BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.61 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.39 OF 2012

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Between:

M/s Vishal Seeds (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

H.no.8-2-108/3, Opp: Hastinapuram North,

Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Vanasthalipuram Post,

Hyderabad – 500 070.

…Appellant/Opposite party No.3

And

1)       G.Yellaiah S/o Mallaiah,

          Aged 50 years, Occ: Farmer,

          R/o H.no.2-36/1, Bussapur (vg),

          Siddipet mandal, Medak district-502 114.

Respondent/Complainant

2)       Assistant Director,

          Horticulture-II,

          Sangareddy, Medak – 502 013.

3)       Commissioner & Director of Horticulture,

          Public Garden, Hyderabad – 500 004.

…Respondents/Opposite parties 1 & 2

Counsel for the Appellant        :         Sri P.Sudhir Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents   :         Ms.S.Sasikala Devi-for R1

                                                          Sri P.Vivekananda Reddy-R2 & R3.

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

Wednesday, the Eighth day of March

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the Opposite party No.3 aggrieved by the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy dated 27.12.2013 made in CC No.39 of 2012 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite party No.3 therein to pay the amount of Rs.2,26,500/- towards crop loss as per the report of the Horticulture Department and also to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for the costs granting time of one month for compliance.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant being a poor agriculturist is completely depended on agriculture had purchased the Super Victor variety of tomato seeds of VAGRO company bearing Lot No.8789 weighing 110 grams, on 02.08.2011 for a consideration of Rs.990/- and had sown the said seed in his agricultural lands to an extent of 2 acres i.e., 6 packets per acre.  For raising this crop, the complainant incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.  There was huge growth of plant and vegetation.  Only then, the Complainant could understand that the seed supplied by the Opposite parties is sub-standard and spurious one. 

4)       The complainant brought the same to the notice of the Opposite parties who in turn caused inspection of the land and assessed the loss but failed to give any report.  The same was also brought in the news media and print media, whereby the Horticulture department personnel made move and after due inspection have informed that they initiated cases against the manufacturer of the seed and that the complainant would be compensated appropriately.  In the meantime, the yield was taken to the local market, where the buyers could not come forward to purchase the same.  As such, the total yield was dumped at the office of the Opposite parties 1 and 2. 

5)       The Ops 1 and 2 asked the complainant to keep the crop alike so that they would arrange to get compensation from the manufacturer.  The complainant wasted his time by going from post to pillar without any avail and having vexed with the dubious tactics of the Opposite parties, he sold away his cattle and land.  All this had occasioned due to supply of spurious and sub-standard variety of seed.  The complainant could have got the yield of 45 tonnes per acre and thereby lost 90 tonnes of yield.  The retail price of tomato per kilogram was Rs.22/- and he could have received Rs.22000/- per tonne and thereby sustained loss of Rs.19,80,000/-. 

6)       Thereafter, complainant made many representations to initiate action against the responsible persons and also made application under RTI Act, but of no avail.  Hence, the complaint with the reliefs, as stated at paragraph No.1 supra.

7)       Opposite party No.1 filed its written version contending that they are not aware that complainant is owner and pattadar of the land in which he sowed the subject tomato seeds in question.  The complaint is devoid of any merits, as such, liable to be dismissed.  Unless the sustaining of loss is established by the complainant, complainant is not entitled for any damages.  In case of any conclusion by the Hon’ble Forum, the company shall be solely responsible on the quality, genetic purity or germination of the seed at any stage of the crop and they are not liable or responsible.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint in so far as claim against Opposite parties 1 and 2 are concerned.

8)       Opposite party No.3 filed its written version contending that there are no merits in the complaint and hence liable to be dismissed.  There is no proof to show that the complainant purchased the seed under question and even the survey number in which it is sowed is also not mentioned.  No complaint is received by them from the complainant nor from any quarters from the purchasers during the last 20 years.  They denied to have complainant sustained any loss in the year 2011, much less Rs.2,00,000/-.  No record is filed to show that the same is sowed.  If at all there is any defect in seed, the complainant ought to have made complaint to the Seed Inspector.  The loss of Rs.19,80,000/- is imaginary.

9)       The germination of the seeds will appear within 10 to 15 days of sowing.  The other farmers who purchased the seed under same lot No.8789 are happy with the yield and the letters to that extent are filed.  After genetic test only, the company supplied the seed to the Government, which would also subject to test by the Scientists in Agriculture Department.  The seed will be released after genetic test.  The complaint is not maintainable against them as the same is filed for wrongful gain.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against them with exemplary costs.

10)     During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A11 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, got filed the affidavit of one M.Mohan Rao, Manager of OP No.3 and the documents Ex.B1 to B5.

11)     The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.39/2012 by orders dated 27.12.2013, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.  

12)     Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Opposite party No.3 preferred the above appeal contending that the forum below (a) erred in allowing the complaint against them leaving aside Respondents 2 and 3 who are equally liable; (b) erred in holding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part having failed to consider the Ex.B1 report; (c) failed to appreciate the fact that there is no evidence/proof to show that the seeds purchased by the complainant are those supplied by the Appellant; (d) failed to see that after due satisfaction as to the quality and germination standards of the tomato seed, the Respondents 2 and 3 purchased the seed from them for supply to the farmers; (e) failed to see that under Ex.B2 to B5 the same seed purchased by other farmers under same lot number 8789 did not complain anything; (f) ought to have seen that there are many factors which influence the yield of the crop such as compatibility of the seed with the soil, availability of water, etc.,; (g) failed to see that as per orders in WPMP No.4381/2012 in WP No.3520/2012, dt.12.03.2012, the District Level Committee as well as State Level Committee constituted by the Government are refrained from adjudicating upon or pronouncing any final opinion upon any list brought before them for crop loss and thereby relied upon the report of the District Level Committee.  Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the forum below.

