Decided on August 30,2010

Consolidated Hybrid Seeds Company Appellant
M. Sekar Respondents


M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The 3rd opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant filed the case, on the following grounds: The complainant being an agriculturist, who is cultivating more than 14 acres of nanja lands, had purchased 30 Kgs. of CR 1009 (Savithri) paddy seeds, from opposite parties 1 and 2, manufactured by 3rd opposite party, on 6.8.2002. The said paddy seed was certified, and the period of paddy is 145 days to 165 days, having 80% germination. The complainant using the said paddy, preparing seedlings, replanted the same, between 40 to 50 days. But within a few days, from the date of transplantation, 70% of the paddy, germinated, not adopting uniform germination, which was informed to the Consumer Protection Council, who in turn informed the same to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Though the 3rd opposite party had informed, one Santhanam will come and inspect, submit a report nobody has inspected the paddy field, and no information was also given. At the same time, the complainant also informed the opposite parties 4 and 5, who had inspected and submitted report, informing that there was no uniform germination, and the flowering season had taken place within 100 days, for more than 70% of the paddy. Thus the expectation of the complainant to have a good harvest, having purchased certified seeds, ended in frustration, causing mental agony, because of the unfair trade practice by the opposite parties 1 to 3, for which they should be held responsible. By the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered monetary loss, upto the extent of Rs.5 lakhs, which should be ordered to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 4. Hence the complaint.
(3.) The 3rd opposite partys case, briefly as follows, which is adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2. The case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. This opposite party had sold the certified seeds, in a sealed cover, where there was no possibility of tampering. In the same manner, paddy seeds were sold to the complainant, and if there was any failure in the crops, it may be due to various reasons, for which the opposite party cannot be accused, as if they had sold adulterated or inferior quality of seeds. If there was any early flowering of the paddy, it may be due to the dropping of early cultivation paddy viz. TKM 9, for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible. The amount claimed by way of loss of income towards mental agony, are all imaginary. The other averments are also denied as false, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.