A.P. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. vs D.PRAKASH RAO

THE unsuc-cessful opposite party in C.D. No. 185/1994 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal, is the appellant before this Commission. THE facts in brief that both the complainants owned 20 acres of land in Sy. Nos. 125 and 126 at Koyaguda Yellapur (Ramnagar) of Eturunagaram Mandal, Warangal District. THE opposite party made wide publicity, and prevailed over the complainants to raise redgram in their land. On the assurance of the opposite party, the complainants purchased 80 kgs. of redgram seed on 13.10.1993 under Bill No. 24166 for an amount of Rs. 2,902.40 ps. THE opposite party deputed its officer and under his supervision the seeds were sowed. THE concerned officer also noted down every stage of the crop on the books maintained for this purpose. THE complainants incurred an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards expenses for raising the crop.

THE growth of the crop was very healthy and it was like a forest, but it did not yield any flowers. THE price of redgram is Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,100/- per quintal and the complainants would have got not less than Rs. 10,000/- per acre had the crop yielded properly. THE crop has to be harvested by the end of March, 1994, but till the date of filing of the C.D. i.e., 13.4.1994, the crop did not yield even flower let alone fruit. Only on the basis of the guarantee furnished by the opposite party and on the assurance of the officals deputed by the opposite party, the seeds were sowed. THE opposite party supplied defective seed negligently and the refore, the complainants are entitled for a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- and another sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards expenses and damages. The complainants, therefore, approached the District Forum.

The opposite party filed its written version alleging that the dispute does not come within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it is only a commercial transaction; and the second complainant raised the crop, but the first complainant was the purchaser of the seeds. It is also further alleged that the Seed Officer of the opposite party by name V. Sadanand inspected the plot of twenty acres on 4.4.1994 and found it to be divided into two plots bearing Nos. 15148 and 15149 respectively and the first plot bearing No. 15148 was rejected at the time of first inspection itself, as the seed plot and the contaminant plots are in the flowering stage, the isolation distance is not maintained and the inspection report shows that the complainants are advised to control pest and the standing crop was only in nine acres. On 2.3.1994, V. Sadanand again inspected the plot and in his inspection report, he specifically mentioned that the failure of the crop was due to pest infestation. There is no basis for the estimation of the loss; and the certificate of the Agricultural Officer has no basis; and the complainants failed to give the details of expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- and the price per quintal of redgram is only Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party asserted that it supplied good foundation seed, and it is not responsible for any loss incurred by the complainant.

BASING on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum framed appropriate points for consideration and held that the complainants are consumers and the dispute is a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also found that the seeds were defective and there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party; and allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the opposite party preferred this appeal. 7. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainants have purchased 80 kgs. of redgram seed for Rs. 2,902.40 ps. on 13.10.1993 on the assurance given by the opposite party and the wide publicity given by it that the yield would be more. The opposite party took a plea that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. It is a settled law that when defective seeds are supplied by any manufacturer the said dispute comes within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party was rightly negatived by the District Forum. This Commission in Mahboob Baig v. Rayalaseema Seeds Corporation, 1996 (1) CPR 257 held as follows : "Purchase of seeds for the purpose of agriculture is not a purchase of an article for commercial purpose. Following the aforesaid decision of the National Commission we hold that the purchase of chilli seeds in the instant case which is admittedly for the purpose of agriculture is not a commercial purpose."

In view of the above proposition of law, it was rightly held by the District Forum that the complainants are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. With regard to the sowing of the seeds, it is admitted by the opposite party that they deputed an officer for sowing the seeds and under his supervision only the seeds were sown. When such is the case the opposite party cannot be permitted to take a stand that the distance between the seeds was not properly maintained. It is also admitted by the opposite party that its officer was being deputed for periodical inspection to verify the land and the crop. The officers were periodically visiting the lands of the complainants and under their supervision only, the crop was grown. 9. The District Forum appointed an Advocate-Commissioner, and the Commis-sioner took the assistance of an Agricultural Officer and the Agricultural Officer submitted his report Exs. C-1 and C-5. Ex. C-1 indicates that though the redgram crop was grown up like a forest, there was no flowering and fruits at the time of inspection made by PW-3 along with the Commissioner P.W-4. The evidence of P.W-3, Agricultural Officer and the Commissioner, P.W-4 coupled with Exs. C-1 and C-5 clearly show that though the crop was grown like a forest, it did not yield single flower or fruit. The photographs, Exs. C-6 to C-14 also show that the plants rose to a height of five feet, and the entire crop is green in colour without any flowers and fruits. Only on the directions of the Officer of the opposite party the seeds were sowed in the month of October and admittedly the duration of the crop is only 150 days. The Commissioner appointed by the District Forum and the Agricultural Officer visited the field only after a lapse of 180 days and they found that not even a single redgram fruit was grown in the entire land. Though a notice was issued by the Commissioner of his intending visit to the fields, no officer was deputed by the opposite party. 10. On behalf of the opposite party, RW-1 was examined. He was the officer deputed by the opposite party to make periodical inspections of the crop. He states that there inadequate isolation between the plants and that the crop was rejected. Ex. B-7 is the report of the opposite party rejecting the said land for growing the crop. The complainants did not question the rejection order made by the opposite party and, therefore, they cannot claim any compensation in respect of the ten acres of land. R.W-5 stated that as per the direction of P.W-1, the second complainant herein has approached the Seed Certiying Officer, R.W-1. He inspected the said land. The report of the Commissioner as well as the evidence of the Agricultural Officer indicate that there was total failure of crop in an extent of ten acres of land. R.W-3 stated that the seeds were sowed in unseason. R.W-1 stated that as per his observations, the crop was at the flowering stage and during his second inspection it was infested with pests. If the seeds are sowed in unseason, they were sowed at the behest of the officer of the opposite party, but not on their own volition. Therefore, the responsibility clearly lies with the opposite party. Not only that, the officer of the opposite party was present when the seeds were sown in the land of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party cannot take shelter on the ground that the seeds were sowed in unseason. R.W-1 states in his evidence that he inspected the fields twice and during his first inspection he found that the crop was at the flowering stage and during his second visit he found that the crop was infested with pests. This was stated by him in his cross-examination. But in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination he stated that the complainants have used more pesticides and that the crop was grown like a forest without flowering. The witness has failed to explain these contradictions. In one breath he says that due to the excessive use of pesticides the crop has grown like a forest; while in another breath he states that due to pests there was no flowering. Both the statements are irreconcible, and it must be held that the witness was speaking falsehood. For these reasons, it must be held that the crop was raised by the complainants only at the instance of the opposite party and under the supervision of its officers. 11. There is evidence that though the crop grew like a forest, it did not yield even a flower or fruit. Coming to the quantum of damages, the report of the Commissioner and the assessemnt of the Agricultural Officer indicate that the loss is 100%. The photographs also show that there was not even a flower or fruit grown in any of the plants. Therefore, it must be held that the loss is 100%. The complainants are entitled for the loss of the crop sustained by them in 10 acres of land only. To their knowledge crop in ten acres of land was rejected by the opposite party. The District Forum arrived at an yield of 7 quintals per acre and the market rate was at Rs. 10,000/- and awarded Rs. 70,000/- towards damages. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 2,000/- . Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.