State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S. Shriram Bioseed Genetics India ... vs 1. V. Bikshapathi, S/O Komuraiah &11 ... on 19 February, 2010
A
P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 493/2007 against C. D. NO.199/99 on the file of
the District Forum, Warangal.
Between:
1.
M/s. Shriram Bioseed Genetics India
Limited
Plot
no. 206, Road no.14, Jubilee Hills
Hyderabad 500 033, rep. by its President
Dr.
Sharad Sharma.
2.
M/s. Shriram Fertilizes & Chemicals
Keerthimahal, 19 Rajendra
Place,
New Delhi -110 008 rep by its President
Dr.
Sharad Sharma Appellants/Opp. Parties 1 & 2
And
1.
V. Bikshapathi, S/o Komuraiah, aged
about 40 years,
2.
M. Janardhan Reddy, s/o Laxma Reddy,
aged about 46 years
3.
Ch. Malla Reddy, S/o PapiReddy, aged about 56 years
4.
M. Jaipal Reddy,. S/o Laxma Reddy,
aged about 38 years
5.
K. Sambaiah, S/o Gattaiah, aged
about 53 years
6.
B. Ravi,S/o Cheralu, aged about 36
years
7.
P. Buchaiah, S/o Appaiah, aged about
58 years
8.
T. Ilaiah, S/o Buchaiah, aged about
73 years
9.
I. Sambaiah, S/o Ilaiah, aged about
43 years,
10.
P.. Ilaiah, S/o Appaiah, aged about
53 years,
( all
are agriculturists, R/o Mallampally (v), Mulugu mandal
Warangal
District
Respondents/ complainants 1 to 10
11.
M/s. Saraswathi Fertilizers & Pesticides
Rep.
by its Proprietor, Grain Market, Warangal.
12.
M/s. Manikanta Fertilizers & Pesticides,
Rep.
by its Proprietor, Mr. Shivarajan,
8/652/A,
Gourishankar complex, Station Road,
Warangal Respondents/OPs 3 and 4
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. S. Dwarakanath
Counsel for the Respondent
: Mr. K. Jagadeswara
Rao for
R1 to R10
R11
- served
R12 returned unserved.
CORAM :
Sri Justice D. Appa
Rao Honble President
And
Sri Syed
Abdullah Honble
Member
Friday, the Nineteenth Day of February, Two Thousand Ten Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Honble Member ) ****** The appellants 1 and 2 are the unsuccessful Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in CD 199/99 before the District Forum, Warangal against whom an order dated 29.12.2006 was passed directing to pay compensation @ Rs.10,800/- per acre to each of the complainants 1 to 10 to the extent of the land in which the seeds that were sowed and those seeds were produced and sold by the Opposite parties, so also, directed to pay the interest on the respective amounts due.
The impugned order has been challenged as erroneous and sought to set aside taking the stand that in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the seeds were of inferior quality or defective one especially, when there is an admission by the complainants that the generic purity is good which was also certified by the Cotton Scientist of Fact Finding Committee that the genetic purity is good In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainants are residents of Mallampalli village, Warangal District and they are agriculturists. OP 1 is a Manufacturer, OP 2 is a Marketer, OP 3 distributor and OP 4 is the dealer of cotton seeds. The complainants have purchased 450 gms Ajeet seed variety cotton from OP 4 for Rs.270/- per packet and those seeds were produced by OP 1. The complainants were assured that the yield of cotton would be 70 to 80 quintals per acre and on that assurance after purchasing the same they sowed the same in their lands. After taking precautions they have raised the seeds but the crop had failed to give yield. So the complainants have reported to the Agriculture department. The concerned officials inspected the fields and opined that they could not get the yield since the seeds were defective or of inferior quality. In turn, all the complainants informed to OP 4 who is the representative of OP.1 and he had promised to compensate the loss after contacting the manufacturer. In spite of the same,. he dodged the matter, so they have no alternative except to claim compensation.
OP 1 filed its version and it was adopted by OP2.
OP 3 remained exparte. OP 4 filed separate version.
According to OP 1 , the seeds that were produced and sold are of good quality seeds and it was sent to OP2. The yield of the crop would depend upon several factors including proper crop management, climatic conditions and application of fertilizers and pesticides. As the complainants failed to take all precautions required and due to their negligence they sustained loss. No deficiency has been committed to compensate the loss as claimed.
