DANNU HYBRID COTTON SEED Vs. RAYARAKULA CHANDRAMOULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C. D. No. 9/2005 on the file of District Forum, Warangal opposite party No. 2 preferred this appeal i. e. , F. A. 894/2007. These are a batch of appeals F. A. Nos. 895/2007 to 820/2007 arising from C. D. No. 10/2005, 11/2005, 13/2005 to 16/2005, 84/2005, 86/2005, 87/2005, 92/2005, 93/2005, 95/2005, 96/2005 and CD 11/2006 to 22/2006 on the file of District Forum, Warangal and since all these appeals deal with common facts they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant is a resident of Akkampet village of Warangal District and he owns an extent of one acre of agricultural land for which he purchased one packet of Dannu Hybrid Cotton seed at Rs. 490 on 7. 6. 2004 from opposite party No. 1. He submits that he was assured by the opposite parties that the yield would be 15-18 quintals per acre. Complainant stated that during the month of June, 2004 he sowed the said seed in his one acre of land and took all necessary precautionary measures like providing sufficient water, applied fertilizers and pesticides. Only 60% of the said seed germinated and remaining 40% of the seed has not germinated. The plants grew up healthy but did not bear any flower or budding. The complainant reported the same to the opposite parties but did not receive any response. The complainant together with other village farmers informed the condition of the crop to Joint Director of Agriculture and on 9. 11. 2004 the JDA sent District Level MOU Committee to inspect the land of the complainant. The said Committee visited the fields of the complainant and also other village farmers and opined that loss of yield was due to defective and inferior quality of seed. Hence this complaint.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed their written version admitting that the complainant purchased one packet of Dannu Hybrid Cotton seed from opposite party No. 1 but contend that yield of the crop would depend upon several factors including proper crop management and application of fertilizers and pesticides and that the complainant would have followed wrong agricultural practices and sustained loss and therefore there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.