MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. vs GANGI REDDY CHENNAKRISHNA REDDY

THE unsuccessful first opposite party in CD. No. 234/1998 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Cuddapah, is the appellant in F.A. No. 637/1999. THE appellants in F.A. No. 643/1999 are the complainants, who are dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the District Forum towards compensation.

THE facts in brief are complainants 1 to 3 own AC.2.75 Cents, AC. 2.50 cents and AC 2.50 cents respectively. THEy purchased groundnut seeds of 6.5 and 5 bags respectively at subsidised rates manufactured by the first opposite party, from opposite parties 2 and 3 and sowed them in their respective fields after manuring their lands with oil cakes etc. THE germination was very low and it was almost a failure. THE local Agricultural Officer, who inspected the fields, issued a certificate with regard to the germination and also sent the samples of the seeds taken from the godown of opposite party No. 2 for analysis to the Asstt. Director of Agricultural, (Seed Testing), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, who opined through his report Ex. A-10 that JL 24 and TMV2 varieties of groundnut seeds are substandard. THE complainants alleged that had the crop been fruitful, it would have yielded 15 bags per acre, and they would have earned Rs. 23,300/-, Rs. 22,850/- and Rs. 22,850/- respectively and approached the District Forum for appropriate reliefs. The first opposite party filed its written version stating that there is no evidence to show that these seeds were manufactured by them, and that the seeds would have been damaged while decarticating by human labour or by machines which would effect the germination and that the complainants have not followed the procedure under the Seeds Act. The second respondent (opposite party) filed its written version stating that he is the sole distributor of the seeds manufactured by the first opposite party and the third opposite party is a dealer, and that the manufacturer of seeds, opposite party No. 1, supplied the seeds in air tight sealed packets, which in their turn sold them to the complainant.

Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum framed appropriate points for consideration and allowed the complaint, but held that each acre of crop would have yielded only ten bags of groundnuts and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per bag. Thus the complainants 1 to 3 were awarded Rs. 7,500/-, Rs. 7,500/-, Rs. 7,500 respectively with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 11.8.1999 till realisation.

AGGRIEVED by the said finding and order, the first opposite party preferred F.A. No. 637/1999 and the complainants who are not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them preferred F.A. No. 643/1999. The facts which are not in dispute are that the first opposite party is the manufacturer of seeds, and the second opposite party is its distributor and seller, and the third opposite party is also a seller of the seeds manufactured by the first opposite party.

THE complainants claimed that they have purchased groundnut seeds from the second and third opposite parties manufactured by the first opposite party, under receipts Exs. A-1 to A-3. THEse receipts clearly show that the second opposite party is the Distributor for the first opposite party. THE first opposite party disputes that these seeds would have been manufactured by the dealers. But their contentions have no legs to stand as these receipts clearly show that the seeds were sold at subsidised rates to the Ryots. No other manufacturer sells the seeds at subsidised rate. THErefore, it can be safely said that the seeds purchased by the complainants were manufactured by the opposite party. The opposite parties also further say that if there was no germination within three days the complainants ought to have approached them through their dealer. The complainants are under no obligation to approach them when appropriate relief is available to them elsewhere. The first opposite party sold the groundnut seeds of varieties JL 24, TMV2 to O.P. 2 subsidy was also given under this purchase. These seeds were sold in turn by opposite parties 2 and 3 to the complainants at subsidised rates. The opposite parties allege that the seeds sold to the complainants might not have been manufactured by them. This contention of the first opposite party must be negatived for the reasons, firstly, seeds were sold to the complainants at subsidised rates. No other manufacturer would offer subsidy while selling the seeds. Secondly, soon after the complainants found that there was no proper germination of the seeds they complained to the Agricultural Officer and the Agricultural Officer after inspecting the seeds found only 13 seedlings per square metre instead of 33 seedlings, and issued certificates Exs. A-4 to A-6 which clearly show that the germination was very poor. Not only that, he immediately took samples of the seeds from the godowns of opposite party No. 2 and sent them for analysis to the Seed Analyst Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. Ex. A-10 is the certificate issued by the Asstt. Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. In this certificate, it is specifically mentioned that groundnut JL.24 and TMV2 varieties were tested by him and they were of substandard quality. Ex. A-10 clearly shows that the seeds sold to the second opposite party were sent to the Analyst and after the analysis, the Analyst opined that the seeds are of substandard quality. Ex. A-7 to Ex. A-9 shows that the complainants raised ground nut crop in their land. In those circumstances, the first opposite party cannot be permitted to state that the seeds might not have been manufactured by them. The District Forum has rightly held that the seeds manufactured by the first opposite party, and distributed and sold by opposite parties 2 and 3 are of substandard quality and the complainants have sustained losses.

COMING to the quantum of compensation, the complainants claimed compensation alleging that an acre of land would yield 15 bags of groundnut, and each bag would cost Rs. 500/-. But the District Forum has taken the view that as there is no cogent evidence with regard to the yield, it estimated the crop per acre at 10 bags and awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per bag. We do not find any other way to estimate the losses sustained by the complainants, in the absence of proper evidence. Therefore, we have to agree with the finding of the District Forum.

FOR the reasons aforestated, the appeals filed by both parties fail and they are dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs. Time for compliance six weeks. Appeals dismissed.