BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Honble Lady Member
Friday the 22nd day of December, 2006
C.C. No.58/2006
Rangaiah,S/o. Ramalingappa,aged about 30 years,Hindu, Agriculturist,
resident of Suguru Village,Mantralayam Mandal,Kurnool district. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor, Sri. T.Satya Reddy,S/o. T.Venkata Rami Reddy,
Sri Venkateswara Traders,Tank Bund Road, Yemmiganoor, Kurnool district.
2. The Managing Director, Western Agri Seeds Private Limited802/11,
Western House,GIDC Engineering Estate Sector No.28,
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat State. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S.Sivarama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri. Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party No.1 and Sri.P.V.Sudhakar Reddy for opposite party No.2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad Honble President
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12, of C.P. Act., seeking an award on opposite parties for Rs.36,000/- with 18 percent interest there on towards loss of crop and agriculture in-put, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in selling Western-44 variety ground nut seed which did not yield satisfactorily in the land of AC.61 cents of complainant in survey No.298 Sugur (V) of Mantralayam (M) inspite of best crop and field management and compliance of all guide lines and recommendations prescribed for cultivation of said variety of seed as it did not yield ground nut pods to the plants even after ninety days of its sowing and the Mandal Agriculture Officer on complainant of said circumstances visited the said field and observed the aged of the crop as ninety days germination and branching of plants satisfactorily but the peg initiation and pod formation below to T.M.V. 2 ground nut variety and flowering at top and middle and 5 to 10 pods to the plant and on such account it will not yield more than 3 qts per acre as against the expected of 35 to 40 qts per hectare as per the companies broucher and hence sustained loss of expected yield of 12qts rating at Rs.2,000/- per quintal and Rs.7,500/- towards agriculture in-puts and the said occurred on account of low quality in seed supplied by the opposite parties without holding any proper tests of its adoptability to the lands in Kurnool district and so the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as dealer and manufacturer of said variety of seed respectively.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties caused there appearance through their counsel and contested the case filling written version denying their liability to the complainant s case and seeking dismissal of the case with costs alleging firstly that there is no proof as to the purchase of the seed by the complainant from the opposite party No.1, secondly the so called inspection of M.A.O. was without any notice to them providing any reasonable opportunity to it thirdly the loss of crop was not brought to the notice of the opposite party by the complainant at any relevant time fourthly disputing the said rate of Rs.2,000/- per qts and alleged yield of 3 qts per acre.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.2 firstly denice the opposite party No.1 as its dealer and thereby any of its liability to the said purchase of seed from opposite party No.1, secondly it denice of any assurances of attractive yield to said variety of seed thirdly it denice of the alleged good crop field management fourthly denice the alleged inspection of M.A.O. of the land of the complainant for ascertaining the cause for crop loss fifthly allege the so called inspection of M.A.O. was without any notice affording any reasonable opportunity to it sixthly the M.A.O. report is not of any use as not assigning any specific cause nonetheless attributing the said failure of crop to any defect in the seed seventhly alleges the possibility for the failure of crop on account of several other reasons such as non suitability of the soil un even temperatures, scarcity of water, lack of Micronutrients in the soil, effect of pests and viral and fungal infections, eighthly require the complainant of the proof of alleged yield per acre and its rate at Rs.2,000/- per qt and as to the release of said seed without testing its adaptability to the lands in Andhra Pradesh, Ninethly the unilateral activities of complainant without notice to it deprived a fare opportunity to it to ascertain the truth and causes if any for failure of crop and so alleging the case of the complainant as false and frivolous seeks it dismissal with costs and claiming Rs.10,000/- as its costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on to the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 besides to the evidence of P.W1-Dr.G.Faqroodin) and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and replies of the opposite parties to its interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B4 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence and replies of complainant to its interrogatories.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged deficiencies on the part of the opposite parties and thereby their liability to the complainant s claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is cash bill dt:09-11-2005 issued by the opposite party No.1 in the name of the complainant. It envisages sale of 2 bags each of 20 Kgs of western-44 ground nut seed, of batch No.1 manufactured by the opposite party No.1, for an amount of Rs.2,780/-. There being any material from the opposite parties side discrediting the bonafidies of said bill of purchase in Ex.A1 it remains established as to the purchase of said seed by complainant from the opposite party No.1 as mentioned there in.
7. While the opposite party No.2 denice the opposite party No.1 as its dealer the Ex.B2 and B4 certificate issued by western agriculture seeds private Ltd., envisages the opposite party No.1 as its dealer and M/S. Kiran Hybrid Seeds, Tank Bund Road, Yemmiganur as its distributor respectively. Hence, there appears no bonafidies in the denial of opposite party No.2 as to the privy of opposite party No.1 to it as its dealer especially when the Ex.B1 and B3 credit bill cum delivery chalans envisages supply of western-44 ground nut seed to the opposite party No.1 for the cost mentioned therein. As Ex.A1 envisages sale of the seed of same lot as mentioned in Ex.B1 and B3 and the Ex.B4 certificate shows the status of opposite party No.1 as dealer for said western-44 seed variety the denial of liability by opposite party No.2, for the seed sold by opposite party No.1 under Ex.A1 to the complainant, remains without any bonafidies for laying any reliance and to feel any justifiability s in its contentions.
8. The opposite party side requires the proof of alleged cultivation in the land of the complainant. The Ex.A2 certified copy of adangal for the year 2005-2006 pertaining to cultivation of ground nut to the survey No.298 Sugur (v) of the complainant answers that querry of opposite party side and hence the said contention of the opposite party requiring the proof of cultivation of complainant s land with ground nut crop remains established satisfactorily.
9. The opposite parties contend that the so called grievances of the complainant as to the failure of the crop was not brought to its notice at any relevant time and the so called inspection of M.A.O. also without any notice to it. As any statutory provision under Seeds Act or any other Act governing this kind of grievances as to the failure of the crop on account of defective seed obligates the effected farmer or M.A.O. to cause notice to the opposite parties for causing its inspection of the concerned lands, there appears any merit worthy of consideration in said contention of the opposite parties.
10. The complainant alleges he and eleven others gave a joint representation to M.A.O. for inspecting their lands where the crop was effected and places the Ex.A3 as their said joint representation to the M.A.O. The evidence of P.W1 Dr.G.Faqruddin – M.A.O. Mantralayam, says that on 10-03.2006 the villagers of Sugur gave him a representation seeking inspection of their fields to ascertain as to the failure of Western-44 variety ground nut crop. Even though the said P.W1 does not identify the said Ex.A3 as the said joint representation of the said sugur villages, not it bears the date of said representation as 10-03-2006 but as there appears the name of the complainant are his signature in the list of the farmers appended to said Ex.A3 and the cultivated land of the complainant as per Ex.A2 is in Sugur (V) village limits, and the evidence of P.W1 says that he has inspected the lands of those farmers of sugur village who has given said joint representation, the so called inspection of M.A.O. of the land of the complainant alleged by the complainant appears to be true.
11. But the complainant side did not made any endeavour to get in to the record the so called M.A.O. observation report as to the lands of said sugur village. Nor it made any endeavour to get in to record, the report of Senior Scientist Dr.K.S.S.Naik who was said to have inspected the said lands of sugur village on 23.03.2006 on the directions of joint Director Agriculture Kurnool receipt of the M.A.O.s report. While such is so with the omissions of the complainant s side the evidence of P.W.1 is also not remaining of any help to the case of the complainant, as the said evidence of P.W.1 except giving out his physical observations of the crop, did not assign any specific defect in said variety of seed attributing it for said failure of crop except alleging the said variety of seed was meant for Gujarat State and it is distributed in Andhra Pradesh without testing its suitability to the lands of Andhra Pradesh.
12. In the absence of a clear finding in M.A.O.S inspection regarding quality of seed supplied or of any specific defect in the seed which must have contributed said failure, no inference can be drawn against the said seed manufacturing company or its dealer as it amounts to not proving of the standard quality of the seed and in the circumstances the dismissal of complaint remains justified as per the rationale of the decision of Hon ble National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held in Solekaran Gladioli Growers Vs Baburam reported in II (2005) C.P.J. page 94 (N.C.).
13. When any specific defect to the seed is observed by the M.A.O. for such poor podding while the germination of seed plant growth etc., were found normal, a mere alleged non testing of the said variety of seed as to its suitability for lands in Andhra Pradesh cannot be held as a defect in seed which must have ensued improper yield or reduction in expected yield.
14. The complainant except alleging the expenditure for agriculture in-puts at Rs.7,500/- did neither specify they particulars which would justify the said figure nor placed any cogent document record in substantiation of the same. Nor did he place any cogent record as to the alleged rates at which he calculated by alleged loss of yield. Nor did he place any cogent record as to any of the yields of earliers years to feel any probability in the alleged quantity of loss of yield.
15. As there being any satisfactory material as to the inspection of the complainant s land by the M.A.O. and any proof as to any specific defect in the said seed supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant for attributing it to the said failure of expected yield or loss of substantial yield and any cogent material as to alleged expenditure of cultivation and the alleged rate of yield, the complaint is remaining not established as to the deficiencies of the opposite parties and thereby any of their liabilities to the complainant s claim.
Consequently the case of the complainant fails and so dismissed. In the circumstances the parties to the case proceedings do bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 22nd day of December, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties:Nil
PW1: Deposition of Pw1,
Dt:29-09-06 (Dr.G.Fakruddin).
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Cash Bill dt:09-11-05 for Rs.2,780/- issued by opposite party No.1 in
favour of the complainant for purchasing ground nut seeds – Western-
44.
Ex.A2 Certified copy of 10/1 Adangal for the year 2005-06 to Survey No.298
of Ramalingappa of Sugur Village.
Ex.A3 Attested Xerox copy of representation, dt:Nil of Sugur Village, Ryots
named and signed in annexure list.
Ex.A4 Attested Xerox copy of pamphlet Broucher of Western-20 seeds.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Attested Invoice credit bills (numbering in 6) in favour of opposite party
No.1 as to Western-44.
Ex.B2 Attested Principal Certificate dt:20-06-05 issued by Western Agri.,
Seeds (P.) Limited, in favor of O.P.No.1.
Ex.B3 Attested credit bills (Number in 2) dt:04-11-05 & 15-11-05 in favour of
opposite party No.1 by Sree Raghavendra Traders.
Ex.B4 Attested Principal Certificate, dt:10-06-05 issued by Western Agri.,
Seeds (P.) Limited, to opposite party No.1.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. Y.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. Sri. P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