13)     The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

14)     It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 failed to produce any receipt to show that he had purchased the seed and sowed in his fields over an extent of 2 acres.  The appellant would also contend that there is no proof to show that the same seed is sowed in his fields and that no piece of paper is filed to that extent.  It would also contend that after genetic test, the seed is supplied to the government and in turn the government also conducted scientific tests in its laboratory.  To prove that the seed is genetically tested, the Appellant relied on Ex.B1. 

15)     The appellant would contend further that the seed produced under the very same lot number had been sold at different places to different farmers and they had not received a single complaint in that regard and to prove their claim, the Appellant relied on Ex.B2 to B5.  A perusal of Ex.B1 GOT report (Genetic purity) dated 26.06.2011 shows that same is signed by the authorized signatory of M/s Vishal Seeds (P) Ltd.,  It does not contain any name and stamp of the person certifying the genetic purity of the seed nor the qualification and the authenticity of the person to give such a report.  Even otherwise, it is to be stated that the authorized signatory is not the competent authority.  No piece of paper is filed to show that the authorized signatory of the Appellant is competent to give the genetic purity report.  This Commission is unable to comprehend whether authorized signatory is competent to give any genetic purity report, no such provision is filed to convince this Commission.  The Respondents 2 and 3, being supplier of the seed, are supposed to be aware at the time of purchase the seed from the manufacturer or the supplier that the seed being supplied by them are of good quality and are certified by the Government and have been tested in the laboratory.  Particularly, when the Respondent No.1 raised the issue of poor quality of seeds, then the onus was on the Appellant to prove that they have sold the seeds of good quality and of the standards and norms as provided under the Seeds Act.  The Appellant and the Respondents 2 and 3 were supposed to obtain the certification of the Government as well as the report of the laboratory to know about the percentage of the germination, but that was not done.

16)     It is very pertinent to mention here that it is not the case of the appellant that the seed under question is not the produce made by them.  From the perusal of Ex.B2 to B5, it can safely be inferred that the disputed seed is the produce made by the appellant.  Though the appellant invariably denied the loss stated to have been sustained by the Respondent No.1, it failed to whisper anything as to visiting of the fields of the Respondent No.1 by them along with the officials of the Respondent No.2 and 3.  The appellant, repeatedly denied that there is no proof of purchase and date of sowing the seeds in the fields.  Admittedly, the District Level Committee headed by 1) Joint Director of Agriculture, Medak at Sangareddy, 2) Assistant Director of Agriculture, Siddipet, 3) Assistant Director of Horticulture, Medak at Siddipet, 4) Agriculture Officer, Siddipet and 5) Horticulture Officer, Siddipet have not only visited the agricultural field of the Respondent No.1 but also various other farmers and have concluded the nature of loss as “unacceptable fruit shape and fruit quality” resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.2,26,500/-. 

17)     In so far as purchase of the seed by the Respondent No.1 and sowing the same in his agricultural field are concerned, Ex.A1 reveals that the Respondent No.1 is in possession of the land and was supplied the subject seed by the Respondents 2 and 3 in the month of August 2011.  Hence, the contention of the appellant that there is no proof holds no water.  The District Level Committee, as stated supra, observed that the growth of the plants was not proper and the shape and quality of the fruit was unacceptable.  This report has also not been rebutted by the Appellant in any manner.  Except the document Ex.B1, there is no other document to prove that the seeds produced by the Appellant were certified or properly analyzed in the laboratory. 

18)     From the perusal of letters under Ex.A3 to A5, it is evident that the Respondent No.1 has visited the Respondents 2 and 3 and informed them the sad plight of the crop.  In turn, the matter was also taken-up with the appellant, but to no avail.  The Respondent No.1 has suffered loss and mental agony on account of the defective seed supplied by the Appellant.  The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that in view of the Agreement between APSSDC, Hyderabad (nodal agency) and seed supplying company, the company shall be solely responsible in case of any complaint on the quality either on genetic purity or germination etc., of the seed at any stage of the crop and they alone shall be held responsible for all consequences arising out of any complaint.  Admittedly, the Appellant failed to shift its burden by exhibiting any document to show that the subject seed supplied by them is of genetic purity. 

19)     The Appellant had not denied the fact of poor yield and it is established that the Appellant had the knowledge of the poor yield of the crop of the Respondent No.1 and other farmers who raised tomato crop in their fields. The Respondents 2 and 3 by forming a District Level Committee had inspected the field of the Respondent No.1 and other farmers.  The Respondents 2 and 3 informed the Respondent No.1 and other farmers that they would take the matter to the notice of Appellant and in spite of the same, the Appellant had not taken any action in this regard.  Even otherwise, the District Level Committee consists of Agricultural Department who are the technical persons to evaluate the correct position in regard to the crop and its stage as was found by them in the fields of the Respondent No.1 and other farmers.  The counsel for the Appellant could not explain how it affects the visit of the District Level Committee at fag end stage of the crop when they are competent and technically empowered to evaluate the loss.

20)     It is well settled proposition of law that, in dispensation of justice, no other importance should be given to technicalities.  Ultimately, it is not the means but ends have to be seen in achieving justice.  After all, under the Consumer Protection Act strict rules of procedure are not applicable.  In fact, it is clear from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act that it is to provide a forum for speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes.  It has to observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give reliefs of a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate compensation to consumers.  When such is the intendment of the enactment, hyper technical rules need not be taken into cognizance.  In view of the matter, this Commission holds that the impugned order does not require any interference and it do not see any flaw in the well-considered orders of the forum below.  In the circumstances discussed supra, the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.13, supra, is answered against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent No.1. 

21)     In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-.  Time for compliance : four weeks.

PRESIDENT

Dated 08.03.2017