State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kaveri Seed Company Ltd., vs 1. Sri S. Venkata Lakshma Reddy, on 22 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/252/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/10/2015 in Case No. CC/712/2012 of District Hyderabad-II) 1. M/s Kaveri Seed company Ltd., 513-B, 5th floor, Minerva Complex, S.D Road, Secunderabad 500003. Rep by its Manager HR and Admin Sri P. Malla Reddy ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. Sri S. Venkata Lakshma Reddy, S/o Late S. Muthyal Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o H.No 3-70/1, Road No 3, Samathapuri Colony, New Nagole, Hyderabad. 2. 2. M/s. Sangameshwar and Brothers Dealers in fertilizers, Pesticides and seeds Pargi Road , Shadnagar 509216. Rep by its proprietor Sri Sangamesh 3. 3. M/s. Prabhat Agei Bio tech Ltd., H.No 6-3-541/B, Opp. Heritage office, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082. Rep by its Managing Director, Sri D.V. Ranga Rao 4. 4. The Joint Director Department of Agriculture,Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Mahabubnagar 509001 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 22 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement sSTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 252 of 2015 AGAINST CC No. 712 of 2012,, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD Between: M/s.Kaveri Seed Company Ltd., 513-B, 5th Floor, Minerva Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 Rep. by itsManager (HR and Admn) Sri P. Malla Reddy .. Appellant/opposite party no. 3 And Mr.S.Venkata Lakshma Reddy, S/o.Late S.Muthyal Reddy Aged about 50 years, R/o.H.No.3-70/1, Road No.3, Samathapuri Colony, New Nagole, Hyderabad ......Respondent/complainant 02. M/s.Sangameshwar & Brothers Rep. by Sangamesh (Prop) Dealers in Fertilizers, Pesticides & Seeds Pargi Road, Shadnagar - 509 216 03. M/s.Prabhat Agri Bio-Tech Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri D.V.Ranga Rao H.No.6-3-541/B, Opp.Heritage Office, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082 04. The Joint Director Department of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mahabubnagar - 509 001 ..... Respondents/Opposite parties 1,2 & 4 Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Sudershan Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.V. Laxma Reddy, PIP, for R-1 FA 25 of 2016 AGAINST CC No. 712 of 2012,, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD Between: M/s.Sangameshwar & Brothers Rep. by Its Proprietor Sangamesh, Dealer of Fertilizers and Seeds, Parigi road, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. M/s.Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited, rep. by its Managing Director Sri D.V. Ranga Rao O/o Ground Floor of UBI Building, road no. 3 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ..Appellants/opp. party no. 1 and 2 And Mr.S.Venkata Lakshma Reddy, S/o.Late S.Muthyal Reddy Aged about 50 years, Occ : Agriculture R/o.H.No.3-70/1, Road No.3, Samathapuri Colony, New Nagole, Hyderabad ......Respondent/complainant 02.. M/s.Kaveri Seed Company Ltd., 513-B, 5th Floor, Minerva Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 Rep. by Venkata Bhaskara Rao Managing Director Respondent/opposite party no.3 03. The Joint Director Department of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mahabubnagar - 509 001 ..... Respondents/Opposite party No.4 ( Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties ) Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Ravinder Sharma Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.V. Laxma Reddy, PIP, for R-1 Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Monday, the Twenty Second Day of January Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) These appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the 1st opposite party, Kaveri Seed company and the opposite parties 2 and 3 respectively praying this Commission to set aside the impugned orders dated 30.10.2015 made in CC 712 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM II, Hyderabad Since both the above appeals are arising out of the same impugned order, we are inclined to dispose of the same by common order.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is an agriculturist who purchased cotton seeds from M/s. Sangameshwar & Brothers on 26-06-2012 and on 28-06-2012 vide bill no.493 dated 26-06-2012 for Rs.11,160/-, Ganesh BT II Lot No.052223708 produced by Prabhat Agri Biotech, Hyderabad, Six (6) packets of 450 grams - Jaado Bt II Lot No.12PPF15064 - produced by Kaveri Seeds - Six (6) packets of 450 grams each. Vide Bill No.503 dated 27-06-2012 amount of Rs.8,370/- Marwel Bt II - Lot No.012 163358 produced by Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., - Nine (9) packets of 450 grams each. He sowed the same on 28-06-2012 in his land bearing Sy.No.25-A in an extent of Ac.9-00 which was not properly germinated and the said fact was brought to the notice of the dealer on 06- 07-2012 and also Agriculture