MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEED CO. LTD. vs GOWRI PEDDANNA

THE opposite parties in C.D. No. 112/1999 on the file of the District Forum, Kurnool are the appellants. THE case of the complainant is that he purchased cotton seed NHH-44 2nd from the second appellant manufactured by the first appellant and sowed the same in 3.00 Acres of land in Survey No. 359 of Yanakandla Village, Kurnool District. He incurred Rs. 35,000/- towards agricultural operations including fertilisers, pesticides, etc. and adopted Farm management techniques. But the crop failed contrary to the assurances given by the appellants. He complained the failure of crop to the appellant Field Officer at Kurnool, but there was no response. THE failure of the crop is due to genetic purity in the quality of the seed manufactured by the first appellant and supplied by the second appellant. On complainants from ryots the concerned M.A.O. (Mandal Agriculture Officer) inspected the field and expressed that the failure of the crop is due to genetic impurity. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the appellants who sent a contentious reply. Hence the complaint.

THE appellants in their separate written versions while denying the material allegations in the complaint stated that the complainant is not a consumer since he did not directly purchase the seed. THEre is no proof that the complainant used the very same seed purchased. Loss of crop may not be solely due to the defect in the seed. THE first appellant further stated that it is not responsible inasmuch as the second appellant dealer sold the loose seed while the second appellant further stated that the sample seed was not sent to any laboratory for confirmation of the defect in the seed. THE District Forum on the basis of the material on record allowed the complaint directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per acre towards loss of crop including fertilisers etc. and special compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony. Hence the appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants reiterates the objections raised in the written versions. The main objection seems to be that the failure of crop does not necessarily depend upon defect in the genetic purity of the seed. It is further stated that the seed was tested before release and a certificate No. 21028 dated 31.5.1998 was issued by A.P. State Seed Certification Agency stating that the purity of the seed is 99.6% and the genetic purity as 94.7%. As such the complainant''s allegation that the seed is defective cannot be accepted. It is elaborated further that failure of the crop may depend upon several factors like climatic conditions, nature of the soil, method of cultivation, etc. The complainant filed the Bill dated 6.6.1998 showing purchase of Mahyco Cotton NHH 44 seed that it was purchased for Rs. 16,100/- from the second appellant under Bill No. 2444. He sowed the seed. When the complainant realised that there was failure of crop he informed the said fact to the Field Officer of the opposite party at Kurnool requesting him to visit the land, but there was no response. The M.A.O. also inspected the field and opined that the crop failed due to genetic impurity. The complainant also filed the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer Banganpalle. He examined Nagabushanam Shetty as P.W. 1 to prove the purchase since the bill stands in the name of P.W. 1. The Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Retd. was appointed as Commissioner by the District Forum. It is stated in his report that spacing between rows of the plants is ideal, plant population is optimum, though the crop is full of flowers but flower dropping noticed due to physiological aging, pest and diseases not seen, plants are not of uniform height, cotton is of poor quality and may yield 40 to 50 kgs. per acre. Branching of the plants is poor and short. Investment should have been atleast Rs. 10,000/- per acre. ''Farmers'' sincerity in cultivating the crop with proper methods cannot be doubted. He further observed that the plants are not uniform in size and branching about 60% of plants are erect and less branched and height is 120 to 130 cms. 20% of the plants are 40 to 50 cms., with flowers and defective cotton. In all the plants branching is poor and short hence plant is compact in appearance....

In view of these facts as reported by the Commissioner, the contentions of the appellants that the complainant might not have followed appropriate Farm techniques is not correct. The variation of plant height from 40 cms. to 150 cms. certainly indicates defect in the seed and the seed is not uniform. The crop also as noticed by the Commissioner is very poor and the quantity is also poor which may be about 40 to 50 kgs. per acre. The disorderly plant growth as well as poor and short branching of the plants is enough proof to conclude that the seed used is of poor quality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is defect in the seed manufactured and supplied by the appellants.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that as per the Certificate No. 5958 the genetic purity of the seed is 94.7% and hence the apprehension of the complainant that the seed is defective cannot be countenanced. Although Batch No. 5958 is mentioned in the receipt at the time of purchase of the seed, but having regard to the observations of the Commissioner we are of the opinion that the seed supplied was not from the Batch certified under Certificate No. 5958. If that is the case the crop would not have been in such a shabby, irregular and poor state. THErefore, the seed supplied was not the certified seed. It is next contended that the complainant has not sent the sample seed for testing to any laboratory. The complainant who has grown the cotton crop in a small extent of land of 3 acres might not have kept back a part of the seed for sending the same to a laboratory for testing. having regard to the assurance given by the opposite parties. The complainant never doubted their assurances. Therefore, he might not have preserved part of the seed. The affidavit of one B. Thimmareddy, an adjacent land owner of the complainant also supports the version of the Commissioner that the crop did not have normal growth, that the boll bearing is nil. He recovered 25 quintals of cotton per acre by sowing bunny cotton seed in his land. For these reasons we are of the opinion that non-sending of the seed by the complainant for laboratory test is not fatal. It is next contended that the seed was purchased by P.W. 1B. Nagabushanam Shetty and not the complainant and hence the complainant is not a consumer. P.W. 1 in his affidavit clearly stated that the complainants in C.D. Nos. 112/1999 to 125/1999 approached him on 5.6.1998 with request to buy NHH 44 cotton seed from the second opposite party with a view to reduce and minimise the expenditure for travel and other miscellaneous expenditure. Accordingly he purchased 70 bags of NHH 44 cotton seed by paying Rs. 16,000/- distributed seed among the complainants referred to above. Hence it is seen that the said Nagabushanam Shetty has purchased the seed for the benefit of the complainant and as such the complainants are consumers. Hence this contention also has no force.

IT is next contended that the compensation awarded is excessive. The normal yield as expected as per the report of the Commissioner as well as the complainant is more than 8 quintals per acre. Having regard to this normal yield per acre, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre towards the loss suffered by the complainant is reasonable. Special compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony suffered also cannot be said to be unreasonable. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, order of the District Forum is unassailable. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for payment 6 weeks. Appeal dismissed.