STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 11 of 2016
AGAINST
CC No. 27 of 2014, DISTRICT FORUM, MEDAK AT SANGA REDDY
Between :
- M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, rep by its officer,
Gundlapochampally village,
Medchel Mandal, R. R. District – 501 401.
- Sri M. Shankaraiah, Dealer in Fertilizers, Pesticides
And Seeds, Door No. 8-65/2A, Jogipet,
Medak District – 502 270. Appellants/Ops no. 1 and 2
And
Kummari Shankaraiah,
S/o Papaiah,
Occ : Agriculture, aged about 36 years,
R/o Paithra village, Kulcharam Mandal
Medak District .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V. Ravindranath Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C. Laxmi Narasimha Reddy
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
Friday, the Sixteenth Day of February
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties to set aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 made in CC 27 of 2014 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Medak at Sanga Reddy.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased Hybrid Water Melon VIKRAM – 117 seeds on 25.11.2013 from the opposite party no. 1 and sowed in his land in survey no .33, Paithra Village , Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District and invested huge amount by purchasing fertilizer and pesticide etc. But unfortunately he sustained heavy loss due to substandard seeds. The opposite party no.1, dealer and opposite party no. 2, manufacturer of the seeds though visited his filed along with officials concerned on his request but did not take any steps. The opposite parties threatened him when he tried to contact them on his mobile phone. He got issued a legal notice on 16.05.2014 for compensation, for which, the opposite parties sent reply rebutting the same on 24.05.2014. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay damages and compensation of Rs.One lakh with interest @ 18% pa and costs.
4). The opposite party no.2 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, which was adopted by the first opposite party, they have sold 10 kgs of seeds in Medak District but no complaints were received by them from any of the farmers. The complainant got good yield and sold away the same in the market and filed the present case to make money illegally. The complainant never approached them till harvesting of the Water Melon crop with any complaint and that the officials of horticulture department did not call them at the time of their inspection to the field of the complainant and that the complainant deliberately sent legal notice to them to which suitable reply was sent. The spoilage of Water Melon crop depends on several factors such as effects of pests, deceases, climatic conditions, soil fertility, irrigation and water logging, application of pesticide and fertilizer etc. and the complainant did not give any particulars about these facts during the crop period and never made any phone call to them. They supplied good quality of seeds which were produced under expert supervision and duly tested before releasing to the market and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the complainants filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 and A-12 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavits of RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked Ex. B-1 and B-2. Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 9% pa. from the date of the complaint till the date of realization with costs of Rs.10,000/- within one month.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the respondent/ complainant has purchased Hybrid Water Melon VIKRAM-117 seeds, pesticide and fertilizer from the opposite party no. 1 dealer vide Ex.A1 to A3 and sowed the same in his land in survey no. 33 situated at Pavitra village, Kulcharam Mandal, Medak District which is standing in the name of his father, K. Papaiah and and Ex. A12 is copy of pahani for the year, 2013-14 in this regard.
11). The contention of the respondent/complainant is that despite taking all precautionary measures and following due procedure, the Water Melon crop was spoiled completely due to it’s inferior quality resulting in substantial monitory loss apart from mental agony to him and in support of his contention he relied on Ex.A10 photographs. He complained the same to the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Medak at Sanga Reddy vide Ex.A4. On his representation, his land was jointly inspected by a team consisting of Scientist (FRS, Sangareddy), Assistant Director of Horticulture, Horticulture Officer (Ramayampet) and Agriculture Officer (Kulcharam) on 29.04.2014 and their contention is that due to improper management the crop was spoiled.
12). The District Forum observed that despite inspection by a team the opposite parties did not take any steps to get examined the sample seeds available with them through an authorized laboratory and established that the seeds were genuine and the District Forum discarded Ex.B2 Joint Inspection report on the ground that photographs under Exs.A5 and A10 contradict Ex.B2 and neither of the parties to the case nor adjacent cultivators of the complainant’s land has been noted on it.
13). Counsel for the appellants/complainants argued that the Committee visited the water Melon field of the respondent/complainant on 29.04.2014 but the field was ploughed by the farmer where there was no crop to see and to estimate the reasons and it proves that the farmer has removed the crop and ploughed his field before the team visited. He further argued that when there is no allegation or complaint on germination of seed, growth of plants, flowering of plants and fruiting of plants, the seed cannot be found fault. The appellants /opposite parties cannot be thrown the burden on the respondent/complainant to prove the inferior quality of seed. Admittedly, he purchased the seeds from the appellants on 25.11.2013 and he sowed the same and despite complaint on 09.04.2014 vide Ex.A4, they have inspected his field on 29.04.2014. The farmer would be able to know whether the seeds are good quality or not at the end of the crop only. If the appellants have b chosen to send the seeds to the laboratory, then they would have been able to know the purity of seeds. As per the arguments of the appellants, the validity period shall be nine months from the date of test at the time of initial certification. Counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent/complainant has purchased the seed in the month of November 2013 which was packed in the month of June, 2013 after testing the seed by the second opposite party and the notices to these opposite parties from the Hon’ble District Forum were served in the month of July, 2014 and by that time the shelf life period of 9 months was over and the shelf life of the seed was expired by the time the notices were served on these appellants/opposite parties. The seeds were sold to the respondent/complainant on 25.11.2013 and he gave complaint on 09.04.2014 and if we calculate in between the said intermittent period, it is within 9 months. The appellants sold old seeds but not new seeds and probably by that reason the crop might have been spoiled. Selling old seeds to the farmers, which are due to be expired within nine months, after a gap of five months, also amounts to deficiency in service.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 in CC 27 of 2014 passed by the District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT Dated : 16.02.2018.
