State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Fa 1217 Of 2009:.Ratna Raja Nursery ... vs 1..K.Narayana Goud, Died , ... on 5 July, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1217/2009 against C.D.No.153/2004, DISTRICT FORUM, Mahabubnagar. Between 1.Ratna Raja Nursery Chinee, Lime Seedlings & Budded Plant Suppliers, with Regd. No.6, A.P.Agricultural University Railway Kodur, Caddapah District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Gadikota Seshaiah, S/o.not known, aged 60 years. 2. Gadikota Nagaraju, S/o. Gadikota Seshaiah, Aged 30 years, R/o.Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District , Partner & Manager of Ratna Raja Nursery. Appellants / Opp.parties 1 and 2 And 1.K.Narayana Goud, died , S/o.K.Narsappa Goud, Aged 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Thatikonda (V), Maldakal (M), Residing at Thappetlamorsu(V), Gattu (M). Respondent/ Complainant 2. G.Raju , S/o.Balaiah, aged 40 years, Occ:Agent , Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee Lime Seedlings & Budded Plants Suppliers, R/o.H.No.3-8-8/2, Chinna Agraharam, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondent/ Opp.party no.3 3. Smt Anantamma, W/o late Narayana Goud, 4. Sri Krishnaiah Goud , S/o.late Narayana Goud, 5. Sri Janardhana Goud,S/o.late Narayana Goud, 6. Sri G.Gangadhar Goud,S/o.late Narayana Goud. (all are residing at Thatikonda (V), Maldakal (M) , Thappetlamorsu, Ghattu.) Proposed parties (R3 to R6 added as per order dt.26.8.09 passed in FAIA.No.1785/09) Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. C.Sreenivas Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.Venkata Ramana-R3 to R6. R2-Notice served through paper Publication F.A.No.1218/2009 against C.D.No.154/2004, DISTRICT FORUM, Mahabubnagar. Between 1.Ratna Raja Nursery Chinee, Lime Seedlings & Budded Plant Suppliers, with Regd. No.6, A.P.Agricultural University Railway Kodur, Caddapah District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Gadikota Seshaiah, S/o.not known, aged 60 years. 2. Gadikota Nagaraju, S/o. Gadikota Seshaiah, Aged 30 years, R/o.Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District , Partner & Manager of Ratna Raja Nursery. Appellants / Opp.parties 1 and 2 And 1.P.Thimmaiah Setty, S/o.P.Venkat Setty, aged 49 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Thatikonda (V), Maldakal (M), residing at Thappetlamorsu(V), Gattu(M). Respondent/ Complainant 2. G.Raju , S/o.Balaiah aged 40 years, Occ:Agent , Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee Lime Seedlings & Budded Plants Suppliers, R/o.H.No.3-8-8/2, Chinna Agraharam, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondent/ Opp.party no.3 Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. C.Sreenivas Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.Venkata Ramana-R1. R2-notice served through paper publication F.A.No.1219/2009 against C.D.No.153/2004, DISTRICT FORUM, Mahabubnagar. Between 1.K.Narayana Goud, (died per LRs. on 16/5/2006) Rep. by K.Krishnaiah Goud, S/o. late K..Narayan Goud, Aged 35 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o.Thatikonda (V), Maldakal (M), 2. Smt Anantamma, W/o late Narayana Goud, Age : 60 years, Occ:House Hold. 3. Janardhana Goud,S/o.late late K.Narayana Goud, Age 32 years, Occ:Agriculturist 4. Gangadhar Goud,S/o.late K. Narayana Goud. Age 28 years , Occ: Agriculturist ( Appellants 1 to 4 are residing at Thappetlamorsu(V), Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District) Appellants And 1.Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee, Lime Seedlings & Budded Plants Suppliers, with Regd. No.6, A.P.Agricultural University Railway Kodur, Caddapah District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Gadikota Seshaiah, S/o.not known, aged 62 years. 2. Gadikota Nagaraju, S/o. Gadikota Seshaiah, Aged 32 years, R/o.Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District , Partner & Manager of Ratna Raja Nursery. 3. G.Raju , S/o.Balaiah aged 40 years, Occ:Agent , Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee Lime Seedlings & Budded Plants Suppliers, R/o.H.No.3-8-8/2, Chinna Agraharam, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents / Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. M.Govind Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.C.Sreenivas-R1. R2-notice served: None appears. R3-notice served through paper . publication. F.A.No.1220/2009 against C.D.No.154/2004, DISTRICT FORUM, Mahabubnagar. Between P.Thimmaiah Setty, S/o.P.Venkat Setty, aged 51 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Thatikonda (V), Maldakal (M), residing at Thappetlamorsu(V), Gattu(M),Mahabubnagar District Appellant/ Complainant And 1.Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee, Lime Seedlings & Budded Plant Suppliers, with Regd. No.6, A.P.Agricultural University Railway Kodur, Caddapah District, rep. by its Proprietor Sri.Gadikota Seshaiah, S/o.not known, aged 62 years. 2. Gadikota Nagaraju, S/o. Gadikota Seshaiah, Aged 32 years, R/o.Railway Kodur, Cuddapah District , Partner & Manager of Ratna Raja Nursery. 3. G.Raju , S/o.Balaiah aged 42 years, Occ:Agent , Ratna Raja Nursery, Chinee Lime Seedlings & Budded Plants Suppliers, R/o.H.No.3-8-8/2, Chinna Agraharam, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist. Respondents / Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. M.Govind Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.C.Sreenivas-R1. R2-noticeserved:none appears. R3-notice served through paper Publication. QUORUM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order: (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) ***** Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.153/2004 on the file of District Forum, Mahabubnagar, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred F.A.No.1217/2009 and the complainants preferred F.A.No.1219/2009.
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.154/2004 on the file of District Forum, Mahabubnagar, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred F.A.No.1218/2009 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.1220/2009. Since all these appeals deal with common facts and are against common opposite parties they are being disposed of by this common order.
F.A.1217/09 :
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and approached opposite parties 1 and 2 who are dealers in sale of Chinee, Lime seedlings and budded plants and registered as number 6 of A.P.Agricultural University for purchase of Sweet Orange plants. Opposite party no.3 is arrayed as an agent of opposite party no.1 Firm. The complainant submits that he purchased 1000 numbers of Sweet Orange plants from opposite parties vide bill no.25 dt.8.7.98 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- for plantation in his 8 acres of land within the limits of Thatikunta Village of Maldakal Mandal. The plants were supplied by opposite party no.3 and the same were planted in his land on 10.7.1998 by taking all crop management precautions. After 5 years 6 months it was observed that irregular size fruits without any juice and unfit for consumption grew on the said plants and the complainant got inspected the field and the plants by Horticulture Officer on 24.2.2004 who upon inspection certified that 40% of the plants are not pure i.e. 460 plants are genetically impure.
The complainant submits that the total cost of 400 impure plants is Rs.4,800/- and that he spent Rs.80,000/- p.a. towards crop management practices and the total investment made in the last 5 years is Rs.4,40,000/-. The loss suffered by him due to the impure plants is Rs.1,76,000/- and the approximate yield of fruits is Rs.50,000/- per hundred trees. The loss of yield of impure plants p.a. is Rs.2,30,000/-. The complainant also submit that he has suffered crop loss for the coming 3 years also which is around Rs.6 lakhs and therefore he seeks direction to opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7,80,800/- together with compensation and costs.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A22 allowed the complaint in part against opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally directing them to pay Rs.1,18,118/- together with Rs.500/- towards costs of the proceedings and disallowed the rest of the claims.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed F.A.No.1217/09 and dissatisfied by the compensation awarded, the complainant preferred F.A.No.1219/09. Opposite party no.3 did not prefer any appeal.
The brief point that falls for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3 and if the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint ?
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased 1000 sweet orange saplings for Rs.12,000/- evidenced under Ex.A1 dt.8.7.98. Exs.A2 to A16 are the cash bills for an amount of Rs.2,36,316/- which evidence that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.2,36,316/- towards crop management practices. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after 5 years the complainant noticed that most of the plants yielded fruits which were irregular in shape and size and did not contain any juice and he made a complaint to the Horticulture Officer, Gadwal who inspected the crop on 24.2.2004 as evidenced under Ex.A17. Ex.A17 reads as follows:
II THE FAULTS FOUND IN THE SWEET ORANGE ORCHARD:
1). 40% (Forty percent only) Sweet orange plants Genetically not pure in the orchard.
