Telangana High Court
M/S. Mahyco Seeds vs C. Hanumanth Rao on 29 November, 2022
Author: M.Laxman
Bench: M.Laxman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.184 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
1. The present City Civil Court Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2003 in O.S.No.1113 of 1997 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder, the plaintiffs' claim for damages was partly allowed and the defendants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiffs. The defendants were further directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. The present appeal is at the instance of the defendants.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that, they are the owners of Ac 09.50 gts of agricultural land in Vasalamari Village, Turkapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. The plaintiff No.1 is residing at Nalgonda District and he personally looks after the agricultural operations, whereas, plaintiff No.2 is 2 an employee in Provident Fund Office and also assists plaintiff No.1 in the agricultural activities including procurement of seeds, purchase of insecticides, pesticides etc. Plaintiff No.2 purchased 2 kgs of ridge guard seeds from defendant No.2, who was the distributor of seeds produced by defendant No.1. The plaintiff No.2 purchased the seeds of defendants believing the projections made by them under Ex A1-broucher. He sowed the said seeds in Ac 09-50 gts of land and apart from that he has also sown the local ridge guard seeds purchased in 10 packets. After sometime, the plaintiffs found that the flowering in the plant was very little though the vegetative growth was substantial. The fruit bud though grown was found to be completely bitter and unfit to sale. The fruit grown was also smaller in size and weird in shape. Thus, the fruit projections from the seeds of defendants was not upto the standards as averred in Ex A1. On account of such defective supply of seeds, the plaintiffs were put to suffer loss and hardship. The plaintiffs submitted that they incurred Rs.1,04,600/- for the ridge guard crops and that they would have also earned a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on the crop towards expected profits. Hence, the total damage occurred to the plaintiffs was to a tune of Rs.5,04,600/-.
3
4. The case of the defendants is that, the seeds supplied by them were not defective and there was no proof that the plaintiffs have purchased 2 kgs of seeds from them. The proof produced by the plaintiffs was only for 950 gms. It is further contended that there is no scientific report that the seeds were defective and the instructions for sowing the seeds particularly the distance between plant and plant and row to row was not followed. They also claimed that there is no scientific proof that the yield of the plants is not on par with the projections made by the defendants in Ex A1. According to the defendants, the claim made is false and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim with interest as prayed for ?
2. To what relief ?
6. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiffs. The defendants were further directed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree 4 and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Heard.
8. Points for consideration:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs established that the seeds supplied by the defendants were defective ?
2. Whether the compensation as awarded by the trial Court towards damages to the plaintiffs is sustainable ?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the report/letter dated 16.06.1997 issued by the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Nalgonda is not in consonance with the Seed Rules, 1968 particularly Rule 23A and thus, it is not a scientific report. It is also contended that the distance between plant to plant and row to row was not maintained as projected under the instructions booklet of the company under Ex A1. It is also contended that the trial Court has granted compensation treating the loss for entire Ac 9.50 gts of land. According to him, the evidence produced was only for 1 kg (950 gms) of seeds. However, the plaintiffs claimed that they purchased 2 kgs. Even if the said contention of purchase of 2 kgs of seeds is accepted, the 5 covered area projected is only one hectare. Ex A2 shows that plaintiff No.2 purchased 950 gms of seeds and the said 950 gms is not at all sufficient to sow in area of Ac 9.50 gts of land. The required seed rate is 1.25 kg per hectare and 9.5 acres of land requires 5.2 kgs of seeds. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court in awarding the compensation/damages.
10. The main grievance of the plaintiffs is that, the vegetative growth, the shape and quality of the fruits was not upto the mark as was projected by the Company while selling the seeds. It is also the grievance of the plaintiffs that the yield was not within the prescribed period. There is no proper output inspite of the seeds were being sown in less density. Ex B1 the instructions booklet issued by the defendant No.1 company shows the length, weight, shape of the fruit and also the production in tons/hectares.
11. Ex X3 is the proforma for submission of proposal of release of crop-variety to State, Sub-Committee on crop standards, notification and release of varieties. It shows that the distinguishing morphological characters of the fruit and medium maturity of hybrid with vigorously growing vine is 40 to 45 cms in length, thin, straight when tender. Average fruit weight is 125 to 6 140 gms. The first harvest starts from 50 to 55 days and the maturity between seed to seed is 100 days. The average yield in normal conditions is 25 to 30 tonnes/ha. As per Ex X1, report of the Assistant Director, he found the average length of the fruit is only 15 to 18 cms, which is very less when compared to 45 cms length as projected in the information booklet. It is also found that the fruits are smooth on the surface and are bitter to taste. The photograph under Ex A1 when compared to that in Ex A13 shows that the shape of the fruit as per Ex A1 is not the same as produced from the seeds and the length is also not maintained. The bitter taste is also not projected in the information booklet. Ridge guard is supposed to be sweet and not bitter. These characteristics can be checked by any normal person and there is no necessity for scientific expertise and skill. The above facts clearly demonstrates that the yield from the seeds were not so as they have projected. This gives an inference that the seeds supplied by the defendants are defective in nature and not up to the standards projected in the information booklet.
12. This was rightly taken note by the trial Court in arriving at conclusion. There is no dispute that only 2 kgs have been purchased and the area to be covered was below 1 hectare and 7 the compensation was awarded for 9 hectares. When there is high density the yield of crop in a smaller area is more. When there is low density, area is more, but, fruits for each plant would be more. When low density of the crop is sown, the wastage of the area is more. However, the growth of plant is more than the projection given with reference to the high density. When the projection is for 1 hectare and the crop is extended for 2 hectares, the wastage of area is more. While determining the compensation the projected area has to be taken into consideration with reference to yield.
13. The plaintiffs have claimed an amount Rs.5,04,600/- towards damages for the loss incurred claiming the extent of Ac 9.40 gts. The evidence on record shows that the cultivation of crop by way of drip irrigation system gives more yield when compared to ordinary irrigation. High density also gives more projection when compared to each plant. Low density was maintained in order to get good yield per plant. While calculating the loss, the extent has to be taken into consideration. The loss sustained on account of deprivation in yield can be calculated taking into consideration the prevailing price. Unfortunately, both 8 the parties failed to establish the prevailing price rate of Ridge guard at that relevant point of time.
14. Therefore, considering the area covered and the production from 2 kgs of seeds as projected by the defendants, this Court feels that compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is just, fair and reasonable. Hence, this Court is inclined to reduce the total amount of compensation from Rs.2,50,000/-, as awarded by the trial Court to Rs.2,00,000/-.
15. In the result, the City Civil Court Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the trial Court is modified and reduced from Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and the rest of the findings as arrived at by the trial Court are sustained. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 29.11.2022 ESP 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 215 C.C.C.A.No.184 of 2003 Dated: 29.11.2022 ESP