- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD. v. B. YEDUKONDALU & ORS.
Factual and Procedural Background
These revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 06/04/2010 of the State Commission, which confirmed awards made by the District Forum in a series of consumer complaints. The petitioner in all revisions is MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD. (the seed producer) (with associated dealer/respondent OP No.2 in the underlying complaints). The respondents are various farmers from Nadendla Village & Mandal, Guntur (and other named parties including fertilizer dealers and the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur).
The underlying factual dispute: the complainant farmers purchased packets of “Tejaswini”/“ejaswini” hybrid chilli seeds produced by OP No.1 and sold by the dealer OP No.2. The farmers alleged that advertisements and literature representing the seeds claimed pest/infest resistance, a yield of 35–40 quintals per acre, and specific morphological/genetic traits (50% flowering by 45–48 days, pendent fruit position, plants up to four feet). The farmers say they adopted necessary cultivation measures and invested significantly but the crop did not reach the promised flowering stage (about 90% of crop remained in the vegetative phase even after 70 days), fruits were not pendent, and the crop suffered infestation (notably thrips).
The Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur, appointed a five-member inspection team which visited on 12.1.2006 and submitted a report. Proceedings dated 30.10.2006 noted thrips infestation, that crops were at different stages and fruits were semi-erect, and recorded deviations between the producer's stated characteristics and field observations; the farmers were advised to file complaints with the District Forum.
The District Forum found in favour of the complainant farmers and ordered compensation of Rs.75,000 per acre plus Rs.1,000 as litigation cost to each complainant; OP No.1 and OP No.2 were held jointly and severally liable, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. OP No.1 & OP No.2 appealed to the State Commission, which concurred with the District Forum. The present petitions are revisions filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission challenging the State Commission's order. The record shows the matter was before the National Commission and the hearing record is dated 27 Apr 2011.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complainants proved that the chilli seeds supplied by OP No.1 were defective or of sub-standard quality so as to establish liability for crop loss and entitle them to compensation.
- Whether there is a demonstrable nexus between the observed thrips infestation/poor yield and the intrinsic quality of the seeds (as opposed to other factors such as inadequate crop management, non‑use of pesticides/fertilizers, or agro‑environmental conditions).
- Whether the District Forum and State Commission misread or misapplied the proceedings/report dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture when awarding compensation.
- Whether the complainants discharged the evidentiary onus (including laboratory testing of seed samples under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act or seeking a direction to have samples tested) necessary to establish defect in the seeds.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner / OP No.1 & OP No.2 (Mahyco) — Principal Arguments
- No defect was attributed to the seeds in the Joint Director of Agriculture's proceedings dated 30.10.2006; those proceedings do not ascribe the deviations to seed quality.
- The orders of the fora below resulted from a misreading of the JD proceedings.
- The complainants failed to prove that they adopted required cultivation practices; there is no evidence (vouchers/bills/receipts) that pesticides or fertilizers were purchased and used to control infestations such as thrips.
- OP No.1 never represented that the ejaswini variety was infestation/pest resistant or guaranteed yields of 35–40 quintals per acre (the company denied the complainants' assertions in its written version).
- The seeds were not sent for laboratory testing/analysis under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act; complainants did not seek District Forum directions to have samples of the same batch tested, despite the option to do so.
- Onus to prove the seeds were defective rested on the complainants; simple crop failure does not suffice to establish defective seeds.
- Counsel relied on several precedents (identified in the record) to support the contention that variation in crop condition cannot be attributed to seed quality alone and that other factors may be responsible.
Complainants / Respondents — Principal Arguments
- There are concurrent findings of fact and reasons recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission supporting compensation; these concurrent findings do not call for interference in revision jurisdiction.
- The Joint Director of Agriculture's team report and proceedings established deficiencies/ deviations consistent with defective seeds and disbelieved the OP's version attributing failure to climatic or crop management factors.
