State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chenna Rayudu Kurnool vs Prabhat Agri Bio-Tech Ltd. And Another ... on 3 July, 2009
A
A.P. STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD
F.A. 1529/2006
against C.C 106/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool
Between:
Chenna
Rayudu
S/o.
Chennaiah
Age:
38 years,
Konganapadu Village
Kallur
(M), Kurnool Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1) The Managing Director
Prabhat
Agri Bio-Tech Ltd.
H.
No. 6-3-540/10
Opp.
SBH, Punjagutta
Hyderabad-500
082.
2) P. G. Sreenivasulu
Proprietor,
Venkata
Ramana Fertilizers
Seeds
Business
51-8C,
Mubarak Complex
Opp.
Market Yard
Kurnool. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel
for the Appellant: Mr.
M. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Counsel
for the Resp: Mr.
V. Ravindranath Reddy
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI K.
SATYANAND, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***** Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased 8 packets of Prabhat sunflower hybrid seed each containing 2 Kgs on 2.9.2002 from R2 dealer manufactured by R1 paying Rs. 350/- per each packet. He sowed them in the second week of September, 2002 in 8 acres of land situated in Konganapadu village. Though there was flowering there was ill-filling of seeds in the heads of the plants leading to poor setting of 15% to 20% leaving the remaining flowers chaffy.
The other farmers who had sown the very same seed suffered the very same fate. When the said fact was informed to Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, and Agricultural Officer, Kallur Mandal, a team of Agricultural Officers, Government Officials visited the fields in the presence of representatives of respondents and observed that the seeds were adulterated. Though the respondents promised to reimburse the loss they did not do so, and therefore he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 1,50,800/- together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs.
3) R1 the manufacturer resisted the case. It alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation. It put the complainant to prove each and every fact alleged by him viz., purchase of seeds, raising crop in his land, seed setting in each of the head was poor and that the officers had visited the crop in the presence of their representatives. However, it admitted that it was the manufacturer of the seed and R2 is its dealer. It also admitted that the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool vide his proceedings Dt. 17. 12. 2002 constituted an MOU Committee for inspecting the fields and directed its representative to be present. Accordingly on 23.12.2002 the Senior Scientist and other officials visited the fields. They found that there is no genetic variation. They did not award any compensation as they did not find that the seed was defective. Since the very complaint discloses that the seed has been germinated, grown and flowered properly and evenly it cannot be find fault with for getting low yield if there is any. There may be several factors for non-setting or poor setting of seed viz., lack of moisture in the soil, lack of irrigation facility, unsuitability of soil, poor soil fertility, and poor management practices etc. The certificate issued by the test laboratory shows that germination is 83% and the genetic purity is 98.8%. By 14.3.2003, shell life of the seed was expired. The complaint was filed subsequent to expiry of the period, so as to see that the seed test could not be done by any laboratory. There was no deficiency of service on its part and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked, while the respondent examined RWs 1 to 3 and got Exs. B1 to B5 marked. Through a third party Exs. X1 to X4 were marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that failure of crop could not be attributable to any defect in the seed manufactured by R1 and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that R2 did not choose to contest and therefore it was set-exparte. It ought to have considered the evidence of RW1 and opined that crop loss was due to defective seed. The seeds supplied by the respondents were sub-standard, and therefore liable to compensate for loss of crop.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum suffers from mis-appreciation of facts and consequently liable to be set-aside?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased 8 packets of sunflower seeds from R2 the dealer manufactured by R1 on payment of amount evidenced under Ex. A1. He alleged that he sowed the said seeds in 8 acres of his land. He further alleged that seeds were sub-standard and therefore could not get required yield and sustained loss.
Pursuant to his representation RW1 Mandal Agricultural Officer inspected the fields on 29.11.2002.
He inspected not only the field of the complainant but also the adjoining fields. It was in an extent of 100 acres.
He visited the crop at harvesting stage and of the opinion that I have taken into consideration the number of plants having filled flower heads and ill filled flower heads for assessing the yield data, as genetic purity cannot be assessed at that stage of harvesting. He prepared his observation in a report Ex.
X3 giving particulars like survey number, variety of crop, purchase of seed and its bill number and lot number etc. According to him he submitted the said statement to the Chairman of the MOU Committee i.e., the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kunrool. However, in his cross-examination, he stated The Prabhat Seeds ie.., PSFH 10 variety is a Hybrid variety. In Hybrid variety, the seed setting will be denser at peripheries. The flower heads in complainants fields were not like that. The said state of affairs to said flower seed setting was on account of defect in seed.
However, when he was re-examined he admitted I did not mention in Ex. X3 report that the reasons for improper seed setting was due to defect in seed. From this it can be said that though RW1 did not support the complainant in his Chief-examination , gave favourable answers at the time of cross-examination When he was confronted with Ex. X3 his own report he stated that he did not mention the said fact in his report. The conclusion one can arrive from such evidence is that he is helping the complainant. He is supporting him contrary to his report.
He cannot be relied.
9) RW2 Dr. Basha Mohiddin is a Senior Scientist in Regional Agricultural Research Station, Nandyal. He is one of the Members of the MOU Committee constituted for the purpose of studying the genetic purity of sunflower crop in the village of the complainant. According to him, he visited the fields of 15 farmers furnished in the list covering about 100 acres. Exs. X1 and X2 are the reports of the Committee. He admitted that they found no genetic variation. It means the crop is pure. Due to environmental adversities like moisture, stress, low rain fall, delay in crops pollination may cause ill filling of central portion of the flower heads. It being so it is having no relevancy to genetic purity of the seed. I have assessed the crop loss. The said crop loss is having no connection to the genetic purity of the seed.
In his cross-examination he clarified that the purport of the formation of our Committee under the MOU was to ascertain the genetic purity of the seed and the percentage of its germination. For the suggestion made by the complainants counsel he categorically stated that it is not true to suggest that the ill filling of centre of the flower head will be due to defect in seed.
If the seed is defective there will be no germination at all.
10) When RW2 Scientist confirmed that there was no defect in the seed, and the poor crop if any could not be imputed to the quality of seed, the respondent manufacturer could not be found fault. There is no other evidence in order to state that the seed manufactured by the respondent was defective.
11) Learned counsel for the respondent contended that when the complainant alleged to have purchased the seed on 2.9.2002 he filed the complaint on 1.9.2004 almost two years after the purchase, by then the shell life of the seed was expired, in a way preventing they from sending it to scientific analysis.
12) The complainant never tried to send the said seed to scientific analysis as required u/s 13(1) ( c ) of the Consumer Protection Act. Had the complainant was vigilant and send the seed to an expert, he would have got whatever the compensation claimed.
13) In the light of evidence of expert, it cannot be said that the seed is defective. Necessarily, the complainant has to prove that he used the fertilizers, pesticides, manure etc., at appropriate stages. He had to prove that there was sufficient moisture in the soil at the time of filling of the seeds. Exs. X1 to X3 and Ex. B1 undoubtedly prove that poor or ill-filling of seeds in the heads of the plants was due to lack of moisture in the soil at the time of setting of seed.
14) In the light of above evidence, we do not see any mis-appreciation of evidence by the Dist. Forum. The complainant could not prove that there was defect in the seeds manufactured by R1 and therefore it was liable to compensate for loss of crop. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
15) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER Dt. 03. 07.
2009.