State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Md.Gousuddin, Proprietor Karimnagar vs Mothukula Odelu Karimnagar on 10 February, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.31/2006 against CD.No.68/2004 District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar. Between: Md.Gousuddin, Proprietor, Tejomayi Agro Seeds, Parakal Road, Kamalapur, Karimnagar Dist. Appellant/Opp.Party. And Mothukula Odelu, S/o.Mallaiah, Pangidipalli Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.M.Hari Babu. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT. SMT. M. SHREESHA, HONBLE LADY MEMBER, AND SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) *******
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar dated 04.10.2005 in CD.No.68/2004 in directing him to pay Rs.1,260/- towards cost of seeds and Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.12,000/- towards costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Saral 101 chilli seeds from the appellant on 01.06.2002 after payment of Rs.900/- vide receipts A.1 and A.2. He has sown the seeds on 10.08.2002 in an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas. However, he could not get any yield as the seeds were spurious. He spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- for raising the crop. It amounts to deficiency and therefore, he claimed Rs.1,260/- towards cost of seeds, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and Rs.12,000/- towards costs.
3. The appellant resisted the case. He stated that M/s.Saral Seeds was the manufacturer and M/s.Teja Agri Agencies was its distributor and they were necessary parties. While admitting that the complainant had purchased Saral 101 chilli seeds from the appellant on 31.05.2002 under bills alleged that some ryots, Keetha Laxmaiah, Keetha Linga Murthy, etc. had also purchased the same seed.
Since the complainant did not follow the instructions in raising crop properly and using fertilizers and pesticides to prevent insects, etc. the crop was not yielded sufficiently. There is no deficiency in service on its part and none of the agriculturists had complained about deficiency of the seeds.
4. When a complaint was made to Joint Director of Agriculture, the said officer had dropped the proceedings on the ground that there was no case. There is no representation from the neighbors stating that the seeds that were supplied were spurious and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The claim was highly exaggerated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. He has
5. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked, while the opposite party/the appellant filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.B.1 to B.10 marked.
6. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the Joint Director of Agriculture after inspection opined that the crop of the complainant was failed due to inferior quality of seeds and therefore directed the appellant to refund the cost of seeds, besides compensation and costs.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective and it ought to have seen that no expert was examined in order to prove that the seeds that were sold to him were of inferior quality. In fact no report of the agricultural officer shows that the complainant did not follow the instructions given to him and therefore, he had sustained the loss.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the seeds that were sold by the manufacturer were defective?
9. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased Saral 101 chilli seeds from the appellant, evidenced under Ex.A.1 and A.2. It is also not in dispute that he had sown the said seeds in his land. While so, the Horticulture Officer of Huzurabad in his letter dt.25.02.2003 addressed to the Asst. Director of Horticulture, Karimnagar, mentioned that he visited the crop on 14.02.2003 and noticed the following:
1. The chilli crop is having no. of pods, but in normal size, crinkled and different shapes.
2. Some pods having black and white colours in tender stage and crop is effected with pest and diseases.
3. The seed which is sold by M/s.Teja Agro Seeds, Pangidipally, Kamalapur (M) having lot No.SSR/1031 He further mentioned that the chilli crop grown in adjacent field of Macherla Rajaiah (Raju) in which the very same seeds were sown was in good condition. He further observed that the seeds that were sown by the neighboring ryots have yielded very good crop. Therefore, he entertained that there is a doubt about agronomic practices and pest and diseases management by the complainant. But he stated in his letter to get more clarifications a specialist must be needed to test the crop in genetic and agronomic aspects. I request ADH, KRNR to kindly refer to a specialist to observe the crop in above aspects. Unfortunately, the Assistant Director of Horticulture did not direct any specialist to find out as to the reason why the crop of the complainant was spoiled.
We may also mention here that when the complainant did not take any steps to get his crop tested by any expert, nor the seeds that were sold were defective and spurious, from the very report, Ex.A.12 filed by the complainant it is beyond doubt that except his crop, rest of the crops where the other ryots had sown the very same seeds had good yield.
Undoubtedly, in view of the fact that he did not carry out instructions, in the sense that he did not use insecticides, agronomic practices, etc. he would get low yield. For his deficiency in raising the crop, he should not attribute the same to the appellant.
10. The appellant filed an application, FAIA.No.1817/2006 to implead the distributor as well as the manufacturer of seeds. Since the complainant exacie could not prove that there is any defect in the seeds, their presence at this juncture is unnecessary. Since the complainant could not establish that there was any defect in the seeds; and on the other hand the appellant could prove that the appellant adhered to agronomic practices, we cannot find fault with the appellant stating that he sold some spurious seeds. The complainant could not establish his case. We find that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.
Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances each party to bear its own costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER Dt:10.02.2009.