Farmers are entitled to compensation for losses suffered due to the sale of defective seeds, even in the absence of seed samples for analysis, if other evidence, such as a certificate from an agricultural officer, confirms the defect.

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 t