BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 341 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.278/2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

1. The Bayer Bio Science Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager/The General Manager, Corporate Office situated at Ohris Techpark, Plot No.13, Sy.No.P44/2, Software Unit’s Layout, VBIT Park Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500 081 (TS).

2. The Managing Director/The General Manager Bayer Bio Science Pvt., Ltd., Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West) 400 074, Maharasthra.

3. Bayer Crop Science Pvt.,Ltd., Plot No.13, Survey No.44/2, Software Unit’s Layout, BIT Park Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081.

………Appellants/Opposite Party No.2 to 4 And:

1. Anitha Venkati, S/o Ashanna, Aged about 42 years, Occ.:Agriculture, R/o Jainath Village & amp : Mandal, Adilabad District.

……..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. T.Murali Krishna Agencies, Dealers in Seeds, Pesticides, Rep. by its Proprietor/Partner, R/o D.No.3-1-277/9 & amp; 9A, NH-7, Punjab Chowk, Adilabad District.

3. Govt. of Telangana, Rep. by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Adilabad ……..Respondent No.2 & 3/Opposite Party No.1 & 5 Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 : M/s.

B.Aruna Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Complainant : M/s KRR Associates Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 : Called absent.

Counsel for the Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.5 : GP QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

SATURDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

Order : (HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, dated 24.03.2021 in CC 278/2017 and prayed this Commission to set aside the said impugned order and pass such other order/s as this Commission may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and cultivating the agriculture land stands in the name of Gaddam Anitha, W/o Ashok Reddy, as a cultivator by way of lease, having land at Jainath Village, Jainath Mandal, District-Adilabad in Sy.No.401/A/1/2 to an extent of Ac. 3.00 gts.. He has been cultivating and raising all types of crops especially cotton crop, since long. Lured by the advertisements given by the opposite parties, the complainant purchased First Class BG II seeds vide bill No.1016, dated 15.06.2015. He purchased 04 packets at Rs.850/- each and spent a total amount of Rs.3,400/-. He further submits that he incurred expenses of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre towards purchase of fertilizers, pesticides, labour charges and other incidental expenses. He further states that he sustained heavy loss because of supply of defective quality of seed and the same was informed to the opposite parties and also to the agricultural authorities concerned. His land was inspected and assessed and it was opined that the loss of crop was due to supply of defective quality of seed. The present complaint is filed against Opposite Parties for producing, selling and marketing defective quality of seed which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore, the opposite parties are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1 is set ex-parte.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.2 to 4 are as follows:-

They admit that the seeds purchased by the complainant are produced by opposite party No.2 to 4 and marketed through Opposite Party No.1. They specifically state that at no time did they assure the complainant that the First class BT II cotton seeds purchased by him would have resistance to any weather conditions and neither did they assure him about the yield under any circumstances. They admit that t