Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN   Oral Order : ( per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) ***   These appeals are directed against the orders dt. 19.1.2012 of the Dist. Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar made in C.C.Nos.86/2011, 87/2011, 91/2011, 94/2011, 115/2011,116/2011. Opp.party no.1 in all the complaints preferred these appeals.

 

The respondent no.1 is the complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the opp.parties 3 and 2 respectively, in all the complaints. For the sake of convenience the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint.

 
This opposite party served legal notice dt.
15.12.2010 on opposite party no.3, on knowing the crop failure, to make good the loss sustained by the farmers, as per the agreement. The complainant never approached this opposite party. This opposite party is only a distributor of the seed, as such, not liable for the loss incurred by the complainant.
 

Opposite party no.2 did not file any written version and no documents marked on his behalf.

The opposite party no.3 filed its written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that they are having a processing unit at M/s.Jayaram Enterprises, Palasamudram, Goruntla Mandal, Anantapur Dist., this opp.party processed the seed at the said processing plant and supplied to the opposite party no.1 i.e. destinations indicated by them. But the opposite party no.3 is not aware about the supply of the seeds by opposite party no.1 to various farmers situated at Mahabubnagar Dist. There is every chance that opposite party no.1 might have mixed the said seeds with a different local variety seeds from that of PCS 4 variety., hence the opposite party no.3 cannot be found fault for the said extra plants as sub standard quality.

 

As per Clauses 10 In the event of any complaint on quality of seed at field level i.e. germination, crop failure, due to any of the factors, the supplier shall pay the compensation as decided by MOU Committee/ team of officials constitute for the purpose/Department of Agriculture.

 

This plea of the opposite party no.1 in his counter is not disputed by the opposite party no.3, either in their written version or in their evidence affidavit. It is therefore established that the opposite party no.3, who is the producer of the seed is responsible for quality of the seed and on failure, is liable to pay compensation. Ex.B1 is the legal notice dt.15.12.2010 got issued by opposite party no.1, to opposite party no.3 and Ex.B2 is the reply notice got issued by opposite party no.3. It is stated in Ex.B1 that opposite party no.1 purchased the seeds from opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 supplied the same to various farmers situated at R.R. Dist and Mahabubnagar Dist. Further, it is stated as below in Ex.B1:

 

In regard to the seeds supplied to the farmers of Mahabubnagar Dt. also similar complaints were received and a joint field inspection was conducted by the officials of APSSDC Ltd., along with officials of Department of Agriculture and others. All the defects found in the growth pattern at R.R.District were also observed at Mahabubnagar Dt. The details of quantification of loss suffered by Mahabubnagar Dt. Farmers is awaited.

 

It is further stated, that the above said inspection reports clearly show that the seeds supplied by the opposite party no.3 is defective is not in conformity to the minimum seeds certification standards and not in terms of the agreement entered into by opposite party no.3 with opposite party no.1 Corporation, as far as the quality aspect is concerned. Under this notice, opposite party no.3 is called upon to pay the loss of yield to the farmers, in terms of the agreement.