2).These plants are producing fruits with irregular shape without any Juice inside, which are unfit for consumption which is heavy loss to the farmer.
3). The branches of same tree producing physiologically and physically different types of fruits and different size and shapes of fruits. Which are unfit for consumption .
4). As per physiological and physical appearance of the fruits and branches it is clearly indicated that these plants are Genetically impure. (Not pure) The genetically variation is clearly observed with the best plantations available in the fields of near by areas.
5). It is also recommended to take the advise of Sweet Orange specialists and Senior Scientists of the Agricultural University.
The afore mentioned report evidences that the physical appearance of fruits show that the plants are genetically impure. Ex.A18 is the cost of cultivation of sweet orange as per Nabard guidelines which the Horticultural Officer has given as follows:
Ex.A19 is a certificate issued by the MRO in which he certified that there is clear genetical variation in respect of the farmers following good crop management practices and that the fruits are unfit for consumption. We rely on the judgement of the Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in III (1998) CPJ 8 (SC) in MAHYCO v. ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS observed that it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them and they would not be in a position to send the seeds for analysis. Under these circumstances the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its accord sent the seeds for analysis to an appropriate laboratory. The opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory In the instant case opposite parties were set exparte and no steps were taken for sending the samples for testing. The farmer is not expected to conserve certain portion of seeds for future possibility of analysis. Even otherwise the plants were sown in the year 1998 and the Horticultural Officer inspected the plants in 2004 and now after 7 long years testing under Section 13(1) becomes unimplementable. We rely on the judgement of the National Commission reported in 1 (2004) CPJ 122 NC in which the National Commission held that when the provisions of Section 13(1) becomes unimplementable alternative methods have to be resorted to which in the instant case are the reports of the Agricultural Officer and Principal Scientist which can be relied upon.
The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted that they be given an opportunity to file 12 receipts which evidence that they have purchased the seeds from the Agricultural University. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant opposed as some of the receipts were 9 months prior to sale and last receipt is dt.17.9.97. The petition to have these documents was allowed and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the farmers herein are not consumers. We rely on the decision of the National Commission reported in 1(2009) CPJ 99 NC between NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORTATION LTD. vs. P.V.KRISHNA REDDY in which the National Commission held that purchase of seeds for the purpose of Agriculture does not amount to purchase for Commercial Purpose. The same principle has been observed by the National Commission in LAXMI AGRICULTURAL SEEDS STORE vs. DHOOP SINGH and others reported in 1 (1995) CPJ 45 NC. In the said judgement it has been held that farmers who cultivate for their livelihood fall under the definition of Consumer under Section 2(1) of the Act. In the instant case also it cannot be construed that sowing Sweet Orange plants in 8 acres of land is done on a large scale and the complainant falls within the ambit of definition of consumer.
A brief perusal of the Seeds Act,1966 defines Seed as follows:
(11) seed means any of the following classes of seeds used for sowing or planting
(i) seeds of food crops including edible oil seeds and seeds of fruits and vegetables;
(ii) cotton seeds ;
(iii) seeds of cattle fodder ;
(iv) Jute seeds The aforementioned definition includes even seeds of fruits. The Seeds (control) Order, 1983 defines the duty of dealers.
Clause 8 states as follows :
8. Dealers to display stock and price list: Every dealer of seeds shall display in his place of business:-
(a) the opening and closing, stocks, on daily basis, of different seeds held by him;
(b) a list indicating prices or rates of different seeds.
8-A. Dealers to ensure certain standards in respect of seeds:- Every dealer of seeds in notified kind or variety or other than notified kind or variety of seeds shall ensure that the standards of quality of seeds claimed by him shall conform to the standards prescribed for the notified kind or variety of seeds under Section 6 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966) and any other additional standards, relating to size , colour and content of the label as may be specified.
In the instant case we observe from the record that the appellants herein have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate that they have confirmed to the standards of the quality of the seeds/saplings notified under Section 6 of the Seeds Act,1966.
In the instant case the appellants have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate that their plant confirms to minimum limits of germination and purity specified by this Act.
Ex.A22 is the report of the Principal Scientist and Head AICRP who reported as follows:
The main reason for bearing such fruits is due to the use of defective bud stick . The bud stick which was used for buddling the sweet orange plants is not choosen from hale and healthy gardens. We have received similar complaints and seen such fruits in sweet orange gardens of Nalgonda, Anantapur and Kadapa Districts .The farmers may lodge a complaint with the nursery men that has supplied plants to them .
