State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Phi Seeds Limited, And Others New Delhi vs Sri Raghunatha Reddy, And Others ... on 27 May, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.S TATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD F.A.No.589/2006 against C.D.No.160/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool. Between: 1.PHI Seeds Limited, B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II, New Delhi 110 048. Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 2.PHI Seeds Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 4th floor, Babukhans Millennium Center, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. (Both represented by Mr.V.P.Srikanth , Legal Officer, Under the Power of Attorney, Dated May 15, 2006) Appellant/ Opp.party no.3 And 1.Sri Raghunatha Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, Age about 30 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.A Gokulapadu, Village Kallur Mandal, District Kurnool. Respondent/ Complainant 2. M/s. Ambica Traders Represented by its Proprietor , Shop No.51-916 B 47-A-3, S.V.R.Complex, Opp.New Bus stand, Kurnool 3. Respondent/ Opp.party no.1 F.A.No.590/2006 against C.D.No.161/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool. Between: 1.PHI Seeds Limited, B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II, New Delhi 110 048. Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 2.PHI Seeds Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 4th floor, Babukhans, Millennium Center, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. (Both represented by Mr.V.P.Srikanth , Legal Officer, Under the Power of Attorney, Dated May 15, 2006 Appellant/ Opp.party no.3 And 1.D.Sankar Reddy, S/o.Siva Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.A.Gokulapadu (V) Kallur (M), Kurnool District. Respondent/ Complainant 2.The Proprietor, M/s.Mahalakshmi Seeds, Shop no.1, S.V.R. Complex Opp:New Bus Stand, Kurnool-3. Respondent/ Opp.partyno.1 F.A.No.591/2006 against C.D.No.162/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool. Between: 1.PHI Seeds Limited, B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II, New Delhi 110 048. Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 2.PHI Seeds Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 4th floor, Babukhans Millennium Center, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. (Both represented by Mr.V.P.Srikanth , Legal Officer, Under the Power of Attorney, Dated May 15, 2006 Appellant/ Opp.party no.3 And 1.Sri D.Maheswara Reddy, S/o.Bajar Reddy, Age about 44 years Occ:Agriculture, R/o.A.Gokulapadu, Village Kallur Mandal, District Kurnool. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Proprietor, M/s.New Venkata Rama Fertilisers & Pesticides & Seeds Shop No.51-8C Mubharak Complex, Opp.Market Yard, Kurnool 3. Respondent/ Opp.party no.1 F.A.No.592/2006 against C.D.No.163/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool. Between: 1.PHI Seeds Limited, B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II, New Delhi 110 048. Appellant/ Opp.party no.4 2.PHI Seeds Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 4th floor, Babukhans Millennium Center, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. (Both represented by Mr.V.P.Srikanth , Legal Officer, Under the Power of Attorney, Dated May 15, 2006 Appellant/ Opp.party no.5 And 1.Sri G.Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Venkatarami Reddy, Age about 45 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.A.Gokulapadu Village Kallur Mandal, District Kurnool. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Proprietor, M/s.Sri Murali Agro Chemicals, Shop no.5, Prakash Shopping Complex, Ballary road, Kurnool . 3. The Proprietor, M/s. New Venkata Rama Fertilisers & Pesticides & Seeds, Shop No.51-8C Mubarak Complex, Opp.Market Yard, Kurnool-3. 4. M/s. Ambica Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, Shop no.51-916B-47-A-3 S V R Complex, Opp.New Bus Stand, Kurnool-3. Respondents/ Opp.parties 1 to 3 F.A.No.593/2006 against C.D.No.164/2005, Dist. Forum, Kurnool. Between: 1.PHI Seeds Limited, B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II, New Delhi 110 048. Appellant/ Opp.party no.2 2.PHI Seeds Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, H.No.6-3-1099/1100, 4th floor, Babukhans Millennium Center, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082. (Both represented by Mr.V.P.Srikanth , Legal Officer, Under the Power of Attorney, Dated May 15, 2006 Appellant/ Opp.party no.3 And 1.Sri M.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Venkat Reddy, Age about 55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.A.Gokulpadu Village Kallur Mandal, District Kurnool. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Proprietor, M/s.Sri Murali Agro Chemicals., Shop No.5, Prakash Shopping Complex , Ballary Road, Kurnool. Respondent/ Opp.party no.1 Counsel for the appellants : M/s.C.R.Sridharan. in all the appeals. Counsel for the respondents : Mr.M.Ramgopal Reddy- R1 in all the appeals CORAM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO ,PRESIDENT, SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI K.SATAYNAND , HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member.) *** F.A.No. 589/2006 :
