National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs Nalia Narsimha Roa on 11 February, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 131 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 153 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS NALIA NARSIMHA ROA RESPO NDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 132 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 163 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS REDDICHERLA CHANDRA RAJU RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 133 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 165 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS BATTA LAKSHMAIAH RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 134 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 170 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS GADDAMAANUGU ADINARAYANA RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 135 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 158 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS GANGULA GOPAIAH RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 136 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 157 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS DEVERAKENDA VENKATARTHNAM RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 137 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 156 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS GUDETI SAMEUL S/O DENIAL RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 138 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 162 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS IYLURI I. SAMBI REDDY RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 139 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 168 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS KANCHAM PRASAD RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 140 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 154 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS JAMALAPURAM PHANI VENU RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 141 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 161 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS GURRALA KRISHANA REDDI RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 142 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 160 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS DEVARAKONDA GEORGE & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 143 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 159 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS AVULA SREENIVASA RAO RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 144 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 169 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS IYLURI ADINARAYANA REDDI RESPONDENT WITH \ REVISION PETITION NO. 145 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 171 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS PAMULA SATYANARAYANA RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 146 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 164 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS BATTA NARASIMHA RAO RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 147 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 172 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS JADA GOPALA RAO S/O RAMULU RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 148 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 169 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS THIPPABATHINI MERRY CHINNAIAH RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 149 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 166 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS SEELAM FRAMI REDDY RESPONDENT WITH REVISION PETITION NO. 150 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 155 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS SALEEM YELLAMANDA REDDY RESPONDENT BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SUDHIR KULSHRESHTHA, ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPON DENT: Mr. ATM Rangaramanujam, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gouri Das, Advocate Ms. Anu Gupta, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 11.02.2009 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN J., PRESIDENT We propose to dispose of these Revision Petitions by a common Order as the facts and the questions of law involved in these Revision Petitions are the same. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khammam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) as well as the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission for short) have also disposed of all the cases by a common/similar Order.
Shortly sated, the facts are: -
Respondent-
Nalia Narasimha Rao, in his complaint, alleged that being an agriculturist labourer, he used to take land from others on lease and raise tomato crop to earn his livelihood. That he purchased tomato seeds vide receipt nos. 9431, 9439 and 9440 dated 02.07.1995 and 17.07.1995, respectively from the Manager, Sales Counter, National Seeds Corporation, Vijayawada along with other farmers, i.e., one D. Gopaiah and R. Venkateswar Rao and the same were sown in 4 acres at the rate of 180 grams per acre totaling to 720 grams in the month of August, 1995. That he expected to get net profit of Rs.15,000/- per acre. However, to his utter surprise and dismay, there was no fruit/yield from the tomato plants. That he approached the Opposite Party-petitioner herein and requested them to come and assess the damage to the crop. However, the petitioner did not turn up in spite of several demands and requests.
Vexed with the attitude of the petitioner, he filed the complaint before the District Forum stating that he sustained a loss of Rs.60,000/- due to the inferior quality of tomato seeds supplied to him by the petitioner.
Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party, in his written statement, denied that the respondent had purchased the damaged seeds from them. It was stated that the Corporation used to purchase the quality seeds of different crop varieties from the selected farmers through an agreement subject to meeting/conforming the prescribed standards as per Indian Minimum Seed Qualification standards, at field and laboratory level, etc. The seeds are also certified under growout test to confirm its genetic purity standards. That the complainant had failed to send the seeds to any laboratory for analysis. That the yield depends on several factors including fertility of land, proper raising of nursery, timely transplantation, temperature, irrigation facilities, timely pest control measures and sowing the seeds within the sowing period. A preliminary objection was taken that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khammam did not have the territorial jurisdiction as the seeds were purchased at Vijayawada. According to the petitioner, only the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayawada had the territorial jurisdiction. That the seeds were purchased by one D. Jeorge of Yerrupalem and not by the respondent.
In order to prove his case, the respondent/complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-12 whereas the petitioner examined RW-1 as Area Manager and RW-2 who was also its employee. The petitioner also got marked Exhibit B-1 on its behalf.
