P CHOWDAIAH Vs. SAI AGRO AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals numbering 39 in all, filed by the unsuccessful complainants agriculturists against manufacturer of Roshini Chilli seeds. Since common questions of fact and law arise all these appeals are taken up for disposal by a common order. Since facts are similar, F.A. 1224/2008 is taken as model case for narrating the facts, equally so the defence taken by the respondents manufacturer and dealers of the seeds.

(2.) THE case of the complainants in brief is that they are agriculturists owned agricultural lands in Pamulapadu village of Kurnool District purchased 40 packets of hybrid chili seeds called 'Roshni' @ Rs. 170 per packet manufactured by R2 sold by R1 its distributor -cum -agent on 7.6.2006. They had sown the seeds, adopted the agricultural practices, and applied fertilizers and pesticides and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,000 per acre. Despite assurance of yield of 25 quintals per acre, hardly he could get 2 quintals per acre due to defect in the seed. The growth was poor and did not give even the minimum yield. When he complained to the Agricultural Department, the Joint Director of Agriculture alongwith Scientists and Asstt. Agricultural Officer visited the crop in the last week of December, 2006, and opined that the seed was defective. In fact local variety 334 had yielded around 12 -14 quintals per acre. He had in all sustained a loss of 90 quintals and therefore claimed Rs. 6,800 towards refund of cost of seeds, Rs. 3,79,845 towards compensation, Rs.1,10,000 towards cost of fertilizers, pesticides and labour, etc. besides Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony in all Rs. 5,46,645. A tabular form is given mentioning the claims of each of the complainants in all these cases at para 19.

(3.) THE opposite parties resisted the case. While putting the complainants to strict proof of the ownership of the land and that they had sowed the seed etc., alleged that the cash bill issued by R1 did not give any guarantee regarding the growth and yield of the crop as it depends on various environmental components. What all it had guaranteed was mentioned on the label printed on the packet. There was no guarantee for quantum of yield or resistance from viral disease or 'thrips'. The complainant did not adopt correct procedure. It should be grown in the first instance in a nursery and then by transplantation. The total period of crop duration is 6 to 9 months. He took the scientist after six months by that time the crop will be at the end of its life. The report shows that it was infected with sucking pests 'thrips'. The hybrid seeds have no resistance to viral diseases or sucking pests. It requires special treatment under the advice of Agricultural Officer. The complainant had failed to apply the required pesticides, etc. There was no defect in the seeds. It was due to external factors which it has no concern. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.