Officer, Shadnagar and the Agriculture Officer, Farooq Nagar visited his field on 11.07.2012 and gave a report in Lr.No.01/MAO-SDNR/Seed Complaint-12, dated 11-07-2012 to the Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Mahabubnagar, recommending to send Scientists to the field and to take necessary steps. On 24-07-2012, the Scientists along with Agriculture Officer and two company representatives inspected his field and they observed that the four (4) types of germination of plants and they counted different plants in few rows but they had not taken any sample of plants from his field for laboratory tests. The land is black soil and moisture yielding as there was rainfall since 19-06-2012 and if the seed is properly germinated, he would have yielded 10-15 quintals per acre as earlier. Due to failure of seeds germination and non-yielding of cotton he suffered heavy loss; hence he filed this complaint after issuing notice to opposite parties to direct them to pay the claim amount of Rs.19,530/- along with interest @18% P.A. from 23-08-2012, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- 3. and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4) The opposite parties 1 and 2 opposed the above complaint contending that he being the dealer of cotton seed supplied by opposite party no.2. Except this complaint, there were no complaints about the seeds produced by the opposite party no.2 not only in AP but throughout the country. Immediately after the complaint is lodged by the complainant their staff visited the field of the complainant, noticed seed sowed are growing step by step and the complainant also satisfied with the co-operation extended by the opposite party no.2 and the same was expressed in his letter dated 07-07-2012 but the complainant could not show any interest on cultivation and running behind agriculture officers, ANGR university and seed test laboratory. If normally any germination of seed arose for the entire lot produced by the opposite parties but not small quantity. The opposite parties supplied cotton seeds having good demand and one of the leading supplier by their brand name itself and the complainant left the field without pursuing the agricultural operations trying to blackmail the companies for demanding huge amounts. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). The third opposite party opposed the above complaint contending that the complainant did not bring to their notice with regard to the defective seed, hence cannot seek any compensation basing on the alleged crop loss without giving any opportunity to inspect the crop. More so, when the complainant admittedly contends that he has used three (3) varieties of cotton seeds of two different companies and the seed manufactured by the opposite party no.3 is less than 1/3rd of the total seed used i.e., 2 Kg 700 grams of seed out of total 9 Kg. 450 Grms. It supplied 2,103 quintals of JADOO BT II in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka and there is no other complaint alleging defective seed except the complainant. They have not supplied Kaveri seed - Jaadoo Bt II Lot No.12 PPF15064 in Andhra Pradesh. This opposite party cannot be made liable to pay compensation just because it is a seed manufacturer and the complainant sown in his land with some other seed and that the total crop failed. The report of the agriculture officer dated 11-07-2012 also states that the germination of Marvel cotton seed produced by opposite party no.2 is less than 40% and the overall germination of the seed is less than 50%. The report does not contain that the seed supplied by it as defective. The seed supplied by them is high standard of genetic and physical purity after R & D tests recognized by the Government of India, The seed supplied by it are tested as per the Lots and the seed will be released to the market only when the seed qualifies to the standards of germination and the complainant filed this complaint only to cause harassment to the opposite party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6). The 4th opposite party Joint Director of Agriculture Department contended that the complainant is an Agriculturist and he might have sown cotton in an area of 9.00 acres. The said farmer had purchased cotton seeds from 2 companies as mentioned below from the dealers located at Shadnagar : (a) Prabhath Agri Bio tech Hyderabad, Ganesh BT II, Lot Number 052223708 and purchased 6 packets of 450 grams (b)Kaveri seeds - purchased JADU Bt II lot number 12PPF 15064 a quantity of 6 packets of 450 grams (c) Prabhath Agri Biotech - purchased MARVEL Bt II lot Number 12163358 a quantity of 9 packets of 450 grams. The complainant stated that the cotton seed was sown on 28th June 2012. Scientists have clearly mentioned in their field inspection report that the rain was received on 25th and 26th June 2012 and the rainfall received was 65.4 m.m. and 11.6 m.m respectively, subsequently there was dry spell from 26-06-2012 to 06-07-2012, in this particular field first germinated seeds observed was 20% and 