Complainant, while appearing as PW-1, reiterated the contents of the complaint and relied upon Ext. A-1 to A-12, i.e., Ext. A-1 Cash Memo dated 02.07.1995 for Rs.300/- issued by Vijayawada Branch in favour of D. Jerge (Jeorge), Ext. A-2 is the Commissioners Report dated 31.01.1996, Ext. A-3 is the Land Lease Agreement dated 12.04.1995, Ext. A-4 is the Cash Bill dated 04.07.1995 for Rs.6,100/- issued by Sri Srinivasa Pesticides, Yerrupalem, Ext. A-5 is the Cash Bill dated 08.09.1995 for Rs.6,240/- issued by Sri Srinivasa Pesticides, Yerrupalem, Ext. A-6 is the Bill dated 08.7.1995 for Rs.9,170/- issued by Sri Venkateswara Fertilizers, Yerrupalem, Ext. A-7 is receipt for Rs.3,480/-, Ext. A-8 is receipt for Rs.8,000/-, Ext. A-9 is receipt for Rs.1,760/-, Ext. A-10 is Affidavit dated 04.11.1996 given by Kondepati Narasimha Rao, Remidicherla, Ext. A-11 is Affidavit given by Jamalapuram Rameshwar Rao, Ext. A-12 is tomato seed container packet (empty).
RW-1 in his evidence has stated that the during the year 1995, National Seeds Corporation ( NSC) procured 230 kilograms of tomato Pusa Early Dwarf (PED) bearing lot no. 423 from the registered farmers duly meeting prescribed standards and sold them through their branches and they had not received any sort of complaint from any quarter with regard to the quality. On the receipt of Notice in the complaint, they have deputed some of their Technical Officials to go to the villages concerned for ascertaining the facts regarding poor quality and found that the allegations of the complainants to be totally false and on the verification of the complaint, it was found that the failure of the crop was sue to unfavourable whether and lack of irrigation facilities. RW-2 stated in his evidence that he worked as Senior Assistant in National Seeds Corporation, Vijayawada from 1993 to 1996. He accepted that he had received certain representations from ryots of Kandrika, Yerrupalem, Thellapalem and Pedagoparam. He further stated that no other farmer made any complaint during this year.
District Forum appointed Shri A. Jeevan Babu, Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting local inspection of tomato crop of the complainant and assess the loss sustained. Local Commissioner was put at liberty to get the assistance of a technically qualified person from Agricultural College, Aswaraopet. Local Commissioner conducted the survey along with Dr. P. Sesha Reddy, Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, Agricultural College, Aswaraopet. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the concerned V.A.O. and Punches. He submitted his Report confirming the crop failure attributing the cause to the defective seeds supplied. Dr. P. Sesha Reddy, in his report, stated as under: -
The tomato seed Pusa Early Dwarf from the above source was sown in the first week of July, 1995 for raising nursery and transplanted after 40 days of sowing. The germination was not a problem and satisfied with the percentage. The cultural operations followed by the farmers were upto date since they are well versed with tomato cultivation for the last one decade. Even then the crop was failured in all the areas list above giving small sized fruits with spongy skin as in case of wild one.
Pusa Early Dwarf is a selection from a cross between the draw variety Red Cloud and Meeruti. Fruits are medium to large sized with uniform ripening. The plants are with less vegetative but more reproductive and dwarf statured. After examination the affected fields, I could not find any of the above characteristics in the existing tomato crop situated at Yerrupalem and Padagoparam villages. More than 90% of the crop was with very small sized fruits, more vegetative growth with long slender creeping branches. Hence, I assume that the seed Pusa Early Dwarf supplied by NSC, Vijayawada to the farmers of Yerrupalem and Pedagoparam villages may not be true type and the crop failure to yield true to type be due to the defective seed.
Based on these, the Local Commissioner confirmed that the crop failure was attributable to the defective seeds supplied by the petitioner.
