Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/115

T Krishna Sudham Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uday Singh - Opp.Party(s)

G RAVI PRAKASH

10 Nov 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

                                                                             Thursday, the 10^th day of November, 2011 

 

                                                   Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

     Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

 

C.C.NO. 115  Of   2010

 

Between:-

T. Krishna Sudham Reddy S/o T. Goverdhan Reddy, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture & Business, R/o Door No.8-2-310/R/20, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Sree Raghavendra Co-Operative Colony, Near Nandi Nagar, Hyderabad proper, native of R/o Kothamolgara village of Bhoothpur Mandal,  Mahabubnagar District.

                                                                               … Complainant

 

And

1. Uday Singh S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Chairman and Managing Director.

2. Buta Singh Kanwal S/o Not known, age: 60 years, Occ: Director.

    Both R/o Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Post Bidari-562109, Ramanayanam Taluq, Bangalore Proper, Karnataka State.

3. T. Manjunath S/o Not known, age: 55 years, Occ: General Manager,R/o Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., No.G-6,  S.C. Road, Bangalore

     Proper -560020, Karnataka State.

4.  Sagairajan S/o Not known, age: 38 years, Occ: Asst. Manager, R/o Namdhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., # 8-93/4, Flat No.101,                             Kurnool Proper & District.

                                                                    … Opposite Parties

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 3-11-2011 in the presence of Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri M. Kullayappa, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of first installment till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- besides costs of the complaint.  

2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is an agriculturist having landed property located at Kothamolgara village of Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.  The opposite parties are doing seed business in entire globe. The complainant purchased 4 Kgs., of Watermelon N.S. 295 seeds to a total cost of Rs.16,800/- @ Rs.4,200/- per Kg., under invoice No.1214, dated 22-10-2009 from the opposite parties for raising watermelon crop in his agricultural land at the time when the opposite parties given assurance for better yielding of watermelon  @ Rs.80,000/- per acre.  After its purchase the complainant sowed the said seeds in the land owned by him to an extent of 10 acres situated in Sy.Nos.135 and 141 located in his village.  The complainant also followed the necessary process for development of the crop by investing a total sum of Rs.17,580/- towards the cost of fertilizers and pesticides between the period from 30-12-2009 and 9-1-2010.  Even after following the necessary process for development of the crop, but in the month of February, 2010 the complainant noticed that watermelon was not yielding as indicated by the opposite parties.  While the matter stood thus, on the representation made by him the Agriculture Officer on 22-10-2010 inspected and analyzed the crop and opined that the crop was totally failed and it returns were only  15-20 percent range. Because of the said reason the complainant was caused heavy financial loss in incurring expenditure over the crop.  Thus the opposite parties have rendered defective service as the seeds supplied by them are defective one. Therefore the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.       

   3. The opposite party Nos.1 to 4 filed counter while admitting the purchase of 4 Kgs., of seeds of Watermelon N.S.295 for a total value of Rs.16,800/-@ Rs.4,200/- per Kg., under invoice No.1214, dated 22-10-2009 from their seeds center at Bangalore denied the other material averments of the complaint stating that the opposite parties are not known whether the complainant has raised watermelon crop or not, that the bills and the photos filed along with the complaint are not genuine and not connecting to the complainant, that the complainant also not followed the necessary process and guidelines printed in the pamphlet supplied to him by the opposite parties for the development of the crop, that the alleged visit of the field of the complainant by the Agriculture Officer on 22-2-2010 and analysation of the watermelon crop was done in the absence of the opposite parties, and that the Agriculture Officer has not specified any reasons for poor yielding and failure of crop nor any seed fault leading to total failure, and that the opposite parties are no way concerned for the financial loss caused to the complainant. It is also further stated that there was no supervision of the crop by the complainant himself and so also technical assistant resulting poor yielding of the crop.  It is also further stated that since 1985 the company has been doing international seeds business on the export certificate issued by the Government of India and also got certificate of service issued by the Asia and Pacific Seeds Association (APSA), and that the opposite parties have supplied the same variety N.S.295 watermelon seeds to the farmers, dealers and others at various places for sale but no complaints whatsoever have been received so far about the defective quality of seeds and poor yielding. It is also further stated that the District Committee or any other competent authority has not drawn any sample subject to the seeds for genetic purity test and in the absence of any report of the analyst from the central seeds laboratory certifying the impurity or defective of the seeds, the opposite parties cannot be penalized in any manner, and that in view of the above circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they are no way concerned for the expenditure incurred by the complainant and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages or compensation to the complainant.  Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17.  On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6.     

 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession having landed property at Kothamolgara village of Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as can be seen from Exs.A-16 and A-17 copies of Adangal and Pattadar Pass Book respectively.  From the counter filed by the opposite parties it is also an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 4 Kgs., of seeds of watermelon N.S.295 for a total value of Rs.16,800/- under Ex.A-1 invoice from the seeds center of the opposite parties at Bangalore.  From that stage onwards the present dispute arose between both the parties.      