35% approximately in respect of Prabhat and Kaveri seeds. Again the rains received from 07-07-2012 which initiated germination in other seeds which are not germinated in time. At the time of field visit (25-07-2012) the germination percentage is 65% to 70%. It is also undisputed fact that the farmer has represented about poor germination to the dealer from whom seed was purchased. Soon after receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Agriculture officer visited the field and submitted a report on 11-07-2012 to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Mahabubnagar, JDA intern requested Scientists to visit the field who have visited the field and submitted their report. The Agriculture Officer, Shadnagar could not take the sample of the said seed lot because, by that time there was no seed available with the dealer and it is not true to say that the mandal Agriculture Officer has not cooperated with the complainant. Scientists and Agriculture Officer, Shadnagar have visited the field on 26-07-2012 observed the field situation and recorded their observations. Though the complainant is complaining about poor germination of cotton seed and not required to take plant/leaf sample for analysis. Delay in germination may be due to lack of moisture at early stage and receipt of rains in subsequent days the germination is in progress. Heavy block soils requires sufficient rains for attaining saturation in moisture % and only after sufficient moisture is observed cotton seed sowing should be taken up and yield of cotton represents as many parameters including adoption of all good agronomic practices such as fertilizer, weed and pest management and weather conditions. There is no evidence that the seed is defective. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainants filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-20 and Evidence of Sri Siva Kumar PW2, Evidence Affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 1 & 2 i.e., N.Syama Sankara Rao (DW1), evidence on behalf of opposite party no.3 Sri Pindi Malla Reddy (DW2), Evidence of Opposite party no.4 Sri M.Bhagawath Swaroop (DW3) and evidence of Kothapeta Chandru (DW4), 7 Ega Ramesh (DW5) and K.Beeraiah (DW6) on behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 are filed. Exhibits B1 to B25 are marked on behalf of opposite parties. Written arguments of both parties filed. Oral arguments heard.
8). The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed (1) Opposite party no.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant, if opposite party no.1 paid the amount he shall recover the same from opposite party no.2 (2) Opposite party no.1 & 3 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, if opposite party no.1 paid the amount he shall recover the same from opposite party no.3 (3) Opposite party no. 2 & 3 to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant within 30 days, failing which, it attracts 9% interest from the date of default. (4) Claim against opposite party no.4 is dismissed
9) Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd opposite party and opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively preferred the above two appeals before this Commission.
10). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
11) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 12). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the 1st respondent/complainant purchased cotton seeds, viz., Ganesh BT II Lot No.052223708 produced by Prabhat Agri Biotech, Hyderabad, Six (6) packets of 450 grams - Jaadoo Bt II Lot No.12PPF15064 - produced by Kaveri Seeds - Six (6) packets of 450 grams each from M/s. Sangameshwar & Brothers under bill no.493 dated 26-06-2012 for Rs.11,160/- vide Ex.A-1 and Marwel Bt II - Lot No.012 163358 produced by Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., - Nine (9) packets of 450 grams each under Bill No.503 dated 27-06-2012 for Rs.8,370/- vide Ex. B-20.
13). The contention of the 1st respondent/complainant is that he sowed the same on 28-06-2012 in his land bearing Sy.No.25-A in an extent of Ac.9-00 which was not properly germinated and on his complaint the Scientists along with Agriculture Officer and two company representatives inspected his field on 24-07-2012 and they observed that four (4) types of germination of plants and they counted different plants in few rows but they had not taken any sample of plants from his field for laboratory tests. The land is black soil and moisture yielding as there was rainfall since 19-06-2012 and if the seed is properly germinated, he would have yielded 10-15 quintals per acre as earlier and contended that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective. In support of his contention, he filed the affidavits of DW.4, 5 and 6, which, corroborates that they got yielding of 10-12 quintals per acre. Whereas the contention of the opposite parties is that the 1st respondent/complainant did not properly cultivate the lands, therefore due to his lack of proper care and caution the crop was spoiled.