- The District Forum found there was no admixture problem and gave reasons for awarding compensation; the complainants relied upon these findings and certain decisions of the Commission and Apex Court (specifically Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bodduluri Jeevan Kumar & Anr. (2009) III CPJ 379 (NC) was invoked as covering their case).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Singh & Anr. (R.P. No. 252 of 2009 and connected revisions decided on 15.9.2009) | Cited by petitioner to support the submission that variation in crop condition cannot necessarily be attributed to seed quality. | Cited in submissions by the petitioner. The opinion records the reliance but does not state that the National Commission based its decision on this precedent. |
| Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr., II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) | Cited by petitioner to support the contention that crop variation/deficiencies may not be attributable to seed quality and to guide assessment of liability. | Cited in submissions by the petitioner. The opinion records the reliance but the court's reasoning turns on the evidence (or lack thereof) in the record rather than explicit application of this case. |
| Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors., Civil Appeal No.(s) 2428 of 2008 decided 21.7.2010 | Cited by petitioner in support of the proposition that variations in crop performance are not necessarily caused by seed defects. | Cited in submissions by the petitioner. The opinion records the reliance but does not record the case being applied as the decisive basis for the revision court's ruling. |
| Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bodduluri Jeevan Kumar & Anr., (2009) III CPJ 379 (NC) | Cited by the complainants (referred to by counsel) as supporting their case; the complainants particularly relied upon paragraph 18 of this judgment. | Cited in submissions by the complainants. The opinion records the complainants' reliance but the court's decision is explained primarily by the evidentiary findings in the record rather than a direct application of that precedent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The National Commission examined the record, the findings of the District Forum, the report/proceedings of the Joint Director of Agriculture dated 30.10.2006, and the submissions of the parties.
Key steps in the court's reasoning:
- Examination of the Joint Director of Agriculture's proceedings: the inspection report recorded that crops were "severally infested with thrips", crops were at different stages, and fruits formed were semi-erect; the report compared these field observations with characteristics furnished by the seed producer and observed deviations (for example, only about 30% flowering by 60–70 days vs. claimed 50% by 45–48 days). Crucially, the proceedings did not identify the cause of the deviations or explicitly attribute them to seed quality.
- Review of the seed literature: the court noted the literature produced by the complainants did not support the specific assertions that the seeds were infestation/pest resistant or guaranteed yields of 35–40 quintals per acre. The literature instead contained recommended cultivation practices and explicit measures for pest control, including control of sucking pests/thrips (specific pesticides and dosages were listed in the literature).
- Evidentiary burden and absence of testing: the court observed that the onus was on the complainants to prove that the seeds were defective. The seeds were not sent for laboratory testing/analysis under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the complainants did not request the District Forum to direct testing of samples of the same batch (an available course even if they had exhausted seeds).
- Conduct of parties and missed opportunities: the court noted that OP No.1 had sought appointment of a Commission for field inspection, but the complainants apparently were not interested in such inspection. The District Forum had also noted the lack of documentary proof (vouchers/receipts) of use of fertilizers and insecticides, which meant adverse inferences could be drawn regarding whether recommended crop-management steps were followed.
- Misreading by lower fora: the National Commission concluded that both the District Forum and the State Commission misread the Joint Director of Agriculture's proceedings by treating the deviations and thrips infestation as establishing a nexus with seed quality. The District Forum had concluded that failure of the crop was equally due to supply of defective seeds and non-use of proper inputs, but the National Commission found no material substantiating that the failures were caused by defective seeds.
- Final factual conclusion: in the absence of positive evidence that seeds were defective (no lab testing, no documentary proof of adoption of recommended pest control measures), and given the recorded thrips infestation and the available literature recommending pest-control steps, the court found the complainants had failed to establish defect in seed quality. The crops were affected by thrips and the farmers did not demonstrate adoption of recommended practices to contain the infestation.
Based on the foregoing analysis of record evidence and the report of the Joint Director's team, the National Commission concluded that the fora below erred in holding seed-producer/dealer liable for the crop failure.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revisions are ALLOWED and the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission (which had awarded compensation to the complainants) are set aside.
Implications / Consequences:
- The compensation awards and related orders of the Fora below (District Forum and State Commission) are vacated for the reasons stated above.
- The National Commission ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs (i.e., no costs were awarded against either side by the National Commission).
- The opinion's decision rests on the court's evaluation of the evidentiary record (absence of laboratory testing, failure to show adoption of recommended pest-control practices, and the Joint Director's proceedings not attributing cause to seed quality). The judgment does not purport to create an expansive new precedent beyond the factual and evidentiary conclusions reached in these matters; the opinion does not state broader legal consequences beyond the direct effect on these parties.
