C.C. NO. 47 OF 2008

Between :-

Eleti Rajanna S/o Venkanna, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Thimmapur Village, Morthad Mandal, District Nizamabad.

Complainant

AND

1)The Agricultural Officer, Morthad Mandal, District Nizamabad.
2)The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Haka Bhavan, Hyderabad – 500 004.
3)The Manager, Kaveri Seed Company P Ltd., 513-A, 5th Floor, Minerva Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad.

Opposite Parties

This Consumer Case coming on 08-04-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Bharat Nagesh, Advocate for Complainant and that of Sri Jaya Prakash Loya, Advocate for Opposite party No.2 and that of Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocate, for Opposite party No.3 and Opposite party No.1 remained, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:
ORDER

(Per Sri P.Raghavender, President)

1. The Complainant filed this complaint claiming total compensation of Rs.42,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and costs, on the following allegations:

The Complainant is an agriculturist having lands in Sy.No.1557 and 1689 total extent Ac.4-00 guntas situated at Thimmapur shivar. Complainant purchased 5 bags of Kaveri 225/995012 maize seed under receipt from Opposite party No.1 and Opposite parties 2 and 3 are the seed manufacturers. He has sown the seed and cultivated it but received less yield of 8 to 10 quintals per acre instead of 25 quintals per acre. Immediately the complainant took the matter to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nizamabad and who sent the seeds to Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for seed testing and the team visited and tested the crop and opined that the over all performance of Hybrid Kaveri 225 is not good and poor canopy growth observed in all plots; moderate to severe incidence of maydis leaf blight observed at vegetative and silking stages in most of the fields. As such, the seed supplied by the opposite parties is of poor quality due to which the complainant sustained loss of Rs.42,000/-. He got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and as there is no reply, he filed this complaint.

2. Opposite party No.1 remained ex parte.

3. Opposite party No.2 filed counter alleging that the complaint of the complainant has to be dismissed in limine as it is devoid of merits. It alleged that it supplied large quantity of maize Kaveri 225 seed in the entire district and except this complainant no other person filed the complaint. As such, this complaint is false. This Opposite party supplied seed only after due certification from the Certification agency fixed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the seeds are of high purity and good germination capacity.

4. It is further alleged by them that the yield will depend on many factors like using of fertilizers, pesticides, using water, testing of soil, assistance from concerned Agricultural Officer, etc. The complainant has not proved that he has cultivated the crop in required manner. Therefore, it prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. Opposite party No.3 filed separate counter alleging that it is not aware of the fact that whether complaint filed the complaint having purchased the seed and sown the same in his agricultural land. It also denied that the complainant received less yield of 8 to 10 quintals instead of 25 quintals. This Opposite party is unaware of the report alleged to have been given by the parties of the Agricultural University and it also denied that the seed supplied by it was of poor quality and further denied that the complainant sustained loss as alleged by him. The complainant must prove that he has sown the seed in the land and he actually cultivated the crop and he has taken necessary steps in cultivating the land and follows the instructions given to him while cultivating the crop and also watering it using proper fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The complaint is silent in all these aspects. It is further alleged that even excess use of fertilizers and pesticides and water will damage the crop or the yield will be less. Therefore, unless the complainant proves all these facts, it is difficult to assess the loss. The complainant also failed to prove that the seed supplied by these opposite party is of poor standard and the seed was not sent to laboratory test. In the absence of test it is difficult to believe that the seeds are of poor quality which resulted in less yield to the complainant. Therefore, there are no merits in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. The following points will arise for consideration:
a)Whether the seed supplied by the Opposite parties 2 and 3 i.e., Kaveri 225 is of poor quality and thereby the complainant sustained loss in yield as alleged by him ?

b)Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?

c)To what relief.

7. Point No.1: The learned counsel for the Complainant contended that complainant purchased seed and raised maize crop and did not get proper yield and he along with many other cultivators complained the matters to the Agriculture Department and the Agriculture Department requested Scientists from Agricultural University and they made inspection and submitted the report stating that the seed supplied by the Opposite parties is of sub standard variety. Hence, there was less yield and he sustained loss.

8. The learned counsel for the Opposite parties raised mainly the following contentions. That the complainant is not having experience in cultivating the maize crop and he must not have followed the instructions while watering the crop or using manures and applying pesticides and at no point of time the complainant made any complaint to the opposite parties in regard to the sub standard ness of the seed supplied and lastly there is no material placed before this Forum to know what is the extent of loss suffered by the complainant except his self served statement. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the complaint stating that it is only a vexatious complaint.

9. It is true that the complainant may not be having education but more the 60% of the population in rural areas knows how to cultivate the crops because they are largely depends on agriculture. They will be trained from the childhood in agriculture and cultivation, hence, the contention of the counsel for the opposite party that the complainant is not well versed in cultivation and agriculture is not tenable.

