Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Members
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
PRASAD & ANR.—Respondents
F.A No. 667 of 1996—Decided on 16.6.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. S.M. Dhanuka, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. V. Gourisankar Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Notice served.
The manufacturer is liable for the defective seeds and is responsible for compensating the consumer for the loss of crop yield.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF DEFECTIVE SEEDS - SECTION 2(1)(g) - MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR DEFECTIVE SEEDS - COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR LOSS OF CROP YIELD.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased sunflower seeds from the second opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party. Due to the sub-standard variety of seeds, there was only 30% of the yield, resulting in a loss of 7 quintals. The complainant claimed compensation for the loss.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum awarded compensation to the complainant, holding that the first opposite party, being the manufacturer, should have traced the batch number and sent the seeds for testing. The court relied on the evidence of an Agricultural Officer who inspected the crop and submitted a report.
Issues: Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss of crop yield due to defective seeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the manufacturer is liable for the defective seeds and awarded compensation for the loss of crop yield. The court relied on the evidence of the Agricultural Officer who inspected the crop and submitted a report.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the first opposite party was dismissed, and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President — 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 3½ acres.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 3½ acres and marked Exs. A-l to A-12.
5. 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.
6. 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 17½ 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.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the first opposite party.
8. 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 test
