CHEETHIRALA PULLAIAH SONS vs ALAVALAPATI CHANDRA REDDY

CHEETHIRALA Pullaiah Sons and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited, the opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 441/91 on the file of the District Forum, Cuddapah are the appellants herein. The complainants 1 and 3 are the respondents.

THE case of the complainants is that on the advise of the Agricultural Officer, Lingala, they wanted to grow sun flower seeds and the Agricultural Officer, Lingala issued permits to purchase sunflower seeds from the respondents and the complainants purchased the same from them, and sowed it. We are not concerned in this appeal with the second complainant. According to the complainants they purchased the seed in their own name and in the name of his brothers, as the department is giving two bags to each ryot. But when the complainants sowed the seed in the month of September, 1991, when it rained, the seeds sowed did not germinate. THEy reported the matter to the respondents. Although they promised to come to the village and inquire into it, they did not do so. THE Agricultural Officer, to whom they have complained, inspected the spot and found that the seeds did not germinate. Alongwith the complaint they filed the receipts showing the purchase of seeds from the respondents and also the letter written by the Agricultral Officer to the opposite parties. Since the seeds did not germinate, they claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- peracre to be paid to the complainants alongwith the cost of seeds Rs. 432/- per bag. The opposite parties i.e. the appellants herein filed a written statement contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the Seeds Act is applicable and the case has to be decided under the provisions of that Act and that therefore, the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They also contended that the sample of seeds have not been sent to the laboratory for test and that therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

It is further submitted that as there is no evidence on record that the complainants have sown the seeds which were marketed by the respondent and for getting good crop and yield it is just and necessary that the land must also be fit and suitable and sufficient water has been supplied and manure and fertilizers have been given to the field. As the complainants have not filed any material to show that the land is fit etc. It cannot be said that the seeds were defective and the crop is not satisfactory. It was also stated that the seeds were verified and tested by the competent authority and is fit for sale. In any event, the National Forum has already decided in many matters that as the enquiry under the Act is only summary, this case requires detailed enquiry and involves complicated questions of law and fact. It is a fit case that the District Forum shall refuse to consider the claim of the complainants.

ON the basis of the above pleadings and on the evidence of receipts issued by the opposite party and having regard to the contents of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer, Lingala dated 22.11.1991 the District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that the two bags of sun flower seeds purchased by the complainants 1 and 3 were not of good and fertile quality and accordingly the compensation was estimated for non-realisation of any yield at Rs. 2,000/- per acre and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and also Rs. 864/- for cost of seed to each of the complainants. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 100/- towards costs. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

SRI Shubakaran Dhanuka, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that firstly, that the Complaint was not solved by all the complainants. Secondly, that the District Forum should have sent the seed for proper analysis or tests. Thirdly that the complainants have not established that they have made up the field properly for sowing the seeds with manure etc. Fourthly, that the seeds were purchased for commercial purpose and that therefore, the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and lastly, that the compensation awarded is excessive. We shall take up these contentions in seriatum. So far as the first contention is concerned, we verified the original complaint filed and we found that it was signed by all the complainants. Therefore, this contention is rejected. The second contention is that the District Forum should have sent the seeds for analysis to find out whether the seeds sold were defective. This argument is based on the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the said clause it was mentioned that where the complaint alleged a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and send to the appropriate laboratory for analysis or test. But the significant words are that where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods. In this case, the complainants alleged that they have purchased the seeds from the opposite parties. To this extent there is no dispute. According to the complainants they purchased the seeds and sowed them. The Agricultural Officer reported to the first opposite party on 22.11.1991 through a letter which mentioned that he sent the ryots of Lingala to them to purchase the sunflower seeds on permits. But those seeds have not germinated and that he personally went and saw. He therefore wrote the above letter asking the opposite parties to give compensation to them. It was further mentioned that they would be visiting the place on 27th. But they have not visited the place. To the aforesaid letter, no reply was sent by the opposite parties. Thus, it is clear that it is on the permit granted by the Agricultural Officer that the complainants purchased seeds from the opposite parties and that the same Agricultural Officer visited the land and found that there was no germination. In view of the letter written by the Agricultural Officer to the opposite parties to which they sent no reply it is clear that the same seeds that were purchased from the opposite parties were sown and they did not germinate. In view of the aforesaid letter of the Agricultural Officer, the District Forum felt that the seeds need not be sent for analysis. Moreover, if the opposite parties have disputed that the seeds were not defective they would have applied to the District Forum to send the samples of seeds from the said batch for analysis by appropriate laboratory. But the opposite parties have not chosen to file any application for sending the seeds to any laboratory. Since it is probable that the complainants have sown all the seeds purchased by them, they were not in a position to send seeds for analysis. In these circumstances, the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by the circumstances that it has not on its own accord sent the seeds for analysis by an appropriate laboratory.