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.160/2005 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool opposite parties 2 and 3 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant had purchased Sunflower seeds of Pioneer 6460 variety four packets of 2 kgs. each on 28.4.2005 and on 3.5.2005 from the first opposite party @ Rs.510/- per packet. The said seed was produced by opposite party no.2. The complainant purchased the said Sunflower seed and sown them in Ac. 6.50 cents in Survey no.178/1A and 178/1C . The complainant took all precautions in growing the crop but there was stunted growth of crop with reduced bud size. The height of the crop was 1 foot to 1 foot even after 50 days. The complainant complained to Agriculture Department and the Mandal Agriculture Officer inspected the field on 29.6.2005 and addressed a letter to Joint Director of Kurnool to depute a scientist and accordingly a team of scientists were deputed for inspection of the crop and they visited the field on 19.7.2005 and gave a finding that the seed supplied by opposite party was lacking hybrid vigour which leads to poor yield. The normal yield is 10 quintals per acre and the complainant submits that he could not get even two quintals , each quintal being @ Rs.2000/- . The loss is estimated at Rs.20,000/- per acre and for Ac.7.82 cents the complainant had estimated the loss at Rs.1,56,000/- and filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to grant damages of Rs.1,56,000/- together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of the petition.
The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed counter denying the very purchase of the seed of the same lot and contend that the complainant never produced the sample of seeds purchased for sending to analysis and contend that the complainant did not inform any of the concerned officers to get the seeds tested and deliberately failed to inform the opposite parties 2 and 3 about the testing of the seeds. According to the lab report lot no.74-218 has physical purity of 98.7% and genetic purity at 96% which are higher than those stipulated under the Seeds Act. The Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kallur inspected the fields of the complainant and submitted a report dt 31.6.2005 to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool and on the request of Asst.Director of Agriculture Kurnool a team of Agricultural Officers including a Senior Scientist visited the fields on 19.7.2005 but did not give any specific data for stating that the seeds are lacking in hybrid vigor. Hence there is no germination fault of the seeds supplied to the complainant. The complainant has not stated about time of sowing, nature of soil, quality of water and the climatic conditions and also intervals of irrigation, fertilizer application, plant protection weeding etc. to contend that the loss of yield is only due to defective seeds. The complainant also did not use the required quantity of seeds but only 50% of that in sowing in his land i.e. for every acre 2 kgs. of seeds are required and the complainant purchased only 8 kgs. of seed for Ac.7.82 cents and therefore the loss of yield cannot be attributed to the quality of seeds.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 documents filed on behalf of the complainant allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,000/- per acre towards loss of yield, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs and with a default clause of interest at 12% p.a. if the amount is not paid within a month from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties 2 and 3 preferred this appeal.
It is observed from the record that the complainant vide Ex.A1 purchased Pioneer 6460 variety four packets of two Kgs. each @ Rs.510/- per packet on 28.4.2005 and on 3.5.2005 from opposite party no.1 . Ex.A2 is the Adangal/Pahani Patra for Ac.7.82 cents in the name of the complainant. Ex.A3 is a set of two bills dt. 22.5.2005 and 18.6.2005 for purchase of DAP worth Rs.1900/-, Urea of Rs.980/- and MOP of Rs.920/- respectively. It is not in dispute that the complainant vide Ex.A4 dt. 31.6.2005 addressed a letter to the Joint Director, Agriculture Department , Kurnool complaining about the low yield of crop.