OP. 4 also in its version had taken the stand that yield would depend upon various factors including proper crop management, the climatic conditions and application of fertilizers and pesticides. While so, the complainants have followed long agricultural practice as such they might have sustained loss.
In proof of the allegations, the second complainant filed evidence affidavit on behalf of the all others and also Ex. A1 to A21 consisting of the bills, the correspondence and Fact Finding Committee report given by the Agricultural Department after making inspection in the respective cotton fields accompanied by the cotton scientist with them.
The District Forum, after satisfying with the evidence on record pertaining to the purchase of seeds by the complainants from the Opposite parties and the producer, gave its finding that the complainants being agriculturists have certainly followed necessary methods in raising the crops yet there was a total loss and the fact that there was a loss which is supported by Fact Finding Committee Report constituted by District Collector, Warangal, as such, concluded that the seeds that were sold were defective which were raised by the complainants in their respective fields but it resulted in loss.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity for its interference ?
OP. 4 in para 3 of its version had taken the stand that the so called bills covered by Ex. A1 to A9 are not at all bills and the same are not valid documents in the eye of law for consideration.
The cursory of look of bills Ex. A1 to A9 gives an idea that these are all printed bills showing the name of the OP 4 with the bill numbers CST No. and phone numbers. In order to falsify the bills the OPs had not produced any duplicate bill books which were maintained by him on the respective dates. Except a bald and vague denial no substantive evidence is placed by OP 4 to reject the same. It is clearly mentioned that the OP 4 is a distributor of Mehyco seeds, Pravarthan seeds, Nuzveed seeds and Nath seeds. It also bears the hand writing and signature of the seller. OP. 4 has not filed any affidavit in support of the contentions raised in his counter. The complainants have filed cultivation record Ex. A13 which shows that they are owners of lands and they raised cotton crop within lands. The complainants have also produced bills issued by the concerned fertilizer dealer to show that they have purchased required fertilizers and pesticides for cultivating the crop during the year 1998. Apart from it, important document Ex. A21, a report of the Fact Finding Committee , which has submitted to the District Collector after inspecting the lands of the cotton fields of the respective complainants and other parts. The Fact Finding Committee Members consists of Joint collector, Warangal; Joint Director of Agriculture, Cotton Breeder ( Scientist ), two advocates, Local advocates, representatives of suppliers and dealers, Engineering Department Nominee, formers representative, village officer of Arepalli and K. Samudram Mandal. The report was enclosed with enclosures. As seen from the report Ex. B21 the companys representatives were also present at the time of inspection of the crops and the Committee Members have made a comparative study of Ajeet seeds which were sold to the complainants with that of the other seeds that were raised by the other farmers in the adjoining fields and the Committee concluded that the random samples collected would establish that the farmers who raised Ajeet seeds were put to heavy loss and thereby recommended to initiate action against the manufacturer and the dealers to make good the loss suffered by the formers. OP 1 manufacturer has not produced any evidence in support of his contention that every lot of the seeds that were released for sale were tested for germination and genetic purity and that the said seeds supplied in Warangal District for sale were having 90% of genetic purity as asserted in para 10 of its version. Every manufacturer of seeds are required to maintain records of the laboratory in respect of different categories of seeds that were grown and then released in the market for sale. Non-production of record which are in its custody have an adverse affect.
The District Forum has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the crop loss was due to inferior quality of seeds that were manufactured and sold by the Opposite Parties 1 to 4. As per Ex. A21 report, the fact Finding Committee fixed six quintals per acre into consideration and the price at Rs.1800/- per quintal and therefore the compensation is worked out at Rs.1800 X 6 = Rs10,800/- per acre. So depending on the extent of crop raised by each of the complainants 1 to 10 the quantum of compensation is fixed separately. The Opposite Parties could not deny as to how the quantum of compensation arrived at is excessive. The oral assertions or denials made by the appellants/Opposite Parties in the absence of rebuttal evidence would pales into insignificance. After going through the evidence on record, we hold that there is no factual or legal infirmity in the findings of the District Forum. The appeal is devoid of merits.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Distinct Forum in CD 199/99 as justified. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBER Dated : 19.02.2010