The District Forum relying upon the statement of PW-1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-12 coupled with the Report of the Local Commissioner and the expert comment of Dr. P. Sesha Reddy, came to the conclusion that seeds supplied were defective as a result of which the crops failed. The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.36,200/- towards the expenses of cultivation, i.e., @ Rs.9050/- per acre as claimed by the complainant. However, the loss of income claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs.60,000/- was negatived. Petitioner was directed to pay the awarded amount to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order. No interest was awarded.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid Order, petitioner filed 20 Appeals, which have been dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission directed the petitioner to make the payment with 2 months and, on failure to do so, to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this Appeal till its payment.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that only 7 out of 20 complainants were the real consumers as only they had purchased the tomato seeds from the petitioner vide receipt nos. 3883, 3887, 9427, 9435, 9439 and 9480. That only following 8 Revision Petitions, i.e., Revision Petition Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 & 153 of 2003, can, if at all be allowed, as the fields of the 8 respondents in these Revision Petitions were inspected by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy. That Dr. P. Sesha Reddy did not inspect the fields of other 12 respondents in Revision Petition Nos. 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149.
According to him, the above 12 Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed as the respondents in these cases failed to produce the expert opinion. It was further contended that in the absence of any Appeals filed by the respondents, the State Commission erred in directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 12%, if it failed to pay the amount within 2 months from the date of passing of the Order.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
Dr. P. Sesha Reddy had carried out the inspection only in few of the fields of the respondents. Details of the same as given in the Report are as under: -
Sl. No. O.P. No. Sy. No. Eatent Village
1. 677/95 237 4.00 Ac Yerrupalem
2. 678/95 233 4.00 Ac Yerrupalem
3. 679/95 5 2.00 Ac Tripuraram
4.
---
244/E 2.00 Ac Yerrupalem
5. 680/95 237 & 239 4.00 Ac Yerrupalem
6. 681/95 206/1 & 221/15 4.00 Ac Yerrupalem
7. 682/95 265/A 4.00 Ac Yerrupalem
8. 683/95 344 340 295 2.00 Ac 1.00 Ac 1.00 Ac Pedagoparam Yerrupalem Pedagoparam
9. 684/95 21/5 221/5 224/1 2.00 Ac 1.00 Ac 1.00 Ac Yerrupalem Yerrupalem Yerrupalem As against this, Counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings recorded by the State Commission are findings of facts, which cannot be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He supported the Order passed by the State Commission.
We had requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to prepare a chart co-relating the complaint numbers to that of the Appeal and the Revision Petition. The chart given by the Counsel for the petitioner reads as under: -
S.No. Revision Petition No. Title in Revision Petition Complaint No. Appeal No. Sy. No. Eatent Village
1.
131/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Nalia Narsimha Rao 677/ 1995 153/ 2001 237 4.00 AC Yerrupalem
2. 140/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Jamalapuram Phani Venu 678/ 1995 154/ 2001 233 4.00 AC Yerrupalem
3. 150/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Saleem Yellamanda Reddy 679/ 1995 155/ 2001 5 244/E 2.00 AC 2.00 AC Tripuram Yerrupalem
4. 137/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Gudeti Samuel, S/o Denial 680/ 1995 156/ 2001 237 & 239 4.00 AC Yerrupalem
5. 136/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Deverakenda Venkatarathnam 681/ 1995 157/ 2001 206/1 221/15 4.00 AC Yerrupalem
6. 135/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Gangula Gopaiah 682/ 1995 158/ 2001 265/A 4.00 AC Yerrupalem
7. 143/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Avula Sreenivasa Rao 683/ 1995 159/ 2001 334 340 295 2.00 AC 1.00 AC 1.00 AC Pedagoparam Yerrupalem Pedagoparam
8. 142/2003 National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Devarakonda George & Ors.
684/ 1995 160/ 2001 21/5 221/5 224/1 2.00 AC 1.00 AC 1.00 AC Yerrupalem Yerrupalem Yerrupalem As per this chart, the fields of complainants of complaint Nos. 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683 and 684 of 1995 were inspected by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy which are relatable to Revision Petition Nos. 131, 140, 150, 137, 136, 135, 143 and 142 of 2003.
