BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Monday the 23^rd day of April, 2012

C.C.No.27/2011

Between:

P.Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Venkata Swamy,

H.No.4/55, R/o Pulakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal- 518464, Kurnool District.                               …Complainant

                                              -Vs-   

The Proprietor, Sri Raghavendra Traders,

Bellary Road, D.No.14-94-5,  Kodumur-518 464, Kurnool District.                                                      …OPPOSITE PARTy  

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Smt.V.Naga Lakshmi Devi, Advocate for complainant and Sri S.Md.Ghouse Basha, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.                                            

                                           ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)                                                             C.C. No. 27/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-

1.   To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,73,600/- towards the compensation for crop loss;

1.   To pay a sum of Rs.51,060/- towards the amount spent on the crop;
2.   To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony;

1.   To pay the costs of the complaint;

And

1.   To order any such other relief or relief’s which are deem to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is an agriculturist.  He got 4.00 Acres of agriculture land in Pulakurthy Village.  On 29-05-2010 the complainant purchased 4 packets of Tulasi–509 Research Hybrid Castor Seed from the opposite party.  The said seed was produced, packed and marketed by M/S. Bionex Crop Sciences Private Limited Attapur, Ranga Reddy District.  The complainant purchased the said 4 Packets of Castor Seed for Rs.3,200/- under bill Nos.627 and 3725.  At the time of purchase the opposite party assured minimum yield of 16 to 18 Quintals per Acre.  The complainant in the month of June 2010 sowed the said seed in his land of 4.00 Acres of Pulakurthy Village.  The complainant incurred Rs.51,060/- for Fertilizer, Pesticides, Labour and other agriculture operations.  Even after completion of the three months period there was poor and improper formation of castor bunches to the plants with single cone.   Even the formed small bunches in cone have no seed balls.  The complainant informed the same to the agriculture officials, Kurnool in the first week of September.  A Scientist from RARS, Nandyal visited lands of the opposite party and submitted a biased repot defending the opposite party.  The complainant along with other farmers who sowed the same variety of Castor Seed lodged a complaint to Mandal Agriculture Officer on 27-09-2010.  But there was no response from the Agriculture Officials.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased Tulasi–509 verity castor seeds from the opposite party.  The expenditure shown and claimed by the complainant is abnormal.  The claim for loss of yield is excessive.   The normal yield of castor crop would be 5 to 6 Quintals per Acre.  The complainants land is not suitable for Castor Crop.  Due to excess rain fall, unfavourable weather conditions and lack of proper field management, the complainant might have received less yielding.  Basing on the farmers complaints to the Agriculture department, Dr.Sri.Y.Narasimhudu, Principal Scientist, R.A.R.S., Nandyal along with officials of agriculture department inspected the land of the complainant and others of Pulakurthy Village twice.  The said Scientist had noticed that excess rainfall, unfavourable weather factors and Botrytis Grey rot disease and pest attacks are the root causes for less yielding.  The same Scientist inspected the yields in Kodumur area where the same variety of crop was raised and observed that the crop condition was good.  The opposite party purchased the Tulasi–509 Castor Seed from M/s Bionex Crop Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad. The same seed raised in suitable lands with proper field management had given normal yields.  The seed sold by the opposite party is not defective.  Even it there is defect in the seed the seed producing company alone is responsible.  The opposite party is a only dealer who sold the seed.  The seed produced company is not a party to the present proceedings.  The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.  There are no merits in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. PW1 and PW2 are examined. Ex.X1 is marked.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is defect in the seed sold by the opposite party to the complainant?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- It is the case of the complainant that he is an  agriculturist and that he got an extent of 4.00 Acres of agricultural land in Pulakurthy Village.  The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that he got an extent of 4.00 Acres in Pulakurthy Village.  He also filed Ex.A2 copy of the Adangal for False – 1420 and Ex.A5 Proceedings of Joint Commissioner, Endowment Department of A.P. in support of his contention that he got land in Pulakurthy Village.  Admittedly the complainant purchased 4 packets of Tulasi–509 varieties of Research Hybrid Castor Seed from the opposite party under bill Nos.627 and 3725 dated 29-05-2010.   Admittedly the said variety of Castor Seeds were produced, packed and marketed by M/S Bionex Crop Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad.  It is the case of the complainant that during the False – 1420 he sowed the Castor Seed purchased from the opposite part in his land, spent an amount of Rs.51,060/- for Fertilizer, Pesticides etc, and that he did not get any yield  due to defect in the seed.  The complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the Adangal where in it is mentioned that the complainant raised Castor crop in his land.  