This summary is prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion and does not add facts or inferences not present in the source text.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2272 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1403/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 78
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. B. YEDUKONDALU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2273 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1404/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PASAM POTHU RAJU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2274 OF 2010
1
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1405/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. CHOPPARA RAMA MURTHY & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilikaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2275 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1406/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAVIPUDI MARIYADESU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FETTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2276 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1407/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road ...........Petitioner(s)
2
Mumbai - 20 Maharashtra Versus
1. P. VENKATA NARAYANA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2277 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1408/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. KILARU VENKATESWARLU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2278 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1409/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. N. VENKATA NARAYANA & ORS. ...........Respondent(s)
3
Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. VASAVI TRADERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2279 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1410/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PASAM RAMANJANEYULU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2280 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1411/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. DUMPETI YESU BABU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS ...........Respondent(s)
4
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2281 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1412/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Rehsam Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GORANTLA APPA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT OF AGRICULTURE COLLECTORATE
COMPOUND
Guntur Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2282 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1413/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. K. SIVARAM PRASAD & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ...........Respondent(s)
5
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1414/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NAKKA VINAYAKA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2284 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1415/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NAKKA SRINU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2285 OF 2010
6
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1416/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketr of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. N. RAMA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2286 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1417/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. CHOPPARA SINGAIAH & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2287 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1418/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road ...........Petitioner(s)
7
Mumbai - 20 Maharashtra
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZIERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
Versus
1. PASAM ANKAMMA RAO KOTI RATNAM & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2288 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1419/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Through Authorized Signatory Mr. M.M. Chavan, Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road
Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NALLAMOTHU SESHAGIRI RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2289 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1420/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Through Authorized Signatory Mr. M.M. Chavan, Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road
Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
8
1. KATRAGADDA RAMA KRISHNA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. VASAVI TRADERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1421/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GORANTLA VENKATESWARLU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2291 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1422/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. SALISAM VENKATESWARLU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
9
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2292 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1423/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NALLAMOTHU MASTHAN RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI TRADERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2293 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1424/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ARE LAKSHMI NARAYANA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
10
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2294 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1425/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PASAM VENKATA NARAYANA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2295 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1426/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. RAVIPUDI CHINNODU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
11
REVISION PETITION NO. 2296 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1427/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. KODALI SUDHAKAR & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
4. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2297 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1428/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PASAM VEDADRI & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2298 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1429/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly ...........Petitioner(s)
12
Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra
Versus
1. CHEJARLA YOHAN RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2299 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1430/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharshtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KATARI SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2300 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1431/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
13
1. PASAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2301 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1432/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. K. RAJA MOHANA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2302 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1433/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Through Authorized Signatory Mr. Maruti T. Agavane, Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GORANTLA ANKAMMA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur ...........Respondent(s)
14
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2303 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1434/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. MEKALA NAGAIAH & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2304 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1435/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. BEJAGAM NARAYANA SWAMY & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilikaluripet Guntur ...........Respondent(s)
15
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2305 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1436/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketet of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Mahrashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PASAM SUBBA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2306 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1437/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NALLAMOTHU SIDDA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Aandhra Pradesh
2. BHAYGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur ...........Respondent(s)
16
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2307 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1438/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. PASAM VENKATA RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2308 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1439/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. KATARU MUTYALU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2309 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1440/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
17
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GORANTLA SRINU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2310 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1441/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NAKKA GOVINDAMMA & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2311 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1442/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20 ...........Petitioner(s)
18
Maharashtra Versus
1. MR. NALLAMOTHU NATARAJU & ORS. Nadendal Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2312 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1443/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. CHOPPARAPU NAGA RAJU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. ANANTHA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2313 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1444/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtara ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. NALLAMOTHU PULL RAO & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal ...........Respondent(s)
19
Guntur Andhra Pradesh
2. VASAVI TRADERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
REVISION PETITION NO. 2314 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2010 in Appeal No. 1445/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. MAHYCO VEGETABLE SEEDS LTD.
Producer and Marketer of Mahyco Hybrid Seeds, Chilly Tejaswini, Resham Bhavan, 78, Veera Nariman Road Mumbai - 20
Maharashtra ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. GORANTLA POTHA RAJU & ORS. Nadendla Village & Mandal Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
2. BHAGYA LAKSHMI FERTILIZERS
Bose Road, Chilukaluripet Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
COLLECTORATE COMPOUND
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 2315 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 19/01/2010 in Appeal No. 360/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. ANDHRA BANK
Narayanguda Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. K. DURGA DEVI
R/o. Plot No. 76, M.J. Colony, Gayatri Nagar, Moula Ali Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
20
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ankit Swarup & Mr. Shivendra Swarup, Advocates with him.
