observed.   Only the upper 4-5 panicles were field and the rest of the panicles were became chaffy which may be due to coincidence of flowering time of this variety with the unfavourable weather conditions during Nisha cyclonic period.   It was also observed that plant height of the variety in the field was 90 to 100 cms, whereas the original NLR 34449 was reported to possess 80 to 85 cms plant height only.   Hence, it is suggested that the varietal identity of the NLR 34449 may be confirmed by the Scientist (Breeding) of ARS, Nellore.

        The characteristic features of NLR 34449 paddy variety is enclosed in item No.1 which is given by Principal Scientist & Head, Agricultural Research Station, Nellore.   This shows the plant height is 70-85 cms.   The panicle characters are noted as follows,

a)    Panicle length                                :20-25 cms

b)    Number of grains/panicle                 :180-200. 

c)     Maturity (ranging in number of days) :120-125 days. 

d)    Seeding to flowering                       :90-95

e)    Seed to seed                                 :120125.

    As against the above evidence on record, the opposite parties              3 and 4 have placed 3 test reports vide Ex.B-13 to B-15.  Ex.B-13 report dated 04-03-09 which is actually conducted on 18-02-09 by the Seed Analyst/Assistant Director of Agriculture, Seed Testing Laboratory, Oddarahatti Camp, Gangavati in respect of NLR 34449 of lot No.K-06-555. Pure seed is noted as 99.7%.   Germination is noted as 90%, the quantity under test 550 kgs.  The 2^nd report is the Seed Analyst Report dated 19-02-09 of Seed Testing Laboratory, Devangere in respect of NLR 34449 of lot No. K O6-555 containing the quantity of 730 quintals. The actual test is conducted on 06-03-09.  Dead seeds noted as 6%.   The seed moisture is noted as 9.4. The ultimate report is that, it confirms to standards.

     The 3^rd report is by Seed Testing Laboratory, Davangere dated 06-03-09 in respect of lot No.K-06-550 of 820 quintals. This test also confirms to the standards. 

    Therefore, basing on such reports, the learned counsel appearing for OP3 and 4 contends that they produced and supplied genuine seed after being tested in the Laboratory and satisfying about the purity and quality of germination.   Further, their contention is that the report of verification committee relied upon by the complainants and Agricultural Department clearly states that appearance of grains and height and plants is not that of NLR 34449 and the same is to be verified and confirmed by the Scientist (Rice Breeding) ARS, Nellore.   There is no such report on record from the Scientist (Rice Breeding) ARS, Nellore.  It is also contended that the difference in yielding would depend on so many factors viz., lack of rain, heavy rain, natural calamities like cyclone, nature of soil, climate of season, use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation management.   It is also contended that neither Agricultural Department nor 1^st opposite party or farmers ever informed about this issue to the 4^th opposite party until receipt of notice from this Forum.   Further more the 4^th opposite party is not a participant in the field verification committee.

The other material filed by the complainants show that a letter was addressed by the District Collector, Guntur to the 4^th opposite party on 04-02-09.  This letter shows that “many complaints have been received from the farmers of Savalyapuram, Vinukonda, Narasaraopet, Rompicharla and Muppala Mandals of Guntur district through which they stated that they have purchased paddy NLR 34449 seed from M/s Sri Vijaya Durga Seeds, Vinukonda and M/s. Seema Hybrid seeds, Narasaraopet which is supplied by M/s Suneetha Enterprises, Tenali and produced by M/s Krishi Seeds, Gangavathi, Karnataka and marketed by M/s Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Agro Agencies, Islampur, Gangavathi, Karnataka which is spurious in nature and results in irregular maturity and chaffy panicles caused complete damage to them and demanded for compensation.

    In this connection the Scientist, Rice Research Station, Bapatla reported that there is 10-15% of admixtures and only the upper                4-5 panicles are filled and rest of panicles are chaffy.   The field verification committee constituted by the Collector, Guntur has also reported that, there is admixture in the paddy NLR 34449 seed and pollination has taken place only in 4-5 main tillers and the yield loss is expected to 40 to 50%.  This shows that seeds supplied by them are spurious in nature and caused loss to the farmers.

On the request of farmers when contacted by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur yourself and your son have promised to come over to Guntur and pay necessary compensation to the farmers.   But later you have sent a letter on 30-12-08 stating that you are in disposed and come to Guntur as soon as your health improves.  In this connection you are informed that the affected farmers are creating Law and Order problem in the District as you did not turn up till                    04-02-09 though one month has been lapsed since your letter on               30-12-08.

    Hence, you are requested to appear before the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur along with two Agricultural Department Officials who are being deputed to meet you, so as to enable and avoid further problems in this issue”.