We find that there were actually 8 complainants and not 9 as mentioned by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy in his Report. Complainant at Sr. No. 3 and complainant at Sr. No. 4 is same, i.e., Saleem Yellamanda Reddy in Revision Petition No. 150 of 2003 as he cultivated 2 acres of land in village Tripuram and 2 acres in village Yerrupalem.
It is well settled by now that under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the burden to prove the deficiency, if any, on the part of the respondent, is on the complainant. Section 13(1)(c) provides that where a complainant alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction to make an analysis/test, whichever may be necessary. In other words, there has to be some expert opinion to prove the fact. In the present case, Dr. P. Sesha Reddy had inspected only 9 fields, the details of which have been given by him in his Report and which have been referred to in the earlier paragraph. He did not inspect the fields of other respondents. His Report is relevant insofar as the respondents in Revision Petitions Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 and 150 of 2003 are concerned. Insofar as respondents in the other 12 Revision Petitions, i.e., Revision Petition Nos. 132, 133, 134,138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2003 are concerned, they have failed to produce any expert opinion to show that the seeds did not germinate in their fields because the seeds supplied were defective.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised another objection that under the Seeds Control Order, 1983, the Divisional Officer, Seeds alone is competent to inspect and report about the causes of failure of the crop. It was submitted that Revision Petition Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 and 150 of 2003 are liable to be dismissed as the defects cannot be determined without analysis or tests, which the respondents in these Revision Petitions failed to get done. We find no substance in this submission. The Seeds Control Order, 1983 issued under G.O.M.s No. 97 F&A FP(2) dated 11.02.1985 does not debar any other agency from conducting an enquiry into the causes of failure of crop other than the officers mentioned therein. In the present case, it is at the instance of the District Forum that a Report was got from a Local Commissioner through Dr. P. Sesha Reddy, the expert who inspected the fields of 8 respondents and not others.
The respondents had not sent their representatives to the fields of the complainant/respondents in spite of their making representations to that effect. Petitioner failed to take any step on the representations/complaints received from the respondents. The Report submitted by the Expert can certainly be taken into consideration even if there was no analysis of the seeds from a laboratory. Non-examination of the seeds from the laboratory is not fatal to the case of the complainants whose fields were inspected by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy regarding which he gave an opinion as an expert. Nothing stopped the petitioner from sending the sample seeds for analysis to a laboratory. There is no explanation as to why it could not send the seeds for analysis.
The Order passed by the State Commission was a conditional Order directing the petitioner to pay the amount within 2 months and, on its failure to do so, to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of appeal till payment. We do not find any illegality in the same. It was within the jurisdiction of the State Commission to direct the petitioner to make payment within a stipulated period and, on its failure to do so, directed payment of interest on the awarded amount.
On the basis of the expert opinion of Dr. P. Sesha Reddy, Revision Petition Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 and 150 of 2003, are deserve to be dismissed. Insofar as other 12 Revision Petitions, i.e., Revision Petition Nos. 132, 133, 134,138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2003 are concerned, they are liable to be allowed as there is no expert opinion in these cases.
We accept the Report sent by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy and come to the conclusion that the seeds supplied by the petitioner to the respondents were defective but we shall confine the relief to only those respondents whose fields were actually inspected by Dr. P. Sesha Reddy and regarding which he has filed his Report. Accordingly, we dismiss Revision Petitions Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 and 150 of 2003 and allow the remaining, 12 Revision Petitions, i.e., Nos. 132, 133, 134,138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2003, in which there is no Expert opinion.
For the reasons stated above we allow Revision Petition Nos. 132, 133, 134,138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2003 and dismiss Revision Petition Nos. 131, 135, 136, 137, 140, 142, 143 and 150 of 2003. No costs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER REVISION PETITION NO.
131-150 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 17.09.2002 in Appeal No. 153 of 2001 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS NALIA NARSIMHA ROA, ETC. RESPONDENTS Draft Order in the above matter is sent herewith for your kind perusal. If approved, the same may be listed for pronouncement.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) President 10.02.2009 Honble Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member