10. There is no dispute about the complainant purchasing the seed from the opposite parties which is known as Kaveri 225 and in support of it the complainant filed receipt issued by the Opposite parties and this receipt was never questioned by the opposite parties nor denied its authenticity.

11. It is also not in dispute that the Scientists of the Agricultural University had visited various mandals in pursuance of the letter written by the agricultural authorities of the district and they surveyed and inspected several mandals and villages in respect of quality of the seed supplied by the opposite parties under the brand name Kaveri 225 and they submitted the report which is marked as Ex.A5. Now the contention is that the opposite parties were not informed about the inspection made by the Scientists and there was no complaint by this complainant in respect of the poor quality of the crop or germination. The said contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is itself false as seen from Ex.A5 report. There is a clear mention that the seed company i.e., opposite parties were representative officials by name Sri C.S.Prasad, Quality Control Officer and Sri K.Mohammed, Sales Officer, Kaveri Seeds were present when the fields in various mandals were inspected by the Scientists of the Agricultural University and along with the officers of the Agriculture Department of Nizamabad district. Therefore, this fact of scientists inspecting and examining the crops in the presence of the Officers of the Opposite parties is established from the report itself. In spite of that a vague affidavit is given by RW1 stating that its Officers are not aware when the scientists have inspected the crop. Even in the affidavit, RW1 did not whisper that the names of the Officers representing the seeds company are not the officers actually working in the seeds company of the opposite parties. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Scientists of the Agricultural University had inspected various fields in various mandals as mentioned in the report not only in the presence of Officers of the Agriculture Department of Nizamabad district but also in the presence of the Officers of the Seeds Companies i.e. opposite parties.

12. The report Ex.A5 clearly shows that the seed is sub-standard one and there is also mentioning the reason for the less yield etc. Even at that time, the officers representing the Opposite parties did not raise any objection stating that the management of the crop is not according to the instructions given to the farmers, therefore, it is to be presumed that the complainant raised the crop not according to the instructions and following the methods to raise this crop. Therefore, the objection that the report Ex.A5 cannot be believed is unsustainable. It is the fact that the complainant sustained loss because of the substandard seed supplied by the opposite parties as seen from Ex.A5 report. Now we have to estimate what will be the loss sustained by the complainant by raising maize crop by sowing the seed supplied by the opposite parties. Except the self serving statement of PW1 that he has lost 15 quintals of maize yield per acre as opposite parties promised that this variety of seed is sowed, it will yield 25 quintals per acre. The opposite parties denied that they have explained while selling seed that it will yield 25 quintals of maize crop per acre. Except the statement of PW1, he has not filed any brochure, leaflet or any other material to show that the opposite parties induced him to purchase the seed on the ground that this seed will yield 25 quintals of maize per acre. Even the opposite parties disputed this contention of the complainant. The Scientists of the Agricultural University have opined that the expected yield is only 8 to 10 quintals of maize crop and that was also the expectation of the farmer. When there is no specific promise or evidence that this seed will yield 25 quintals per acre, the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties lured him to purchase the seed cannot be accepted. The complainant also failed to establish what is the actual yield received by him after harvesting the crop and at what rate, he sold the maize in the market. As additional evidence, the complainant’s counsel filed the rates of the various market committees of the Agricultural Market Committee and it shows the rate of the maize is about Rs.540 per quintal that is minimum support price. Therefore, on average, it can be stated that during the said days, the rate of the maize crop is at Rs.500/- per quintal as the minimum is Rs.513 and the maximum is Rs.540/-. Though there is no evidence on record to estimate the loss, however, even otherwise since the Opposite parties supplied the sub-standard variety of seed, they are liable to compensate the loss to the complainant.

13. Had the complainant established what is the yield he received, it would have been better for us to evaluate the loss of the crop. In the complaint and in the affidavit, except stating that he incurred loss of 15 quintals per acre, there is no evidence. Therefore, though there is no definite evidence about the loss, in view of the sub-standard seed supplied by the opposite parties, in our modest opinion, the complainant might have sustained loss of two quintals per acre i.e., Rs.1000/- per acre.

14. Apart from that a paper clipping is also filed to show that in the large extent of area where maize crop of 225 Kaveri variety is raised, there is loss of crop and the yield. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that as there is no definite evidence to estimate the loss, we estimate the loss at Rs.1,000/- per acre. We are also awarding costs of Rs.500/-.

15. IN THE RESULT, the complaint of the Complainant is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000/- per acre towards loss of yield of Maize crop @ 2 quintals per acre @ Rs.500/- per quintal i.e. Rs.4,000/- along with costs of Rs.500/- to the Complainant, within a period of one month from this order. Complainant raised maize in 4.00 acres, he sustained loss of Rs.4,000/-