    On the same day, the District Collector, Guntur has addressed another letter to the Superintendent of Police, Koppal district, Karnataka State to give necessary protection to the deputed officers in the state of Karnataka for bringing the 4^th opposite party and his son.   The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad also addressed a letter dated 17-02-09 to the Commissioner of Agriculture,  Karnataka State to take necessary steps to initiate action against the producer and marketer of the seed NLR 34449.   The Joint Director of agriculture, Guntur also addressed a letter to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, AP intimating that the seed license of the dealers who deal with the above seed have already been cancelled and further it is intimated that as the producer and marketer belongs to Karnataka state, it is not possible to take action against them.  Further, it is requested to initiate action against them by the Commissioner and the Director of Agriculture, AP. 

    In view of the aforesaid correspondence from various authorities, the OP4 cannot plead that they have no knowledge about this issue until the notices are received from the Consumer Forum.   The test reports relied upon by OP4 vide Exs.B-13 to B-15 pertains to his own samples out of lots mentioned therein and got tested by them.   They are not in conformity with the field verification report.   It is clearly found out from the field verification report that there is admixture in the seed, the pollination has taken place only in 4-5 main tillers and the lower panicles were unfilled and became chaffy as there was pollination problem.  The said observation by the committee is quite against the characteristic features of NLR 34449 paddy variety as stated supra already (item No.1).   Of course, as per the report of Scientist (Rice Research Institute, Bapatla) the flowering time coincided with unfavourable weather conditions during Nisha cyclonic period.   This is also one of the contributory factor in the damage of crop and less yield.   The other factors alleged by OP3 and OP4 such as management of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation etc., there is little scope to doubt.

    All the farmers are well experienced in the cultivation of paddy crop in this District and there is also Regional Research Centre at Lam in Guntur, which educate the farmers on the subject.   They also publish brochers periodically about the crops raised in this district.   Therefore, OP3 and OP4 cannot attribute such inadequacies on the part of farmers.

    The other contentions of OP3 and OP4 are as follows, “the 1st opposite party is not an authorized purchaser of seed from the                   4^th opposite party, but it has purchased seeds only through                         2^nd opposite party, the delivery challans filed by the 1^st opposite party normally indicates this fact.   The OP1 has filed delivery challans including Principal Certificate issued by 4^th opposite party in its favour.  The delivery challans are issued by the marketing agency (OP3) in favour of OP1 for supply of NLR 34449 seeds.   There are also cash bills issued by 2^nd opposite party.   These documents are marked as Exs.B-1 to B-12.   They are in proper order and also supported by the material supplied by the Agriculture Department.    It is further contended that 4^th opposite party has supplied only 770 packets of 30 kgs each to the 1^st opposite party on the order placed by the                 2^nd opposite party under lot No.550 and some quantity of seeds under delivery challan No.118 were supplied to Seema Hybrid seeds, Narasaraopet.   The 1^st opposite party is alleged to have tampered challan numbers 116, 117 which belongs to lot No.555 as lot No.550.   According to the learned counsel appearing for OP3 and OP4 the quantity of seed supplied is not shown with the extent of land under which this variety seed is allegedly sown by the farmers.

    As per the material supplied by the Agricultural Department the 4^th opposite party has supplied NLR 34449 paddy variety of lot No.K06 550 consisting of 1505 bags as per the invoice enclosed by them vide item No.4.   The extent of area 2257.5 acres @20kgs per acre can be sown.  On perusal of the same they are quite tallying with the challans furnished by Agricultural Department.  Of course, Agriculture Department might have procured these copies of challans from OP1 itself.   It is clearly understood that they are in respect of lot No.555.   It is also contended on their behalf that some of the receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party infavour of complainants are containing signatures either in Telugu or in English though the farmers are illiterates and thumb marks.   The Government agency has conducted field inspection and also prepared the list of farmers affected by mentioning the extent of land in which seed variety NLR 34449 under lot No.K 06 550 is sown.    In view of the availability of such record, the aforesaid objections with regard to receipts filed by the complainants is too technical though some of the complainants does not read and write and put their thumb marks in the complaints filed, the retailer must have issued by noting down their names and filled up the signature at the place of customer signature.   This cannot be a serious objection so that the purchase of seeds by such farmers can be doubted.

Lastly in respect of contentions raised by the learned counsel for OP3 and OP4 they relied upon III (2004) CPJ 50 Tamilnadu State Commission, Chennai between T. Parthasarathy vs. Director, Tamilnadu Agricultural Department & Others,

    The decision is rendered by Tamilnadu State Commission in respect of ground nut seed purchased by the complainant and alleging them as substandard one due to poor germination.   In this case, the complainant owns agricultural land admittedly he has sown ground nut in December, 1995 which comes under the irrigated season.   Ground nut cannot be sown as dry crop during December.   Further, in the month of December, 1995, January, 1996, there would not be any rainfall.  Further, it was alleged that he has used un recommended chemicals and treated the seeds with excessive chemicals.  From the adangal extract it was found that he had an average out put from his field.  The seeds were supplied to him from the National Pulse Research Centre, Vamban. The capacity of the seeds for germination was more than 70%.   Therefore, his case was not accepted as he was supplied with inferior quality of seeds.