For the Respondent : MR. G.L.N. MURTHY Dated : 27 Apr 2011
ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER These revisions arise out of a common order passed by the State Commission and as such the revisions were heard together and are being disposed by common order. The case of the complainants is that they had purchased packets of ejaswinihybrid chilli seeds produced by OP No. 1 and sold by Dealer OP No.2. (The parties are being referred as recorded in the complaints). According to the Complainants, OP No. 1 had issued several advertisements in respect of hybrid variety chilli seeds under brand name ejaswinirepresenting that the said chilli seed were infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. It is further stated that OP No.1 gave morphological and genetic characteristics of the seed wherein it was represented that the crop would come into 50% flowering stage by 45 to 48 days, the fruits would be in pendent position and the plants would grow to a height of 4 feet. The complainants submitted that they took all necessary precautions for cultivation of the chilli crop and invested huge amount for the purpose of nursery, transplantation and cultivation etc. The crop did not come to 50% flowering stage within 45 to 48 days and the fruits were not in pendant position. However, even after expiry of 70 days there was no flowering in about 90% of the crop and the entire crop was still in vegetable phase. The complainants had made written representation to OP 3 Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur who appointed a five-members team including a scientist. The said team visited the village on 12.1.2006 and inspected the fields of all the farmers who had raised ejaswinichilli crop. The said team submitted its report to the Joint Director of Agriculture who issued proceedings dated 30.10.2006 in which it was stated that the crop had been severally infested with hripsand the crop was at different stages and the fruits were in semi erect position. In the said proceedings it was also noticed that there were deviations observed between the characters given by the Company as well as inspection report given by the team and the farmers were advised to file complaint before the District Forum. According to the complainants, the seeds in question were of sub-standard quality resulting in considerable loss for which compensation has been claimed. The chart indicating case number, name of the farmer, extent of land cultivated and amount of compensation claimed is recorded in the judgement of the District Forum and as such it is not necessary to repeat the same. The District Forum ordered payment of compensation @Rs.75,000/- per acre besides Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The details of compensation awarded is recorded in the order of the District forum. The OP No. 1 & 2 were jointly and severally held to be liable for the payment of the said amounts which was to carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization besides cost of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant. This order was challenged by OP No. 1 & 2 before the State Commission. The State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This order is subject matter of challenge in these revisions. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/OP No. 1 & 2 has submitted before us that no defect has been attributed to the seeds in the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture which is based upon the findings of the Committee; that the orders of the Fora below are the result of misreading of proceedings dated
21
30.11.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture which are at pages 103-104 of the revision; that the complainants have failed to prove that they had adopted required cultivation practices; that the complainants had not produced anything to indicate whether pesticides had been purchased and used to control the infestation of hrips that OP No. 1 did not at any time represent that ejaswinivariety of chilli seed was resistant to infest/pest and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. It is also pointed out that the seeds were not sent for testing/analysis in the laboratory under Section 13 (1) (c) nor the complainant sought any direction from the District Forum to direct OP No. 1 to send sample seeds of the same batch for testing under the said provisions. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the onus to prove that the seeds in question were defective as a result of which the complainants suffered loss is upon the complainants who have failed to prove the said fact and simply because crop failed would not be sufficient to grant compensation. In this connection reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Commission in Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ajay Singh & Anr. (R.P. No. 252 of 2009 and connected revisions decided on 15.9.2009. He also placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sadhu and Anr. II (2005) CPJ 13 (SC) and Mahyco Seeds Company Ltd. Vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki and Ors. Civil Appeal No. (s) 2428 of 2008 decided by the Apex Court on 21.7.2010 in support of which submissions that the variation in condition of crop was not and cannot be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondents submitted that there are concurrent findings of two Fora below which are supported by reasons and as such, the same do not call for interference in the exercise of revisional powers. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants, the version of the OP relating to adverse climatic conditions has been disbelieved and it has been duly established that the deficiencies, which were noticed by the team, appointed by the Joint Director of Agriculture were on account of defective seeds. He also pointed out that the District Forum has held that there was no admixture problem. He further submitted that reasons have been given by the District Forum for grant of compensation, which does not call for interference. According to the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the case of the complainant is covered under para 18 of the judgement of this Commission in Mahyco Monsanto Biotech
(I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bodduluri Jeevan Kumar & Anr. (2009) III CPJ 379 (NC). He also relied upon other judgements of this Commission and the Apex Court. The case of the complainants basically rests upon the averments that the Complainants had purchased ejaswinihybrid chilli seeds on the representations in several advertisements that the said seeds were infest/pest resistant and it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. This statement of the complainants is specifically denied by the OP No.1 in written version. The Complainants have produced literature of hybrid chilli seed ejaswiniwhich neither supports the version of the Complainant that the seeds were infest/pest resistant or it yields 35 to 40 quintals per acre. The said literature refers to practices for high yield per acre and the quantity of fertilizers etc. to be used. It also provides for sucking pest control including hrips In hripsspray 30 ml. Rogor (in early stage) or Metasystox 30-40 ml. (or) Regent 20 ml./tank. The literature also provides for disease control and fruit borer control. There is nothing on record to show whether the practices as recommended in the said literature were adopted by the Complainants. The complainants basically relied upon report of the team constituted by the Joint Director of Agriculture and proceedings dated 30.10.2006. The team consisted of : . Asstt. Director of Agriculture (Trg.), O/o Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur. 2. Scientist (Horticulture) RARS, Lam, Guntur 3. Horticulture Officer, Narasaraopet 4. Mandal Agril. Officer, Nadendla 5. Asstt. Director of Agriculture (Regular) Narasaraopet The report of the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint
22
Director of Agriculture) reads as under: fter inspection the above team has submitted the inspection report to this office through the reference (3rd) cited. As seen from the inspection report it is known that the crops have been severally infested with thrips, the crop is at different stages and the fruits so far formed are in semi erect position. As per the character furnished by the Seed Producer the following observations have been found in respect of the Chilly Hybrid Tejaswani. Characteristics As given by the Seed Producer Deviations observed by the inspections committee during field inspection 1. The crop will come to 50% Flowering stage by 45 to 48 days Only 30% of the crop has come to following stage by 60 to 70 days. The remaining crop is in vegetative phase.2. Fruits will be in pendent position. All the Fruits formed in Semi erect to erect position. In the reference 4th cited, M/s. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds LTd. (Seed Producer) was addressed to inspect the fields and redress the grievances of the complainant farmers before 27.10.2006. But the company did not turned up by the stipulated date. In view of the deviations observed between the characters given by the company as well as the inspection report given by the special team the complainant farmers may be advised to file complaint in the district consumers from under consumer protection Act for getting compensation for the crop loss from the seed producer besides filling complainants against the seed dealer/producer besides filing complainants against the seed dealer/producer under Section 420 of CRPC The above proceedings show that the inspection report had mentioned that the crops had been severally infested with thrips, the crop was at different stages and the fruits so far formed were in semi erect position. The proceedings then referred to deviations observed by the inspection team during field inspection and Characteristics given by the seed producer. However, what was the cause of the deviations was nowhere disclosed, nor the said proceedings attribute that the said deviations were on account of quality of the seed. On the contrary, it was noted that the crops were severally infested with thrips, the crop was at different stages and the fruits so far formed were in semi erect position. This would go to show that the complainants had not taken any steps or measures to control the infestation of thrips to which the chilli plants were prone and for the control of which instructions are found in the literature. There is also nothing on record to show that the Complainants had followed the practices as advised in the said literature. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Fora below has misread the said proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture. The District Forum had noticed that the report of the team did not give any source or cause of occurrence or spread of disease. The District Forum then stated that in such circumstances, one cannot draw an inference that the seeds supplied by the OP were of good quality and due to failure of farmers in adopting cultivation methods the crop failed or vice versa. The District Forum also noticed that the Complainants did not produce vouchers, bills, or receipts for having used fertilizers and insecticides to get proper yield and in the absence of the same there was possibility of drawing an adverse inference. The District Forum came to the conclusion that failure of crop is equally due to supply of defective seeds in question and non-user of adequate and proper fertilizers and insecticides as there was no positive evidence for the same and partly due to agro-environmental conditions. It also noticed that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not attending the fields and inspecting the same and guiding the farmers property. In this Connection, the District Forum failed to take into account affidavit filed on behalf of the OP. In our opinion, there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be concluded that the failure of the crop was due to supply of defective seeds. The seeds were never sent for analysis/testing in accordance with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Even if the Complainant had exhausted all the seeds, a request could be made to the District Forum to give directions to the
23
OP to produce samples of the same batch for the purpose of testing in the laboratory. The onus to prove that the seeds are defective is certainly on the Complainant. In fact, OP No. 1 even sought appointment of a Commission for inspection of the fields but it appears that the Complainants were not interested for such inspection. The State Commission also fell in error in misreading the proceedings dated 30.10.2006 of the Joint Director of Agriculture. The conclusion of the State Commission that it cannot be said that there is no nexus between the infestation of thrips or loss of crop and poor yield with the quality of seeds is not based on any material on record. This conclusion is based on the assumption that in absence of any documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellants that thrips is caused only due to poor climatic conditions or improper crop management practices by the farmers, the propensity of infestation has nexus with the quality of seeds. We find it difficult to accept the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that there is a nexus between the infestation of thrips or loss of crop and poor yield with the quality of seeds. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Complainants have failed to establish that there was any defect in the quality of the seeds or the seeds were of sub-standard quality. The crops were affected by thrips and in order to contain the same, the Complainants did not adopt the practices recommended in the literature. In view of the above, the revisions are allowed and the orders of Fora below are set aside. In the facts and circumstances we leave the parties to bear their costs.
......................J
R. K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER
24
Alert