State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited, Mumbai vs .A.Srinivasa Rao, And Another Khammam on 18 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.612/2006 against CD.No.186/2003 District Consumer Forum, Khammam. Between: Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited, Resham Bhavan, 78 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai 20, Maharashtra State. Appellant/Opp.Party No.2. And 1.A.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Satyam, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/oMustikuntla Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam Dist. R.1/Complainant. 2. Krishna Sai Seeds & Agro Implements, Gandhi Chowk, Khammm, Rep. by its Proprietor/Dealer. R.2/Opp.Party No.1. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.Manu. Counsel for the Respondents : Respondent served. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER, AND SRI K.SATYANAND, MALE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) *******
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant, the manufacturer of seeds, against the order of the District Forum in directing it to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 9% per annum besides costs of Rs1,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was an agriculturist, purchased 20 pockets of chilli seeds manufactured by the appellant for Rs.195/-. He sowed them in his two acres of land. However, he could not get proper yield. He sustained heavy loss due to defective seeds supplied by the manufacturer. He was getting 25 to 30 quintals of chilies per acre, and therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- .
3. The appellant, the manufacturer, resisted the case. It alleged that the complainant is not a consumer nor the District Forum had the jurisdiction. No complaint was received from the other agriculturists, who had sown the same seed in their lands.
The complainant had made false allegations. He did not follow the agronomical practices. The seeds were in conformity of the quality prescribed under the Seeds Act, 1966. The claim was vague, exaggerated, baseless and therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence. The complainant had filed an application for appointment of an advocate-commissioner. The advocate commissioner, along with an agricultural officer and representative of the appellant company visited the lands and noticed that the crop was affected with pests.
5. The District Forum after considering the above material placed on record opined that an amount of Rs.20,000/- could be awarded and therefore, directed the same to be paid with interest at 9% per annum together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the manufacturer preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that there was no evidence to state that the seeds supplied by it were defective, and therefore, liable to pay compensation.
7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the seeds supplied by the appellant were defective in nature and liable to pay compensation; and if so, to what amount?
8. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased seeds manufactured by the appellant, evidenced under bills dt.23.06.2003 and 26.6.2003. It is also not in dispute that he sowed the said seed in his two acres of land. The grievance of the complainant is that in view of the defect in the seeds he could not realize proper yield. In order to prove the said fact he got appointed an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner along with the agricultural officer and the representative of the appellant visited the land on 29.12.2003.
Exfacie all of them had found that the crop was heavily affected with die back disease. Further the agricultural officer was of the opinion that the genetic purity of the crop cannot be assessed by him, since it has to be assessed by the competent chilli beeder, who is available at RARS, LAM, Guntur. So the case may please be referred to the beeder. As per his inspection it is not the appropriate time to assess the yield loss.
In the meantime the opinion of the chilli breeder may be sought. Unfortunately, the ,matter was not referred to an expert as requested by the agricultural officer. The complainant did not establish the loss of yield. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the panchas who inspected the crop along with the advocate commissioner, agricultural officer and the representative of the appellant did not assess the loss of the crop. They did not even give any cause as to the loss of crop in order to award some compensation to the complainant on the ground that there was defect in the quality of the seed. This Commission cannot assume that the seed was defective in quality in view of the fact that it was afflicted with pests. The complainant having purchased the seed could have sent it to an expert in order to establish that there was defect in the quality of the seed.
Without any evidence whatsoever awarding any amount of compensation would not hold good There is no basis for the District Forum to award compensation, more so, the amount of Rs.20,000/- without any evaluation of the loss of yield. It is unfortunate that these claims are to be dismissed due to negligence of the farmers.
The complainant In order to get compensation though got an advocate-commissioner appointed, no action was taken by the complainant pursuant to the report of the agricultural officer, who requested the matter to be referred to an expert in order to find out whether there was any defect in the seed. When the complainant could not establish that there was defect in the seed, we are of the opinion that no compensation could be awarded to the complainant. There are no merits in the complaint.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER Dt:18.03.2009.