IMPORTANT POINT
Where cotton seed sold to complainant agriculturists are found to be defective, the liability to pay compensation would be that of the manufacturer and marketer of the seed.

Syed Abdullah, Member—The appellants 1 and 2 are the unsuccessful Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in CD 199/99 before the District Forum, Warangal against whom an order dated 29.12.2006 was passed directing to pay compensation @ Rs.10,800 per acre to each of the complainants 1 to 10 to the extent of the land in which the seeds that were sown and those seeds were produced and sold by the opposite parties, so also, directed to pay the interest on the respective amounts due.

2. The impugned order has been challenged as erroneous and sought to set aside taking the stand that in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the seeds were of inferior quality or defective one especially, when there is an admission by the complainants that the genetic purity is good which was also certified by the Cotton Scientist of Fact Finding Committee that the genetic purity is good.

3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainants are residents of Mallampalli village, Warangal District and they are Agriculturists. OP 1 is a Manufacturer, OP 2 is a Marketer, OP 3 Distributor and OP 4 is the Dealer of cotton seeds. The complainants have purchased 450 gms Ajeet seed variety cotton from OP 4 for Rs. 270 per packet and those seeds were produced by OP 1. The complainants were assured that the yield of cotton would be 70 to 80 quintals per acre and on that assurance after purchasing the same they sowed the same their lands. After taking precautions they have raised the seeds but the crop had failed to give yield. So the complainants have reported to the agriculture department. The concerned officials inspected the fields and opined that they could not get the yield since the seeds were defective or of inferior quality. In turn, all the complainants informed to OP 4 who is the representative of OP 1 and he had promised to compensate the loss after contacting the manufacturer. In spite of the same, he dodged the matter, so they have no alternative except to claim compensation.

OP 1 filed its version and it was adopted by OP 2. OP 3 remained ex parte. OP 4 filed separate version.

4. According to OP 1, the seeds that were produced and sold are of good quality seeds and it was sent to OP 2. The yield of the crop would depend upon several factors including proper crop management, climatic conditions and application of fertilizers and pesticides. As the complainants failed to take all precautions required and due to their negligence they sustained loss. No deficiency has been committed to compensate the loss as claimed.

5. OP 4 also in its version had taken the stand that yield would depend upon various factors including proper crop management, the climatic conditions and application of fertilizers and pesticides. While so, the complainants have followed long agricultural practice as such they might have sustained loss.

6. In proof of the allegations, the second complainant filed evidence affidavit on behalf of the all others and also Exs. A1 to A21 consisting of the bills, the correspondence and Fact Finding Committee report given by the Agricultural Department after making inspection in the respective cotton fields accompanied by the cotton scientist with them.

7. The District Forum, after satisfying with the evidence on record pertaining to the purchase of seeds by the complainants from the opposite parties and producer gave its finding that the complainants being agriculturists have certainly followed necessary methods in raising the crops yet there was a total loss and the fact that there was a loss which is supported by Fact Finding Committee Report constituted by District Collector, Warangal, as such, concluded that the seeds that were sold were defective which were raised by the complainants in their respective fields but it resulted in loss.

The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity for its interference?

OP 4 in para 3 of its version had taken the stand that the so-called bills co