14). Perusal of rainfall statistics vide Ex.A13 shows that there was rainfall of 65.4mm and 11.6 mm on 25-06-2012 and 26-06-2012 respectively and subsequently there was dry spell from 26-06-2012 to 06-07-2012. Ex.A5, report of the agricultural officer, Mandal Farooq Nagar discloses that he inspected the field of the complainant on 11-07-2012 and he observed that 1. Germination of seed is less than 50% especially Marvel Cotton seed prod by Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., Lot No.012163358 in still poor i.e., Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd., Lot No.012163358 in still poor i.e., < 40% germination, the point growth is not uniform, the plant population is of three different stages, i.e, 20% fully germinated, 15% at two leaf stages and 10% at germinating stage and the filed is black soil with good moisture and moisture holding capacity, fertile and no hindrance for germination of seed and the farmer had sown in nine acres in Sy. No. 25A at Rangadham village on 28.07.2012 and recommended for compensation and as there was no seed remaining in the packets after sowing he could not send it to the lab. Ex.B22 inspection report of Senior Scientist, Rajendranagar informed that, generally, under good moisture condition, cotton germinates in 6-8 days, but, in Prabhat Hybrids at around 20% and in Kaveri it is approximately 35% seed was germinated. As on the date of inspection on 25.07.2012,. the total germination was around 65% to 70%. In the said report, it is further opined that the uneven germination cotton in the filed of Sri S.V. Laxman Reddy attributed to deficit soil moisture and depth sowing which may be further confirmed by sampling the seeds from the same lot and germination test in laboratory". Ex.A18 and Ex.A19, which, are the empty polythene bags containing labels supports the contention of the 1st respondent/complainant that they were purchased by him and there was no denial from the appellants/opposite parties contradicting the same that the said bags were not belonging to them and hence it can be inferred that the first respondent/ complainant purchased the same from the appellants/opposite parties. The District Forum opined that the complainant did not take proper care and if there were rains in time, he might have got some yield and on the other hand, the seeds supplied by the appellants/opposite parties were not fully genuine and hence they have to reimburse 50% of the loss sustained by the complainant and came to the conclusion that the first respondent/complainant sustained loss at Rs.1,80,000/- for Ac. 9.00 guntas @ Rs.20,000/- per acre if it was leased out and 50% of the same comes to Rs.90,000/-, out of which, Rs.60,000/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Rs.30,000/- from opposite parties 1 and 3 along with costs.
15). Counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.3 argued that the District Forum failed to see that the complainant has used three different varieties of seed, the germination of seed is also is in three different stages and the same resulted in poor germination and as such the appellant cannot be attributed with supply of defective seed. Perusal of the record reveals that the same were purchased by the first respondent/complainant from the same dealer and if they were genuine, there would be proper germination and further Ex.5 report of the Agriculture officer reveals that the field is black soil with good moisture and moisture holding capacity, fertile and no hindrance for germination of seed. When such is the case, though, there were different varieties of seed since the sown the same with good moisture holding black soil there should have been different varieties but not poor germination and hence this contention do not stand to the ground.
16). The further contention of the appellant/opposite party no. 3 that the complainant is silent with regard to the actual loss in monetary terms is not a ground since the District Forum opined that there is no evidence with regard to the cost of the crop per quintal and hence calculated the loss on the basis of the lease at Rs.20,000/- per acre and awarded 50% of the same attributing negligence in providing sufficient moisture. Further there was no evidence that the neighbouring farmers used the same seed supplied to the first respondent/complainant to prove that seed is not defective. There appellants did not prove that they are genuine on the laboratory reports.
17). The contention of the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 that the District Forum without considering the report of the 3rd respondent/opposite party no. 4 that the seeds are not defective awarded compensation cannot be considered since he did not inspect the field of the first respondent/complainant personally.
18). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to set aside the impugned order. There are no merits in the appeals and hence they are liable to be dismissed.
19). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the above two appeals filed by the third opposite party in FA 252 of 2015 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 in FA 25 of 2016 are dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 30.10.2015 in CC 712 of 2012 passed by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 22.01.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER