BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC),
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 24th day of July, 2015
C.C.No.81/2012
Between:
Y.S.Jayarami Reddy,
S/o.Y.S.Rami Reddy,
Agriculturist, Aged about 51 Years,
H.No.2/17,Balapanur Village,
Panyam Mandal,
Kurnool Dist-518 112. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor,
Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Seeds,
Shop No.4, Municipal Complex,
R.T.C. Bus Stand, Nandyal-518 501,
Kurnool District.
2. The Proprietor,
Sabasta Crop Technology,
Flat No.403, Quayyam Apartments,
Plot No.72, Hydersha Kote,
Rajendra Nagar,
Hyderabad-500 086. …OPPOSITE PARTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.S.Md.Ghouse Basha, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri.V.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC),)
C.C. No.81/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally:-
- To pay Rs.96,100/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase of seed to complainant;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
And
(c) To grant any other relief or reliefs which are deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant are that the complainant purchased two packets of Hybrid Sun Flower Seed of Roshini 4M22 (SSFH-4) variety produced and manufactured by opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,100/- from opposite party No.1 on 23.12.2011. The opposite parties assured that the Seed Roshini 4M22 (SSFH-4) variety of Sun Flower gives an yield of 8 quintal per acre under the irrigation facility.
At the end of December, 2011 the complainant sowed the seeds in his lands under Sy.No.36 and 81 to an extent of 2.47 Acres at Balapanur Village. The said land was having required irrigation facility. Prior to sowing the said seed the complainant prepared the said land by spending a sum of Rs.5,000/- per acre. In the land of the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Fertilizers and Pesticides and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards agriculture labours engaged towards agricultural operations and irrigations. Thereafter there was good germination of the said seed and the plants grew satisfactorily. But surprisingly the cobs were ill filled there was no proper seed setting.
The low seed setting resulted in low yield of the crop, and the complainant informed the said fact to MAO of Panyam Mandal. On 14.03.2012 as per the instructions of the ADR, RARS, Nandyal. A tem comprising of Sri.A.Ashok Kumar, Scientist (Agro) and Dr.C.V.C.M.Reddy, Scientist, RARS, Nandyal along with Sri.V.Bhaskar Reddy, ADA, Nandyal inspected the fields of the complainant and submitted their report to ADR, RARS, Nandyal. The said Senior Scientist’s in his report opined that 45% of plants were with ill filled cobs. As per the opinion of the Senior Scientist, the till filled cobs lead to low yield. Then the complainant informed the same to opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not take any steps to compensate the complainant.
The complainant submitted that the Sun Flower Seed of Roshini 4M22 (SSFH-4) supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant are defective and spurious. Hence the complainant sustained crop loss to an extent of 8 quintals per one acre. The market price of the Sun Flower Seed is Rs.3,000/- per quintal, hence the complainant lost a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 20) in an extent of 2.47 acres. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for crop loss, Rs.1,100/- towards cost of the seeds, Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure incurred and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and mental agony. Totaling to a sum of Rs.96,100/-.
3. Counter filed by opposite party No.1 stating that the complaint is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party No.1 submitted that it is a fact that one Sri.Y.S.Jaya Rami Reddy of Balapanur Village had purchased two packets of Hybrid Sun Flower Seed (SSFH-4) variety under bill No.33/44 dated 23.12.2011 for Rs.1,050/-, the other allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The expenditure to show and claimed by the complainant is abnormal and without any basis. Further the opposite party No.1 submitted that he did not give any assurance to the complainant with regard to output yielding. The allegations stated contra is false and output yielding of any crop will be depending upon so many factors including the primordial climatic factors. The average and normal output yield of Hybrid Sun Flower crop would be 4 to 6 quintals per acre subject to suitable weather conditions with good field management.
Further opposite party No.1 submitted that he was unaware of the field inspection made by the Scientists Sri.K.Ashok Kumar and Sri.C.V.C.M.Reddy along with Sri.V.Bhaskar Reddy, ADA, Nandyal. The documents i.e., Adangal issued by the VAO, Balapanur and inspection of field report submitted by the Scientists are subject to proof and relevancy of the case. Further submitted that the complainant could not have properly understood the report of Scientists before filing this complaint against the opposite parties. The complainant is silent with regard to yielding of the Sun Flower Crop which was received by him. Hence the claim is suspicious and not maintainable.
Opposite party No.1 further submitted that he purchased 90 Kgs., of Hybrid Sun Flower SSFH-4 variety seeds along with other seeds from opposite party No.2 and sold the same to the complainant and other farmers during the said season. Except the present complaint, there was not even a single complaint reported to opposite party No.1. The alleged seeds are not defective and as per Rule 7 of the seeds Rules 1968 only seed producing company is responsible for defective seeds but not a dealer who sold the seeds. No legal notice was issued to opposite party No.1 before filing this complaint and the claim of the complainant is only for un-law-full gains. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Counter filed by opposite party No.2 stating that the averments made in the complaint are totally denied. Opposite party No.2 submitted that he is not aware of the fact that the seed of Roshini 4M22 (SSFH-4) was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1, but admits that the said seeds are manufactured by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 submitted that they never assured the complainant that the said variety seeds of Sun Flower will give an yield of 8 quintals per acre under the irrigation facility. However they assure that they will give good yield.
Further opposite party No.2 submitted that as per the averments at para 2 of the complaint that at the end of the December, 2011 the complainant sowed the seed in his land bearing Survey No.36 and 81 to an extent of 2.47 acres of Balapanur Village and the said land is having required irrigation facility is not within the knowledge of opposite party No.2 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Further submitted that prior to sowing the said seed the complainant prepared the said land by spending a sum of Rs.5,000/- per acre and spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Fertilizers and Pesticides and Rs.5,000/- towards agriculture labour is not correct as the expenditure spent by the complainant is exaggerated only for the purpose of the present claim and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Further opposite party No.2 submitted that admittedly there was good germination of the said seed. Further opposite party No.2 submitted that it is not correct to suggest that to the surprise of the complainant, there was no proper seed setting and the said allegation is invented only for the purpose of the claim.
Further opposite party no.2 submitted that even as per the report of the team consisting A.Ashok Kumar, Scientist (Agro) and Dr.C.V.C.M.Reddy, Scientist, RARS, Nandyal have categorically stated that the low yield is not due to defective seeds but only for other reasons. For the purpose of convenience operative portion of the report is reproduced hereunder.
REMARKS
“Prevalence of high temperatures (>37 C) for 9 consecutive days at the time of flowering during Feb 21-29, competition between the plants for nutrients are some of the environmental and physiological factors respectively that might have contributed to poor seed set. Further, genetic factors like sterility percentage and availability of physical pollinators like honey bees at the time of flowering might have resulted in more number ill filled grains. The ill filling of seeds in the observed filed was 45% which leads to a reduction of 35% - 45% in yield when compared to normal yield…..”.
Opposite party submitted that the reading of the remarks by the committee makes it amply clear that the seeds are not defective and low yield is only due to the above reasons stated by the committee.
Opposite party No.2 submitted that the loss estimated by the committee is superficial and it is prepared without any basis. Further opposite party No.2 submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that there was total loss or total failure of the crop. It may not be out of place to mention here that even as per the report of the committee who have inspected the field the yield would be around 13 bags as such it cannot be said that the complainant has sustained huge loss as stated by him.
Opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant suppressed all the above facts and by misunderstanding the report of the committee the complainant filed this complaint for un law full gains. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. PW2 is examined. Ex.X1 is marked. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
i.Whether there is any manufacturing defect and whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite Parties?
ii.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
iii.To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii :- After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased two packets of Hybrid Sun Flower Seed of Roshini 4M22 (SSFH-4) variety produced and manufactured by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1. Subsequently the complainant sowed at the end of December, 2011 in his lands under Sy.No.36 and 81. As seen from the arguments there is no dispute with regard to the germination of the said seeds and the plants grew satisfactorily.
8. Later in the month of March the complainant came to know that there was no proper seed setting in the crop. After observing the failure of the Sun Flower crop the complainant made a request to M.A.O., of Panyam Mandal to visit his fields and give a report. On his request as per instructions of the ADR, RARS Nandyal a team comprising of Sri.A.Ashok Kumar, Scientist (Agro) and Dr.C.V.C.M.Reddy, scientist, RARS, Nandyal along with V.Bhaskar Reddy, ADA, Nandyal inspected the fields of the complainant on 14.03.2012 and submitted their report to ADR, RARS, Nandyal.
9. The said report is marked as ex.A4 in which they have opined that there was more than 37°C for 9 consecutive days at the time of flowering i.e., during February, 21-29, competition between the plants for nutrients are some of the environmental and physiological factors respectively that might have contributed to poor seed set. Further, genetic factors like sterility percentage and availability of physical pollinators like honey bees at the time of flowering might have resulted in more number of ill filled grains. The ill filling of seeds in the observed field was 45% which leads to a reduction of 35%-45% in yield when compared to normal yield. The above observation shows that the improper seed setting was not only due to defective seeds but due to several other factors also as mentioned above. Further when the said Scientist i.e., PW2 in his Chief Examination clearly stated that there was multiple lateral branches was observed in their field which has caused crop loss. This observation clearly shows that in Hybrid Variety Sun Flower the flowering and the maturity of the crop should be uniform and there should not be any lateral branches and because of dis-uniformity 35% to 40% of yield loss was observed.
10. The observation clearly shows that though the crop failure was not only due to defect in seeds but also due to some other condition like temperature at the time of seed setting and other weather conditions. In the above circumstances the version of opposite parties that there was no defect in the seeds cannot considered as the opposite parties have failed to prove that the complainant did not follow the normal convention of agricultural process and that the crop failure was not only due to fault in seed. The above observation clearly shows that there was some defect in the seed genetically which has caused multiple lateral branches which are un usual in Hybrid Variety Sun Flower Seeds. This shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the seeds. Hence we are of the view that for any manufacturing defect it is the liability of the manufacturer to compensate the loss to the Consumer. Hence in the instant case it is the opposite party No.2 who is liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. However, opposite party No.1 though sold the seed cannot be held liable to compensate the loss.
11. As seen from the written arguments and oral arguments nowhere in the complaint or in the arguments of the complainant has mentioned what is the yield that the complainant got and what is the loss he sustained. But as seen from the PW2 is evidence and as per the Ex.A4 and Ex.X1 document the failure of seed setting was estimated at 45% of the plantation which lead to a reduction of 35% - 45% in yield when compared to normal yield. As per the version of the complainant the normal yield per acre is 8 quintals and as per the opposite parties contention it is 4 to 6 quintals per acre. Considering the above contentions Via-Media 6 quintals per acre is considered as the normal yield. In the report filed by PW2 the Sun Flower Plantation area was clearly mentioned as 2 acres but whereas the complainant has claimed for 2.47 acres considering above facts the normal yield for 2 acres would be around 12 quintals and as per the assessment of the PW2 crop loss of around 35% to 45% in yield when compared to normal yield. Hence the crop loss is around 5.4 quintals. The complainant has mentioned in his complaint and in his affidavit that the cost of Sun Flower Seed is around Rs.3,000/-at that time which is not disputed by opposite parties, considering the said contention the crop loss is fixed at 5.4 quintals X Rs.3,000/-=Rs.16,200/-.
12. Further the complainant has claimed loss of Rs.10,000/- towards Fertilizers and Pesticides and an amount of Rs.5,000/- spent towards agriculture labours and Rs.5,000/- per acre spending for preparing the land to sow the Sun Flower. All the above amounts are spent by the complainant only to sow the Sun Flower in normal procedure and without spending the said amounts one cannot expect returns from the crop without spending towards agricultural labour and applying fertilizers and pesticides. Hence the said amounts cannot be claimed from the opposite parties as it is only after spending the said amount one can expect crop yield. Hence the claim made under the leads of expenditure incurred and cost of seeds cannot be considered. In the circumstances we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that opposite party No.2 alone is liable for to compensate the loss of the complainant. Further a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards mental agony.
13. In the result the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.16,200/- towards the crop loss sustained by the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., from 08.10.2012 till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards mental agony. Time for compliance is one month from the date of order. However the complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : PW2 For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Purchase Bill dated 23.12.2011.
Ex.A2. Seeds Lables.
Ex.A3 Adangal.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Report Submitted to the ADR, RARS, Nandyal dated 07.04.2011.
Ex.X1 Report Submitted to the ADR, RARS, Nandyal dated 25.11.2014.
PW2 Deposition of Sri.C.V.C.M.Reddy dated 25.11.2014.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Invoice No.273 (Page-5) dated 04.10.2011
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// 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 :
