State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Seeds Corporation Ltd., And ... vs S.Laxmi Narayana on 4 February, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.941 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.54 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL Between: 1. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Nandyal, Kurnool District Rep. by its Area Manager. 2. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Regional office, H.No.17-11, Thukaram Gate, lalaguda Secunderabad, rep. by its Regional Manager 3. National Seeds Corporation ltd., Beej Bhavan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi-110 012 rep. by its Chairman Appellants/opposite parties A N D S.Laxmi Narayana S/o S.Hanumantha Rao A.Siva Rama Puram Village Nandyal Mandal Kurnool District Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Sri G.Rajesham FA No. 90 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.54 OF 2007 Between: S.Laxmi Narayana S/o S.Hanumantha Rao aged about 37 years A.Siva Rama Puram Village Julepalli Post, Nandyal Mandal Kurnool District Appellant/complainant A N D 1. Narayana Reddy As a Manager/Incharge of National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Nandyal, Kurnool District 2. Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Regional office, H.No.17-11,Thukaram Gate, North lalaguda Secunderabad-017 3. National Seeds Corporation ltd., A government of India Undertaking Beej Bhavan, Pusa Complex, New Delhi-110 012 rep. by its Chairman Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Gourisankara Rao Counsel for the Respondent Sri G.Rajesham QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The complainant has filed FAIA 2732 of 2008 seeking for condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the appeal on the ground that he was hospitalized due to serious plamodiac and other serious problems.
2. The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not explained the reasons in proper manner.
3. Taking into consideration of the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, we condone the delay and allowed the petition. The office is directed to number the appeal and accordingly the appeal is numbered as F.A.No.90 of 2011.
4. The opposite parties filed the appeal F.A.No.941 of 2008. As both the appeals arise out of very same order, they are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.
5. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that on 25.7.2006 the complainant purchased paddy seeds of BPT 5204 from the opposite party no.1 of whom opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Chairman respectively. The complainant cultivated the seeds over the total 28 acres in July 2006. After a period of 70 days the complainant observed some extra growth i.e., Dubbalu and found seeds are defective and the same was informed to the opposite party and opposite party no.1 asked to wait up to cut off stage.
Thereafter, the complainant approached the District Collector and filed a complaint. The Agricultural Joint Director along with Associate Director of Research, RARS inspected the standing crop, taken photographs, collected sample and sent them to Senior Scientist (G&PB) Rice I/c RARS, Nandyal for inspection and the Senior Scientist stated in his report that 8% to 10% varied type were found. After harvesting the crop, the complainant got only 12 to 15 bags per acre, if the seeds are original and genuine the complainants would have got more than 46 bags per acre.
The yielding crop also was mixed with more than 55% red seed paddy. The complainant raised the crop in 28 acres, 10 acres his own land and 18 acres taken on lease for `6000/- per acre, the complainant used fertilizers and pesticides as per the instructions of the Field Assistants to NSC, besides incurred expenses for plantation. The yield which he got from the crop are mixed with red rice and nobody came forward to buy the crop.
6. The opposite parties resisted the claim questioning the maintainability of the case and contended that seed produced by the opposite parties in scientific manner and it was tested in their well established and advanced laboratory. The seed was also tested by A.P.Seed Certificate Agency, both the reports clearly show that there is no defect in the seed and the seed sold by opposite parties did not contain 8% to 10% of varied type. The excessive varied type of seed is possible in regular paddy fields, as paddy fields contain the seed of previous year and the complainants field is a regular paddy field. The complainant purchased 480 kgs of paddy which is sufficient for 16 acres to 20 acres as each acre requires 25 to 30 kgs as per practice and as laid down in Vyvasya Panchagam published by Aacharaya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University. The expiry of the lot number sold to the complainant was 2.4.2007 and the oppose parties were unable to send the seed for testing and seek for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A8. The opposite party has filed the certificate dated 3.7.2006 issued by the AP State Certification Agency. Exs.A1 to A8 have been marked. Exs.X1 to X5
8. The opposite parties challenge the order of the District Forum concerning award of `60,125/- towards deficit yield and `2,16,302/- towards proportion cost of fertilizers and pesticides and ignored the report of the scientists that there was 2% variation in the seed.
It was contended that according to the certificate issued by A.P.State Seed Certification Agency, the percentage of germination and physical and genetic purity was 80%, 98%, 98% respectively. It was contended that the District Forum had erroneously taken into consideration of the bills dated 26.12.2006, 26.12.2007, 23.2.2007, 17.1.2007, 8.1.2007, 5.2.2007 and 10.1.2007
9. The point for consideration is whether there has been any misappreciation of fact or law in the impugned order?
10. The complainant purchased on 25.7.2006 paddy seeds of DPT 5204 from the opposite party no.1 and cultivated them to an extent of 18.5 acres. The complainant had stated that he has cultivated them in 28 acres. PW1 L.Kailashnath Reddy has stated that he had found the complainant cultivating to an extent of 18.5 acres only.
The contention of the complainant is that the seeds are defective is established by the statement of Kailashnath Reddy who had stated that there were off type plants to the extent of 8% to 10%. The opposite parties had admitted in their counter that the permissible quantity of off type plants is 0.2% and the seeds supplied contained 8% to 10% of off type plants. It is a known fact that off type plants will have effect on the yield. The inspection report Ex.X4 and X5 shows that there were 8% to 10% varied other plants. All these facts would show that the seeds supplied by the opposite party no.1 are not of the standard as they claimed of.
11. According to the complainant the expected yield per acre is 46 bags. The District Forum is held that the opposite parties or L.Kailashnath Reddy, Assistant Director of Agriculture has not denied the quantum of yield as claimed by the complainant and it had calculated the quantum of loss of yield in paragraph 14 of the order to an extent of 5 bags per acre which we hold to be proper reasonable. However, the award for Rs.2,16,302/- towads the costs said to have been incurred for fertilizers and pesticides is not tallied with the receipts produced therefore. The yield denotes the total expenditure stated to have incurred by the complainant under which count a sum of `60,125/- has been awarded in favour of the complainant.
Therefore, the award for `2,16,302/- towards costs of fertilizers and pesticides in additi9on to the award for `60,125/- is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
12. In the result F.A.No.941 of 2008 filed by the opposite parties is allowed. The relief granted for `2,16,302/-
towards costs incurred for fertilizers and pesticides is set aside rest of the order is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. The appeal F.A.No.90 of 2011 filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.04.02.2011 KMK*