MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO.LTD vs Prasad

THE complainant in O.P. 74/95 District Forum, Nizamabad purchased on 30.11.1994 from the second opposite party 2 kgs. of sunflower seeds which were manufactured by the first opposite party i.e. M/s. Mahyco. According to the complainant due to the sub- standard variety of the seeds supplied, there was only 30% of the yield. As the normal yield is 10 quintals, the complainant sustained a loss of 7 quintals. THErefore the complainant claimed a lossof Rs. 34.000/- at the rate of Rs. 1,400/-per quintal for 3 acres.

THE first opposite party resisted the claim on the ground that the complainant should have made the Hyderabad Branch as opposite party and not the Regional Manager of M/s. Mahyco and the seeds were not sent to the laboratory for testing and that the seeds sold by the first opposite party were tested in their quality control laboratory and then only released in the market. Moreover the yield depends on the climatic condition, nature of soil, fertilisers and pesticides used by the complainant and hence it cannot be said that the low yield is only due to the defect in the seeds. The second opposite party resisted the claim on the ground that the complainant had not submitted any empty seed bags or cartons to indicate under what lot number it was purchased and there was no evidence to show that he sowed the original Mahyco seeds and the yield depends on the land, climatic conditions etc., and hence it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant examined himself as PW 1 and an Agricultural Officer who was appointed by the District Forum and who visited the field and estimated the loss was examined as PW 2 and Village Administrative Officer was examined as PW 3 who stated that the complainant raised sunflower in his land of 3 acres and marked Exs. A-l to A-12.

ON behalf of the opposite parties, no documents were marked. But the Manager of the second opposite party society was examined as RW 1 to show that the complainant got good yield, and the territorial Manager of the first opposite party was examined as RW 2 to show that the reasons for floral budding is due to presence of excess Nitrogen under the soil and the floral buds will not affect the main yield. The District Forum on a consideration of the evidence held that the price of quintal of sunflower seed can be taken as Rs. 1,000/- and that the complainant lost the crop of 17 quintals for 3 acres which worked out to Rs. 17,500/- on the basis of that the loss of yield for each acre was 5 quintals, and awarded the said sum of Rs. 17,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. and directed payment of Rs. 200/- towards Commissioner''s fee and Rs. 300/- towards costs of the proceeding.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the first opposite party. It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant has not sent the seeds purchased by him for testing to any laboratory and that therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We are not inclined to agree with the said contention, since the seeds were purchased by a small farmer for the purpose of raising sunflower crop normally after sowing the land with the seed, he won''t keep any seeds in anticipation of any defect in the seeds. The seeds purchased by him will be utilised for raising the crop. It was only after a period of three months or so, when he found that the yield is far lower than the normal yield expected, he filed the complaint. It therefore cannot be said that he retained some seed with him for the purpose of sending the same to a Laboratory. On the other-hand the first opposite party being the manufacturer and depending on the date of purchase by the dealer, should have traced the batch number, date of production and sent that batch of seeds to the laboratory for testing. Hence we are not inclined to accept the contention that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the failure of the complainant to get the seeds tested in the Laboratory. Although the opposite party No. 1 stated that they got tested the seeds in their quality control laboratory, no documents were filed to show that this batch of seeds underwent any test. The District Forum relied on Exs. A-4 to A6 and held that the complainant purchased the seeds from the second opposite party and they are manufactured by the first opposite party. It also relied on the evidence of PW 2 the Agricultural Officer who was appointed by the District Forum and who inspected in the presence of both the parties and according to whom that the size shoots buds are of no use and 60% of the crop was having side shoots. The crop was having 5 to 6% side tillers and because of the presence of side tillers the yield of the crop will be reduced and he did random sampling and submitted Ex.A-7 report. In our view the District Forum rightly relied on the report of the Agricultural Officer and came to the conclusion that there is lesser yield. The evidence of PW 3 also shows that the complainant is having 3 acres of land and he raised sun flower seeds. The evidence of RW 2 that even if there are floral buds, there will not be any effect to main yield cannot be accepted in view of the evidence of PW 2 who is an Agricultural Officer and who was appointed by the District Forum to inspect the crop and submit a report. The Agricultural Officer stated that the normal yield will be between 8 to 10 quintals per acre and he estimated the yield from the land at 4 quintals and the loss at 5 quintals. Having regard to the random sampling done by the PW 2 i.e. Agricultural Officer, we are inclined to place reliance on the evidence of PW 2 and his report. We, therefore, do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.