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the seeds in question for raising crop in his agricultural land, that after purchasing the seeds of watermelon under Ex.A-1 invoice from the seeds center of the opposite parties he sowed the seeds in his land to an extent of 10 acres and raised the crop after following seed process and necessary process for development of the crop as mentioned in Ex.B-1 printed pamphlet supplied to him by the opposite parties, but in the month of February, 2010 he noticed that watermelon was not yielding as indicated by the opposite parties. The contention of the opposite parties is that they are not aware of the fact that the complainant has sown the watermelon seeds in 10 acres of his land by following several seed process and necessary process for development of the crop.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that as per the version of the opposite parties admittedly the complainant purchased the seeds in question under Ex.A-1 invoice.  Further no farmer without having any agriculture landed property will purchase such seeds or for any other purpose.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant purchased the seeds for some other purpose other than the purpose for raising crop in his land. Therefore we find that there is no substance in the contention of the opposite parties.          

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no evidence on record indicating seeds to be of non standard quality, and in the absence of such evidence the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service against the opposite parties. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a decision reported in II (2007) CPJ 148 (NC) (Indo American Hybrid Seeds & Another Vs. Vijaya Kumar Shankarrao & Another). That was the case where the complainant absolutely failed to led by any such evidence and proof on subject. But in the case on hand the complainant got marked Ex.A-2 investigation report issued by the Agriculture Officer which clearly indicates that the crop was totally failed and its returns were only 15-20 percent range. Therefore, we find that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not applicable to the present case since the facts and circumstances in the present case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case in the decision.  Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 

9.  The next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the alleged visit of the field of the complainant by the Agriculture Officer on 22-2-2010 and analyzation of the watermelon crop was done in the absence of the opposite parties, and as such the said report is not binding on them. Except taking such a plea the opposite parties did not place any sufficient material on record to show that as to how the visit of the Agricultural Officer on the eventful day and giving his report as under Ex.A-2 caused prejudice to them.  Further, the said Agricultural Officer who said to have visited the crop of the complainant is an independent, respectable and responsible officer having no motto whatsoever to implicate the opposite parties in the present case by giving such report in favour of the complainant. Likewise, the complainant is also an independent agriculturist residing at a larger distance from the place of the opposite parties and so also not having any motto whatsoever to implicate the opposite parties in the present case.  Under the said circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we find that the contention urged by the opposite parties is not tenable.       

10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant not followed several seed process and also the necessary process for development of the crop resulting poor yielding.  But it is the specific case of the complainant that he followed several seed process and sowed the seeds in his land and also followed necessary process for development of the crop by investing huge sum towards fertilizers, pesticides etc., as indicated in the printed pamphlet Ex.B-1.  It is also the specific case of the complainant that in the month of February, 2010 he noticed that watermelon was not yielding as indicated by the opposite parties which is clearly supported by the report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-2 and the various photographs Ex.A-3 produced by the complainant.  The opposite parties did not produce any positive proof in support of their above said contention. In the absence of any such proof we find that the said contention raised by the opposite parties is not tenable.       

11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that without proper analysis or testing of the sample seeds by the Central Seeds Laboratory as contemplated under Seeds Act, 1966 it cannot be straightaway arrived that the seeds supplied are defective as alleged.   In support of his contention the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon some decisions reported in (1) 2010 (1) CPR 50 of A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad (Chenna Rayudu Vs. Prabhat Agri Bio-Tech Ltd., & Another), (2) 2010 (1) CPR 19 of Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (M/s Kisan Beez Bhandar, Gur Bazar, Malout, through its Proprietor Baldev Raj Vs. A. Chaudhary Amar Kumar & Another), (3) 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 592 A.P. (Matha Venkateswara Rao and another Vs. State of A.P.), (4) 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 67 A.P. (Mallela Laxmi and others Vs. State of A.P.), (5) III (2003) CPJ 628 of Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd., & Another Vs. Shivaji Anaji Ghole), (6) III (2003) CPJ 561 of Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Basanta Kumar Panda @ Batakrushna Panda Vs. Prafulla Kumar Das).  But the said contention of the opposite parties that the complainant did not send the seeds for testing is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in  M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd., Vs. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy reported in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) wherein at one stage it is observed that “if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate authority, that the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory, and that since it is probable that the complainant had sown all the seeds purchased by him, he was not in a position to send seeds for analysis”.  In another decision reported in 2004 (6) SCC 230 (H.N. Shankara Sastry Vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka) it is opined that the farmer was not expected to keep certain portion of the seed and therefore he cannot produce from somewhere to get them tested to meet requirements u/s 13(i)(C) of the Act.  In another recent decision reported in II (2011) CPJ 476 of A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad (Syngenta India Ltd., Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy & Another) the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad also took the same view by observing that no effort made by the seeds company to prove that the seeds were in conformity with all standards by filing a certificate obtained from a competent authority before releasing the seeds to the market as per the Seeds Act.  In the case on hand also the opposite parties not only failed to file any application for sending the samples to the competent authority for analysis but also failed to make any effort even to prove that the seeds were in conformity with all standards by filing a certificate obtained from a competent authority before releasing the seeds to the market as per the Seeds Act.  So, in view of the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, and in the absence of any such proof by any oral or documentary evidence as stated above, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had not sent the samples of the seeds as contemplated under Seeds Act, 1966 is not acceptable.  Therefore for the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are not applicable to the case on hand since the facts and circumstances of those cases are different from the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.  Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  That apart, the report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-2 that the crop was totally failed and its returns were only 15-20 percent range clearly supports the case of the complainant.  Further, the opposite parties also did not place any sufficient material on record rebutting the case of the complainant in that regard. There is also no reason assigned by the opposite parties as to how the report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-2 caused prejudice to them.  Under the said circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant had clearly established his case against the opposite parties, as such we find that the complainant is entitled for the reasonable reliefs sought for by him.                    

