This C.C came before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.Katamneni Ramesh, Advocate for the complainants; Sri R. Hari Prasad, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 to 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President)
This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants are agriculturists and they prepared their lands to sow cottonseeds. The opposite parties have propagated them that the cottonseed SP 1037 BG-II is a standard quality in cotton crop, which is yielded 10 to 12 quintals per acre. The complainants and other agriculturists of their village believed the information of opposite parties. The complainants also submitted that they purchased the packets of SP 1037 BG-II from Opposite party No.1 and sowed the same in their respective lands by taking all precautions and used the pesticides and fertilizers as required, but inspite of taking all precautions there is no growth and yielding in the cotton crop because there is sucking pest and leaf spot damage on entire crop and the complainants intimated the same to the Sales Officer and also gave representations to the Agriculture Officer of Julurupadu with regard to defective and poor quality and quantity supplied by the opposite parties. Also submitted that the complainants spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- per Acre towards purchasing of seed, sowing the crop and for coolies etc. and they lost one year crop, which is minimum of market value for Rs.3,500/- per quintal for a minimum yielding of 10 quintals per acre, as the yielding was completely damaged they are claiming an amount of Rs.45,000/- per acre. As the opposite parties failed to pay damages, the complainants approached the Forum.
3. On behalf of the complainants the following photocopies of documents were filed
1) Cash/credit bill dt.17-06-2010 for Rs.700/-;
2) Cash/credit bill dt.11-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
3) Cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
4) Cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.2800/-
5) Cash/credit bill dt.03-07-2010 for Rs.2100/-
6) cash/credit bill dt.17-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
7) cash/credit bill dt.18-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
8) cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
9) cash/credit bill dt.02-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
10) cash/credit bill dt.17-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
11) cash/credit bill dt.30-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
12) cash/credit bill dt.03-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
13) cash/credit bill dt.11-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
14) cash/credit bill dt.05-06-2010 for Rs.7000/-
15) Cash/credit bill dt.02-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
16) cash/credit bill dt.02-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
17) cash/credit bill dt.09-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
18) cash/credit bill dt.05-06-2010 for Rs.2800/-
19) cash/credit bill dt.03-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
20) cash/credit bill dt.08-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
21) cash/credit bill dt.08-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
22) cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
23) cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
24) cash/credit bill dt.14-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
25) cash/credit bill dt.10-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
26) cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
27) cash/credit bill dt.12-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
28) cash/credit bill dt.10-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
29) cash/credit bill dt.10-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
30) cash/credit bill dt.10-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
31) cash/credit bill dt.18-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
32) cash/credit bill dt.31-05-2010 for Rs.1400/-
33) cash/credit bill dt.01-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
34) cash/credit bill dt.04-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
35) cash/credit bill dt.13-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
36) cash/credit bill dt.05-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
37) cash/credit bill dt.14-06-2010 for Rs.700/-
38) cash/credit bill dt.18-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
39) cash/credit bill dt.05-06-2010 for Rs.2100/-
40) cash/credit bill dt.12-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
- cash/credit bill dt.04-06-2010 for Rs.1400/-
Having received the notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their counter. All the averments made in the complaint are totally denied in the counter and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On behalf of the opposite party No.3, a memo is filed to treat the contents as written arguments. Except filing of the complaint and photocopies of cash bills, no material is placed.
Perused the contents of the complaint and the counter filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3.
On behalf of the complainants, no chief affidavit is filed in support of his contention and no documents are marked. Similarly no written arguments are filed. Basing on the above material, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainants are entitled to claim for damages?
- Whether the opposite parties have supplied defective seeds?
- To what relief?
Points 1 to 3:
On behalf of the complainants, no evidence either oral or documentary is placed before the forum. In the absence of any conclusive findings as regards the quality of seeds, the liability cannot be fastened on the opposite parties solely on the basis of vague allegations made in the complaint. On this aspect of the case, the learned counsel for opposite parties placed reliance to a decision reported in IV(2010) CPJ 119 (NC) wherein their lordships held that no report indicating quality defect of seeds, awarding compensation order wholly erroneous and can simply not be sustained. In the instant case also, there is nothing on record much less any finding of a competent technical laboratory to show that the seeds sold to the complainant by opposite parties suffered from any quality defect or did not meet the standards. Therefore the Forum is unable to test the seeds because of the complainants did not preserve any samples. There is no evidence on record that the seeds supplied are virus affected and did not possess standard. The complainants ought to have examined A.O. or any scientific & technical person to draw any inference against opposite parties for supply of poor quality of seeds. Deficiency on the part of opposite parties cannot be assumed it needs to be proved. In the present case, the complainants have failed to prove that the opposite parties supplied non-standard quality of seeds. Unless and until the complainants prove that there was negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainants cannot claim any compensation to him.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 2nd day of May 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
