SYNGENTA INDIA LTD. Vs. P. CHOWDAIAH,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of facts and law are involved in the above noted revision petitions, same are being disposed of by this single order. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, 'State Commission') vide common impugned order dated 12.12.2010, disposed of 39 appeals in all filed by the unsuccessful complainants/agriculturists against manufacturer of 'Roshini Chilly Seeds'. State Commission has taken (Appeal No. 1244 of 2008, Sygenta India Ltd. Vs. P. Chowdaiah and Ors.) that is, RP No. 1451 of 2011 as the lead case.

(2.) CASE of Complainants in brief is that they are agriculturists owing agricultural land in Pamulapadu village of Kurnool District. They purchased 40 packets of hybrid chilly seeds called 'Roshni' @ Rs. 170/ - per packet. manufactured by Petitioner/O.P. No. 2 and sold by its Distributor -cum -Agents/Respondents, on 7.6.2006. Complainants 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, complainants hardly could get 2 quintals per acre due to defect in the seeds. The growth was poor and did not give even the minimum yield. When they complained to the agricultural department, Joint Director of Agriculture along with Scientists and Asst. Agricultural Officer visited the crop in the last week of December, 2006 and opined that the seeds were defective. In fact local variety 334 had yielded around 12 -14 quintals per acre. It has been further alleged by the complainants that then Senior Scientist, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Nandyal along with the Assistant Director of Agriculture and Agricultural Officer of Atmakur Division, visited to inspect the crops on 14.2.2007 and opined that the over -all hybrid vigor was very poor and due to this poor growth, less pod productive plants and more poor productive plants were observed and due to these reasons poor yields are expected. Thus, complainants 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 has been given mentioning the claims of each of the complainants in all these cases at para 19 of the impugned order.

(3.) IT was further alleged that neither the taking of experts to the field nor the report of the experts were communicated to the petitioner's company. Everything was done at the back of petitioner's company and without its knowledge. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner's company.