K. ANJAIAH vs NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.

THE appellant in F.A. No. 962/2002 is the complainant in C.D. No. 312/2000 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.

THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he purchased four packets of Carrot P.K. Seed of 250 grams in November, 1992 from sales counter of opposite party No. 1 at Musheerabad and sowed the said seed in 3/4th of his land and saw that the growth and flowering of the carrot plant was good in February, 1993, there was not tubering. On 28.4.1994 he complained to the opposite party and also sent a representation to Assistant Director of Horticulture. THE said officer inspected his field and submitted his report on 13.5.1993 wherein he stated that there was no development of carrot tuber and the same as remained root like in the soil and that except flowering there is no formation of tuber for which the reason can be late planting or non-adaptability of the variety to the climatic conditions. THE complainant further submits that opposite party clarified that the best season for sowing this seed is August to November and the complainant delayed sowing of this seed by one month and sowed the same in December, due to which he got a bad crop. Once again the complainant purchased 2 kgs. of carrot seed for Rs. 140/- from opposite party office on 8.10.1993 and sowed the same in Ac. 1 of his land. Second time also there was no tuberisation though there was growth in the plants and once again the complainant made a representation to the opposite party officers seeking clarification. The officers visited and suggested certain manures and after applying manure he represented to opposite party and the opposite party gave a formal reply on 22.2.1994 that there was no defect in the seed and that the said seed must be sowed in the month of August itself which is inconsistent with their own statement that the said seed must be used during August and November vide their letter dated 28.6.1993. The complainant submits that the yield of October varies from 20,000 to 30,000 kgs. per hector and the average yield of carrot crop would be 10,000 kgs. per hector and since he raised the variety in 3/4th acre the loss of crop is 7,500 kgs. and taking the market rate into consideration at Rs. 2.70 ps. loss amounts to Rs. 20,625/- and similarly for the second season the loss of crop for 1 acres is 15,000 kgs. and the market rate at Rs. 3.70 ps. per kg. the loss comes to Rs. 56,250/- and since the opposite party has provided defective seeds leading to the losses, he claimed a sum of Rs. 61,775/-.

The opposite party filed a counter stating that the complainant is not a ''Consumer'' since he raised the carrot crop for commercial purpose and that the said seeds sold by the Corporation are subjected to test by recognized laboratory and that proper care and attention was not taken at appropriate stages and, therefore, the complainant could not achieve expected results. Opposite party submits that the complainant ought not to have sowed the carrot seed in December, 1993 and the said seed has to be sown in August only in this region. The opposite party also contended that the said seed was not sent for testing to any laboratory. Opposite party also denies the allegation that for the second time the complainant faced the same problem of non-tuberisation and said that they did not receive any complaint to this effect. Opposite party further submits that they are not liable to pay any compensation since the yield depends on variety of facts such as water, manuring, climatic conditions, etc. and loss of crop, if any, is not due to the defective seeds supplied by them.

BASED on the evidence and the pleadings put forward and also after examination of P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 and Exs. A1 to A14, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submited that as per Ex. A4, opposite party addressed a letter on 28.6.1993 stating that the said seeds are to be sown between August and November and that the appellant/complainant received a low yield because the seeds were sown in the month of December. When the problem of improper tuberisation arose again in the second season, once again the appellant sought clarification from the respondent/opposite party and he was informed that the seeds are to be sown in August only, when the appellant had sown them in the month of October. It was contended by the respondent/opposite party Counsel that the said seeds were not sent for examination of Seed Analyst. This contention does not hold good in the instant case as it was held by the Apex Court in III (1998) CPJ 8, that if the respondent/opposite party disputes about the defects of the seed, they themselves could have applied to the District Forum to send the sample seed for analysis. In the instant case nothing stopped the respondent/opposite party from sending the said seeds for testing to prove their case that the seeds were not defective since it can be inferred that the appellant/complainant, would have utilized all the seeds available with him, for farming. Except for contending that the appellant/complainant has not followed proper procedures and had sown the seeds in the wrong months and also that other external factors like climatic conditions, improper manuring, etc. are the causes for improper tuberisation, the respondent/opposite party has not adduced any evidence to support his plea that there was no deficiency of service on their behalf. Counsel for the respondent/opposite party also submitted that the carrot crop was grown for ''commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a ''Consumer''. The National Commission held in I (1995) CPJ 45 (NC), has stated that ''Agriculture is a provision distinct from Commerce and that even if the farmer grows carrot or sunflower seeds, it cannot be deemed to be a commercial activity'' and, therefore, the appellant/complainant in the instant case falls under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

TAKING into consideration, the Horticultural Officers'' reports and Exs. A4 and A11, wherein the respondent/opposite party has given inconsistent replies to the representations made by the appellant/complainant, we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of respondent/opposite party for having supplied defective seeds resulting in crop loss by the appellant/complainant. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and keeping in view, the claim of the complainant, we feel it just and expedient to award Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of crop for two seasons inclusive of expenses incurred, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

IN the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and award Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of crop for two seasons inclusive of expenses incurred together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal allowed.