 

12. As far as the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the complainant in the relief sought for by him as under (i) prayer is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased 4 Kgs., of seeds of watermelon for a total value of Rs.16,800/- under invoice Ex.A-1 on 22-10-2009.  As far as the total expenditure of Rs.17,580/- towards value of the pesticides and fertilizers etc., made by the complainant is concerned, the complainant relied upon the bills Exs.A-4 to A-11.  But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties it appears from the recitals of the bills they are not in the name of the complainant but they are on the name of one Prabhakara Reddy of Kothamolgara village.  The complainant also not placed any material on record showing his relationship with the said Prabhakara Reddy.  Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to claim the said amount of Rs.17,580/- from the opposite parties.  That apart there is also no reason assigned by the complainant as to how and under what circumstances he is entitled for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as claimed by him. Therefore, in the absence of such material we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled only to a claim of Rs.16,800/- together with some reasonable interest @ 9% p.a. from 22-10-2009 the date on which he purchased the seeds till the date of its realization.

13. As far as the claim of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the complainant is concerned the complainant did not produce any  independent, oral or documentary evidence showing the loss caused to him due to the poor yielding of the crop except the report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-2 only to the effect that the crop was totally failed and its returns were only 15-20 percent range. So, the complainant through the report of the Agricultural Officer Ex.A-2 made clear that he sustained loss in the crop.  It is also a fact borne out from the material placed on record that the complainant raised the watermelon crop in his agricultural land to an extent of 10 acres.  Therefore, taking into consideration of the extent of the land and the nature of the crop raised by the complainant in his land and the loss sustained by him we are of the view that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation besides some reasonable costs of the complaint and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the said award amounts to the complainant. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.         

14. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.16,800/- towards the costs of the seeds together with interest  @ 9% p.a. from 22-10-2009 the date on which the seeds were purchased till its realization, and so also an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the present order.  

 

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of November, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                          I agree                                                          

 

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

 

 

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -

                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

                        Ex.A-1: Original Invoice, dt.22.10.2009.

Ex.A-2: Proforma for Investigation Complaints, dt.22.2.2010. 

Ex.A-3: Original Photographs.  

Ex.A-4: Original Cash Bill, dt.9.1.2010.

Ex.A-5: Original Cash Bill, dt.9.1.2010.  

Ex.A-6: Original Cash Bill, dt.9.1.2010.

Ex.A-7: Original Cash Bill, dt.31.12.2009.  

Ex.A-8: Original Cash Bill, dt.31.12.2009.

Ex.A-9: Original Cash Bill, dt.30.12.2009.

Ex.A-10: Original Cash Bill, dt.31.12.2009.

Ex.A-11: Original Cash Bill, dt.8.1.2010.

Ex.A-12: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.22.4.2010.

Ex.A-13: Original Postal Receipt, dt.22.4.2010.

Ex.A-14: Original Postal Stamps with address.

Ex.A-15: Returned Envelope Cover with Acknowledgement.  

Ex.A-16: Original Pahani.

Ex.A-17: Photostat copy of Pattadar Pass Book.

 

On behalf of OPs.:                  

                        Ex.B-1: Original Seed Brochure.

Ex.B-2: Photostat copy of Invoice, dt.22.10.2009.

Ex.B-3: Photostat copy of Invoice, dt.23.10.2009.

Ex.B-4: Photostat copy of Invoice, dt.23.10.2009.

Ex.B-5: Photostat copy of Invoice, dt.24.10.2009.

Ex.B-6: Original Newspaper Item.  

                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

Copy to:-

 

1. Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri M. Kullayappa, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.