THE third contention that complainants have not proved that they have manured and watered the field properly and that therefore they are not entitled to any relief cannot be accepted for the reason that in the complaint it was dearly stated that they have purchased the seeds for so wing and that the seeds did not germinate. It is clear from the letter of the Agricultural Officer that the opposite parties inspite of their promise never visited the fields of the complainants. THE opposite parties did not adduce any material to show that complainants did not manure properly or that there is some defect in the field. In the absence of such evidence and in view of the conduct of the opposite parties not visiting the fields and having regard to the allegation in the complaint that there rain in the month of September, 1991 and the complainants sowed the seeds and it cannot be said that there is any defect either in the manure or in preparation of the soil for sowing sunflower seeds.

DEALING with the fourth contention, that the complainants are not consumers, it must be noticed that the case of the complainants is that they purchased the seeds for sowing them in their own land and not for commercial purpose. But it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since sunflower seeds grown in the field are commercial crops and normally sold in the market, the purchase of the seeds itself for growing the sunflower plants is a commercial purpose. We are not inclined to agree with the said contention. Evidently, the seeds purchased is for the purpose of sowing them in the fields of the complainant and not for resale or purchase for any commercial purpose. The sunflower seeds realized from the sunflower plant after their growth may be sold in the market or may be used for making oil. If the reasoning that since the crop is sold in the market and therefore the purchase of the very seeds for sowing in the field is a commercial purpose accepted, the same thing will apply even in case of raising of paddy corp, wheat and for that purpose any corp. Normally, the ryots will raise paddy crop in their fields for their consumption and if they have any excess will sell in the market. The learned Counsel for the appellants strongly relied in the decision of the National Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/s. Jain Irrigation System Limited and Another v. Malgonda Anna Patil and Others II (1992) CPJ 404 (NC) and contended that the seeds purchased for raising commercial crop is also for commercial purpose. In the said case, the complainants are growers of grapes. They purchased from the appellants land drip irrigation system to irrigate their lands which were used for growing grape vine. Since dip irrigation system was found to be defective in its purpose and consequently has suffered loss in grape, the complainants claimed compensation. The State Commission held that the material on record shows that complainants are agriculturists having very meagre parcel of land measuring half acre to one acre. They purchased the system with the motive to irrigate their crop of grapes as it is a tender plant and it requires constant irrigation. The water being in little supply, the system in question has been purchased to keep the plants alive with minimum water supply. Considering these facts we cannot imagine that the motive of complainant was to earn profit and therefore the system was purchased for commercial purpose". It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants before the National Commission that the grapes are purely cash corp (2) the quantum of income expected are for sale of grapes and (3) sale of grapes is against cash payment. Considering these circumstances that grape cultivation is carried on as commercial activity and that therefore the purpose of drip irrigation system is for commercial purpose. The National Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission held : that "In the light of the special facts and circumstances made out in this case, we are satisfied that the appellants are well founded in their contention that the purchase of the drip irrigation system was for a commercial purpose. In consequence, the purchasers of the system cannot be regarded as consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986". The complainants in this case have purchased seeds for sowing in their land. But in the instant case it cannot be said that the income earned from the Ac.2.00 of sun flower plants is very high or that there is any material to show that the sale of the corp is against cash. Moreover as already pointed out the seeds are purchased for sowing in the land i.e. for the own use of the fanner. Merely because the ultimate yield will normally be sold in the market, it cannot be said that the seeds purchased for growing plants is for commercial purpose. Hence we have no hesitation to reject the contention and the same is rejected.

It is lastly submitted that the compensation awarded is very high. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Moreover compensation awarded is only at Rs. 2,000/- per acre. As there is a total loss of corp, we cosider the same as quite reasonable.

IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.