8.     Admittedly the complainant purchased Tulasi-509 variety of Castor Seed from the opposite party under Ex.A1.  It is for the complainant to establish that there was defect in the seed sold by the opposite party.    The complainant in his complaint clearly stated that he preserved the seed and he is ready to send the same to the lab for testing.  The complainant did not take steps to send the seed to the lab for testing to find out the defect if any.  The complainant examined PW2 the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kodumur.  He deposed in is cross examination that Grow out Test is required to find out whether there is defect in the seed.  Without concluding the proper test it cannot be safely concluded that the Castor Seed that was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is defect.  It is stated by the PW2 that he along with PW1 visited the land of the complainant on 22-09-2010 and found Castor Tulasi–509 variety of crop and that the said crop grown beyond normal height with Luxurious Vegetative growth.  PW1 also in his evidence stated that on 22-09-2010 he along with PW1 visited the land of the complainant and found Castor crop in the land.  In the light of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 it is very clear that the land of the complainant where the Castor crop was there was visited by PWs 1 and 2 on 22-09-2010.

9.     The complainant filed the present complaint claiming the compensation for loss of castor crop in his land.  As already stated the seed was not sent for testing.  The PWs 1 and 2 who visited the crop in the land no where in their evidence stated that the failure of the crop was due to defect in the seeds purchased by the complainant.   PW1 is the Senior Scientist attached to RARS, Nandyal.  It is stated by PW1 that the crop in the land was attacked with Grey rot disease and insect pest and the said crop was damaged due to above disease, that the complainant applied Bio products which were not suitable to protect the crop.  In his cross examination he category stated that the crop was damaged due to unfavourable weather conditions and that the complainant not applied the fungicide to control the disease.  He also stated Botrytis grey rot disease can be controlled by applying suitable fungicide.  The above evidence of PW1 goes to indicate that the loss of the crop was due negligence of the complainant in applying Bio products which are not suitable to protect the crop from pests. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that PW1 who a scientist is not competent speak about physical features of land and crop management.  If it is so it is not known as to why the complainant summoned and examined PW1.  Ex.X1 is the report of PW1.  In the report Ex.X1 it is clearly stated that in Kodumur where the same variety of seed was sowed in block soil, the crop conditions was good and normal yield is expected.  PW1 also in his chief examination stated that the Kodumur Village is about 10 to 15 Kilometers distance from Pulakurthy Village, that the same variety of Castor crop raised in Kodamur Area was in good condition.  If there is defect in the seed, the Castor crop in the lands in Kodumur Area must have also failed.  The contention of the complainant cannot be believed for the simple reason that the same variety of seed sowed in Kodumur Area gave good results.  The complainant failed to establish that there was defect in the Castor seed purchased by him from the opposite party.  PW1 in his evidence stated that the Castor Crop loss in the land of the complainant was due to unfavourable weather conditions and failure of the complainant in applying fungicide to control the disease. PW1 evidence stated that he noticed about 20% crop loss.  Merely because the complainant did not get good yield the opposite party can be blamed.  The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is no way helpful to the complainant.  As the complainant failed to establish that there was defect in the seed purchased by him from the opposite party, the opposite party cannot be directed to pay compensation to the complainant.  No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite party.

10.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23^rd day of April, 2012.

 Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : PW1 & 2        For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Photo copy of Purchase Bills (Nos.2) Sri Ragavendra

Traders, Kodumur for Rs.3,200/- dated 29-05-2010.

Ex.A2                Adangal False – 1420 issued by Village Revenue Officer,

                Pulakurthy Village, Kodumur Mandal.

Ex.A3                Photo copy of Representation Letter by complainant to

                Agricultural Officer, Kodumur dated 27-09-2010.

Ex.A4                Truthful Lable.

Ex.A5                Photo copy of Proceedings of the Joint Commissioner,

                Endowment Department of Andhra Pradesh.

Ex.X1         Photo copy of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University Regional Agricultural Research Station Nandyal to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool District dated 03-11-2010.

PW1           Deposition of Sri Y.Narsimhulu dated 07-11-2011.

PW2           Deposition of Smt.R.Anuradha Reddy

dated 30-11-2011.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite part:-

Ex.B1                Photo copy of Invoice No.109 for Rs.3,76,320/-

dated 26-05-2010.

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

 // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :