FA  414 of 2012  against CC 62/2008   on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam

Between :

Challa Vykuntarao

S/o Yerrannaidu, aged 50 years,

C/o MVN Murthy,

11.02.2002, OPP. Andhra Bank women’s Branch

Srikakulam                                                                           

And

1. Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director

Regional office-27, New Cotton Market layout,

Nagpur – 440 018

2. Suguna Traders, rep. by its Proprietor K. Sreedhar

Dr. No. 303, OPP: Lakshmi Talkies

Narasannapet Village and Mandal

Srikakulam District                                                  

Counsel for the Appellant             :           PIP

Counsel for the Respondents       :           M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao for R-1

                                                                        R2 served.

Coram           ;          

                              Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

And

                                    Sri T. Ashok Kumar                ..         Hon’ble Member

Friday, the Twenty First Day of December

Two Thousand Twelve

          Oral Order       :    per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )

****

       1.        This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant    as against   orders dated 21.12.2010  in CC  62/2008 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as

2.            The brief facts of the complaint  are that  the complainant had purchased 30 kgs of Ankur brand groundnut seeds from OP no.2 on 14.11.2006 for Rs.3,180/- vide receipt bearing No. 36 dated 14.11.2006 with guarantee that the seeds would germinate 70% and purity upto 90%. But the seeds which were  in his fields did not produce normal yield. Complainant obtained six bags of groundnuts as against normal yield of 20   and thus sustained loss of Rs.14,000/- The complainant sustained loss at Rs.24,180/- and a notice dated 02.08.2007 got issued to Ops but there was no reply and thus he filed the complaint against the Ops to pay Rs.3,180/- towards sale price of the seeds, Rs.21,000/- towards labour charges, fertilizers, pesticides and monetary loss and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3.         OP   filed counter  opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter  are as under :

                The complainant is not a consumer since he purchased the seeds for commercial purpose and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The seeds produced by the OP.1 is of good quality   ISI standard. The complainant is not an agriculturist and he has no land of Ac. 1.5 cents as alleged.  It is false to allege that he is getting of yield of 20 bags of groundnut every year.  The complainant did not purchase groundnut seeds produced by OP.1.  A false complaint is lodged for wrongful gain. The complainant did not sustain any loss as alleged and the complaint is false one and an after though and thus prayed for dismiss the complaint.

04.       OP 2 the alleged seller of seeds did not choose to file the counter and contest the matter.

05.       Complainant filed his  evidence affidavit reiterating his case set out in the complaint and  Ex. A1 to A6  were marked on his behalf and no such affidavits and documents are marked on behalf of the OPs.

06.       Having considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

07.       Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant   filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that even though no evidence was produced on behalf of the Ops and the complainant established his case with evidence affidavit and documents erroneously the District Forum dismissed the complaint and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

08.       Heard the counsel for R-1 with reference to   respective contentions       in detail and no representation for appellant and R2.      

09.       Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum `            is sustainable?

      The case of the complainant is that he purchased 30 kgs of Ankur brand groundnut seeds on 14.11.2006 for Rs.3 with a guarantee that the seeds would germinate upto 70% and contained purity upto 90% and that when he sowed  the seeds he did not get the expected/guaranteed  yield but realized the yield of only 6 bags groundnut  as against normal yield  of 20 bags.  plea is total denial and  OP. 2 did not choose to contest the matter. The burden is on the complainant to prove the case set out by him but there is no legal and dependable evidence from his side that the seeds so purchased by him did not germinate as guaranteed.  No agricultural officer or other expert gave evidence on behalf of the complainant in the said context similarly there is no evidence much less clinching evidence that there was proper agricultural management by the complainant and that during relevant time there was required moisture in the land and that he utilized the required manure/pesticides. The complainant did not give any notice to the Ops while the crop was standing in the land enabling them to visit the spot, verify the crop and assess the alleged  and it appears that after harvesting the crop he had issued Ex. A4 notice to Ops 1 and 2 claiming compensation.  Had really the seeds did not germinate properly certainly the complainant would have given notice to Ops 1 and 2 immediately and also would have got inspected the same by competent agricultural officer but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him and as such adverse inference is drawn against the complainant in the said context. He filed a certificate isused by panchayat secretary first of all it is not marked as exhibit even other wise such certificate is of no  consequence in favour of the complainant as he is not a competent/expert person in the said filed. His evidence affidavit dated 15.10.2009 was filed but attestation of the said affidavit was made in September, 2009 and therefore rightly the District Forum disbelieved the said affidavit. The complainant did not examine any of his neighbourers to say that he  such and such ground seeds in his land and that incurred loss. He even did not file any documents to show that he holds Ac. 1.5 cents land in his village in such and such survey number. . Merely because the Ops did not give reply to Ex A4 notice it does not mean that whatever pleaded by the complainant is true. It was his duty to establish with clinching evidence  he raised ground nut crop with the seeds so purchased by him from OP.2 and that sustained loss in his agriculture even though he had taken all precautions.        When the complainant failed to establish his case not filing of evidence affidavit by Ops is of no consequence in his favour. Thus viewed in any point, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

10.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the Appeal.  

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                             : 21.12.2012.