DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs SEELAM RAMA MOHAN

THESE appeals were filed by A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation, Hyderabad i.e., second opposite party in Original Petitions Nos. 173/95, 172/95, 171/95, 170/95, 175/95, 178/95 and 174/95 out of which, the above appeals respectively arise.

ALTHOUGH the complainants are different i.e., ryots belonging to the same place and all of them have purchased the paddy seeds which were marketed by the second opposite party i.e., appellant, since common questions arise for consideration and as the District Forum although passed separate orders, as the reasons in each of the orders are same, we are disposing of all these appeals by a common order. The case of the complainants was that they purchased NLR 9672 of paddy seeds from the opposite party No. 1 which was the product of the second opposite party for consideration. After raising the seed bed and transplanting the paddy crop when it reached the maturity stage, the complainants found that there is one variety -ripe for harvest immediately and another Variety will become ripe after 15 or 20 days and the remaining is not likely to become ripe for harvest in near-future. On noticing that there are three varieties of crop inter-mixed, the complainants reported the matter to Mandal Agricultural Officer, Mydukur who inspected the fields on 4.2.95 and issued a certificates Ex. A2 dated 9.2.95 to the effect that he inspected the crops and found that in the total extent of crop raised by various farmers, the crop standing is of three varieties and there is no uniformity of maturity. Alleging that although the first opposite party assured to compensate, but later offered to pay only the price of the paddy seed which the complainant did not receive. Alleging that the complainant harvested the first variety of crop and get only 1/3rd of the yield nor. 10 bags instead of 32 bags per acre, the complaint was filed claiming that the complainants sustained loss of 22 bags per acre, and depending on the extents of lands in which the paddy crop was raised, the complainants claimed varying sums in their complaints.

The first opposite party pleaded that he purchased the seeds from Sri Padmavathi Venkateswara Fertilisers who is the authorised distributor of the second opposite party i.e., A.P. Seeds Corporation, Hyderabad and that he sold the same intact in "sealed bags to the complainants. As it sold the seeds of'' the second opposite party in the same condition in which they were received, if there are any defects, the first Opposite party is not liable for the same.

THE second opposite party submitted that apart from technical objections of territorial jurisdiction that the complainants did not produce any seed bag or any tag or label attached to the seed bag and that the samples of seeds have not been sent to the laboratory for test and that the yield depends on several/factors like nature of soil, preparation of the land, manuring etc., and in any event the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainants is excessive. No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. Exs. A1 and A2 were marked by the complainants and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked by the opposite parties.

THE District Forum held that as part of cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, the complaints are maintainable as the complainants produced Ex. A1 Bill which is not disputed that the seeds purchased by the complainants are manufactured by the second opposite party. Having regard to Ex. A2 the certificate issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Mydukur, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the seeds sold contained three varieties of paddy Which became ripe for harvest at different stages and that therefore the complainants sustained loss due to the circumstance that the entire crop would not be harvested at one time and they would have realised only 1/3rd of the yield. But in the absence of any evidence produced by the complainant to show that the probable yield and also the actual yield realised by them, the District Forum estimated the loss at Rs. 1000/- per acre and accordingly allowed the complaint to that extent and awarded costs of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the said order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. A.P. Seeds Corporation. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the complainant has not taken any steps to send the seeds for analysis, the complaint is not maintainable. But the Dis trict Forum rightly held that the ryots may not have been left with seeds after transplantation and according to the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act, it is open to the opposite parties also to request the District Forum to send the seeds for analysis and being the manufacturer as the opposite party No. 2 will be in possession of seeds, and therefore the complaint are maintainable. We agree with the conclusion of the District Forum.

IT is next contended that in the absence of any proof about the probable yield and also actual yield realised by the complainants, the District Forum ought not have awarded compensation at all. But having regard to the certficate Ex. A2, it is clear that the crop which stands in the field is of three varieties and that there is no uniformity of maturity. As the seeds a mixture of three varieties, it cannot be said that the ryots would have harvested the crop on three occasions as the variety of seeds were spread throughout the field and not in any specified block in the field. If the complainants wanted to harvest when the first variety is ripe, he would have got the yield only to the extent of the first variety and so far as the 2/3rd of the crop is concerned, there is no possibility of getting any yield. Hence it is a clear case where the ryots have suffered damage on account of three varieties of the seeds being supplied by the second opposite party which became ready for harvest at different times. The District Forum awarded only a sum of Rs. 1000/- per acre in the absence of any material produced by the complainants to show that he suffered loss of 22 bags paddy per acre as it cannot be disputed that the complainant suffered loss. In our view, the awarding of compensation of Rs. 1000/-per acre is quite reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive.

WE are therefore satisfied that the District Forum rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1000/- per acre towards loss. WE do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the result, the appeals i.e. FA Nos. 49/96 to 55/96 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. Appeals dismissed.