The main case of the complainant is that the actual yield per acre should be 10 quintals per acre (even as per the Agricultural Officers report) where as it was not even two quintals per acre inspite of usage of fertilizers and pesticides and following all crop management practices. It is the further case of the complainant that the rate of each quintal is Rs.2000/- and he could not get even the minimum yield because of stunted growth of the crop with reduced bud size on account of defective seeds. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that the complainant did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the loss of yield is only due to defective seeds. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant drew our attention to Ex.A5 which is the Inspection Report on Sunflower Pioneer 6460 variety in which it was observed by the senior Scientist as follows:
The team inspected all the plots of the above said hybrid crop in 50 acres of Sri Venkateswara Reddy, Sri D.Maheswara Reddy, Sri Raghunatha Reddy, Sri G.Venkata Ramana Reddy and Sri Shankar Reddy of A.Gokulapadu, Sunkanna and Yanadi Reddy of Bastipadu.
The team after thorough inspection came to a conclusion that:
Though the hybrid is genetically pure, it is lacking hybrid vigour which leads to poor yields i.e. on an average 2 q/acre whereas other hybrids grown in nearby the plots of pioneer hybrid on the same date under similar agronomical packages yielded on an average of 6 q/acre. Hence, it is suggested that reasonable compensation for the loss incurred by the farmers may be extended.
From the aforementioned report it is clear that the seeds lack hybrid vigour which led to poor quality yield. Since Inspection was done by a team of members from the Agricultural Department headed by a senior Scientist who came to a conclusion that the loss of yield is due to low hybrid vigour and also that sufficient compensation is be awarded for the loss incurred by the farmers, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that this report was given behind their back and that they were not informed cannot be a sole ground for denying the compensation. It is pertinent to note that Mandal Agriculture Officer, Kallur in his reply to the interrogatories forwarded by the opposite parties clearly stated that The morphological features and genetical features were seen on the date of inspection. It is also stated that hybrid vigour depends upon the quality of seed. He denied that there was any high temperature during that relevant period in the field of the complainant and submitted that all the fields of the agriculturists who have sown pioneer 6460 variety including that of the complainant are all similar with stunted growth and therefore it cannot be said that there was no proper irrigation. He contended that the defect is only because of lack of hybrid vigour in the seed. The loss to the complainant, in this report is estimated at four quintals per acre.
We rely on a judgement of Apex Court reported in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) in MAHYCO v. ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS in which it is stated as follows:
it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they would not be in a position to send the seeds for analysis. Under these circumstances the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its accord sent the seeds for analysis to an appropriate laboratory. The opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory.
In the said judgement, the Apex Court held that it is the opposite party who has to send the seeds for testing since it is assumed that the complainant would have sown all the seeds in his field. In the instant case we observe from the record that the appellants did not take any steps to send the seed for testing under Section 13 of the C.P.Act. It was also held in a judgement reported in 2003(6) ALT page 5 NC in NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION LTD. vs. M.MADHUSUDHANA REDDY AND ANOTHER that if sending the seeds to the laboratory under Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act becomes unimplementable, the report of the Commissioner can be relied upon. In the instant case the report of the Senior Scientist i.e. Ex.A5 and also the Affidavit of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the reply to the interrogatories given by him, to the appellants/opposite parties clearly establishes the fact that the seeds lack hybrid vigour which consequently led to the loss of yield. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants/opp.parties did not file any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the farmers did not follow proper crop management practices or that the weather conditions were not condusive for the growth of the crop. The District Forum, taking into consideration the loss at four quintals per acre as per the report awarded Rs.8000/- per acre ( Rs.2000/- x 4 quintals =Rs.8,000/-) which we consider just and reasonable. The compensation and costs awarded towards mental agony and expenses incurred also meet the ends of justice.
In the result this appeal is dismissed, however without costs . Time for compliance four weeks.
For the same reasons aforementioned F.A.Nos.590/2006 to 593/2006 are also dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER (KS) Dt.27.5.2009