    In these circumstances, these batch cases are quite different.   All the farmers are well experienced in paddy cultivation as stated above and there is adverse report of field verification committee on the nature of paddy grown in the fields as against the normal characteristic features of the said seed as tested by Nellore Rice Breeding Center.    There is also adverse report from the scientist of Bapatla Research Centre. 

The second decision is that of IV (2004) CPJ 15, Rajastan State Commission, Jaipur, between Prabandhak, Rashtriya Beej Nigam vs. Satnam Singh, in this case the complainant was supplied musk melon seed to produce the same seed had an agreement under the National Seeds Corporation Programme. As per the terms and conditions of agreement between the parties, the primary seed was to be sown in ‘reserved area’ which should be leveled, futile, neutral or nearly neutral and well drained land with facilities for clean and healthy seed production and which area should be so located that the seed crop in that area conformed to the isolation and other field standard requirements as prescribed in the Indian Minimum Seed Certification standards, 1988 failing which the seed crop produced by the grower was liable to be rejected in part or in full.  The grower was required to raise the crop as a single crop and not as a mixed crop, intercrop, companion crop or rate on crop.   But the field examination revealed otherwise.   The single crop of musk melon had been grown in a field wherein mustard crop had been raised as previous crop and the isolation distance, as was required to be maintained as per terms and conditions of agreement, was not satisfactory. Further they noted that off type plants/fruit plants had also contributed to the unsatisfactory growth of must melon crop.  The facts of the above case do not apply to the present case on hand. 

In the last decision reported in III (2004) CPJ 17 (NC) National Commission, New Delhi, between Ganesh Ram & Others vs. Prop, Kisan Agro Sales and another, the deficiency of service is not proved because onion seeds released for Jodhpur sown in Seekar district.   Difference could be on account of variation in agro climatic conditions.   Further, it is observed that nobody could be faulted except farmer himself.  Reports of experts go against the complainant.  Therefore, the conclusion of State Commission is upheld.

    We are of the considered view that the facts involved in the present case are quite different from the aforesaid decisions.   The variety of seed of NLR 34449 is very much sown in this district.   

        Thus viewing the case from all angles, in the light of discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the seeds in question i.e., NLR 34449 of lot No. K 06 550 produced, marketed and supplied to these farmers are substandard/spurious, as there is admixture in the seed and due to which yield loss is to an extent of 40% to 50%.   The various factors found in respect of pollination and the panicles of secondary tillers do not tally with the normal characteristic features of the said variety as per the report of Principal Scientist at Nellore (item No.1).   The so called report vide Ex.B-3 in respect of lot No.K 06 550 relied upon by opposite parties 3 and 4 is purely based on samples out of their own stock which were tested on 06-03-09 and the same cannot be given any credence.  The point is answered accordingly.

        POINTS 2 & 3:-    The complainants claimed compensation @Rs.30,000/-per acre towards loss suffered by them.  The Agricultural Department has given particulars of cost of cultivation and returns of paddy crop per acre.   The total cost excluding rent to the land is shown at Rs.11,418/- if the land is taken by a farmer on koul/lease the rate is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.  The net return including rent is shown at Rs.10,582/- excluding rent it is shown at Rs.20,582/-. The complainant counsel furnished the particulars signed by VAO and MRO, Rompicharla.   According to these data the total expenditure is shown at Rs.13,850/- the Koul amount is shown at Rs.12,000/-                (12 packets @Rs,1000/-).   The income to the land owner who tills his land is shown at Rs.18,150/- if it is a koul land after deduction of Rs.12,000/- the farmers would get Rs.6,150/-.

        The complainants have also relied upon an agreement executed by opposite parties 1 and 2 where under an amount of Rs.6,000/- was agreed to be paid as compensation. In this context, after making due consultation with the producer of seed, in case if the producer does not own any responsibility in this regard, the retailer and local distributor have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per acre.   Now the retailer and local distributor go back and say that such an agreement was obtained under coercion by the authorities concerned in the presence of agitating farmers as such, the same is not binding on them.   Whereas, the opposite parties 3 and 4 says no knowledge about the same including about this episode at all.   As already discussed supra, there is enough material on record as the District Collector and other authorities have informed both opposite parties 3 and 4 and also deputed the officers concerned to bring them over to Guntur, in view of Law and Order problem created by the affected farmers.

        Having considered the above aspects including the field verification report and scientist report and further having regard to the fact, the average loss reported in between 40 to 50% we feel it reasonable to estimate the damage at Rs.7,500/- per acre.   Accordingly, we award the same for which all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.   The awarded amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1.        The opposite parties 1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- per acre to the complainants with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization.

2.        Further they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards legal expenses in each complaint.

3.        The liability of opposite parties 1 to 4 is joint and several in payment of the above amounts.

4.        The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amount ordered in Item No.2 shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by junior steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of                   March, 2010.

     Sd/-XXX                                       Sd/-XXX                                      Sd/-XXX

     MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side                                  

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant in CC 58/10 to 90/10:

For 1st Opposite Party:

For 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties:

                                                                               Sd/-XXX    

                                                                               PRESIDENT