The Principal Scientist (Hort.) is on medical leave at present. However if you suspect that it is due to new pest or pathogen , plant protection personnel(Entomologist and Plant Pathologist) will be sent to your place.
From the aforementioned report of the Principal Scientist it is very clear that the bud stick was defective and infact he observed that the farmers may lodge a complaint with the Nursery men that has supplied the plants to them and Exs.A17 to A19 and A22 clearly evidence that the opposite parties supplied defective saplings to the complainants and there is deficiency in service on their behalf.
Keeping in view the afore mentioned, the contention of the appellants that they are not liable is unsustainable specially with reference to the principal scientists observation that bud stick is defective and that the nursery men are responsible for defective bud stick used for budding the sweet orange plants. The appellants herein have also purchased the plants from the nursery and Exs.B1 to B12 evidence that the time gap between the last receipt and the complainants invoice is 9 months. For all the aforementioned reasons we are of the considered vie that the appellants herein are liable to compensate the farmer.
It is the main case of the appellants/opp.parties that they are registered as no.6 of A.P.Agricultural University and Exs.B1 to B12 evidence that these plants were purchased from Agricultural University and that their nursery has nothing to do with defects, if any, in the plants. We observe from the record that the last purchase receipt is dt.17.9.97 but the same was sold to the complainant as evidenced under Ex.A1 on 8.7.98 after a gap of 9 months. The learned counsel for the appellants/ opp.parties further submitted that opposite parties 1 and 2 are only dealers of Agricultural University which is evidenced even under Exs.A1 receipt. The complainant cannot made to suffer, merely because the saplings were purchased from Agricultural University and it is for the opposite parties to recover these amounts, if so advised, from the Agricultural University as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Agricultural University. To reiterate in view of Exs.A17 to A22 we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties and opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the crop loss , compensation and costs.
Now we address ourselves to the appeals filed by the complainants i.e. F.A.nos. 1219/09 and 1220/09. It is the case of the complainants that as per the brochure i.e. Vyavasaya Panchangam 2008-2009 issued by N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad the yield of Satgudi is 1000 to 2000 fruits and the yield approximately would be 10 tons per acre, provided the complainant follows all the crop management practices. The receipts Exs.B1 to B12 evidence that these opposite parties purchased the said Satgudi Bud Sticks from the Agricultural University whose brochure states the yield to be 1000 to 2000 fruits per tree. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that 400 defective plants at Rs.12/- is Rs.4,800/-. As against complainants prayer for Rs.6,00,000/-towards crop loss, we take 40% of the lower end of yield (1000 to 2000 fruits per tree as per brochure) it would be 400 fruits per tree. Taking into consideration Ex.A17 wherein Horticultural Officer noted that 40% of the plants are not genetically pure we can safely consider 40% of the plants i.e. 400 fruits per tree x 400 plants x Rs.2 (this value of Rs.2 awarded by the District Forum has not been disputed) = Rs.3,20,000/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,20,000/- + Rs.4,800/- (cost of defective plants)+67,318/-(40% of Rs.1,65,295/-spent towards expenses ). The learned counsel for the complainant contended that even borewell charges have to be awarded. We are of the considered view that this borewell is a permanent investment which can be used even for subsequent crops and also in the absence of any documentary evidence, we are not inclined to award the cost of this borewell. Taking into consideration that the complainant had spent these amounts for 5 years we are of the considered view that the compensation can be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. We also award costs of Rs.5000/-.
In the result F.A.1217/09 and 1218/09 filed by the opposite parties are dismissed and F.A.Nos.1219/09 and 1220/09 are allowed. F.A.No.1219/09 is allowed directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.3,20,000/- + Rs.4,800/- + 67,318/- together with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
F.A.No.1220/09 is allowed as follows:
The complainant prayed for Rs.6,90,000/- towards crop loss. We direct opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.3,68,000/- ( 460 plants are defective x 400 fruits per tree = Rs.1,84,000 x Rs.2 = Rs.3,68,000/- + Rs.5,520 (cost of 460 plants) + Rs.45,174/- ( 40% of Rs.1,12,935/- expenses) + Rs.30,000 compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Pm* Dt.5.7.2011