Order 1. The Consumer Disputes of the complainant is under section 12 of the C.P.Act seeking from opposite parties the refund of the of purchased seed (Rs.1,020/-) with 24 percent interest per annum Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the fertilizers, pesticides, labour and other cultivating expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of the crop and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of mental agony suffered and such other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case of that he cultivated his land of Ac, 3.00 in Sy.No.630 of pulakurthi village of kodumur mandal of Kurnool District, Sun-flower crop purchasing 6Kgs of Hybrid variety seed of MRSF 1051 of Batch No.12735 from the opposite party No.1 at the rate of Rs.340/- per 2Kg packet vide Bill No.91 dt 10.12.2001 believing the representations of the opposite party as to excellent yield. Even thorough there was maximum percentage of germination and the treatment and the management of the crop with recommended fertilizers and given guidelines and the yielding of flower of regular size, the major percentage of the seed yielded was chaffy. The representation of the complainant that the opposite parties in this regard were in-headed without any proper response. The agricultural authorities who visited and inspected the said crop expressed dought as to the genetical purity of seed supplied by the opposite party No.1 as agent of the opposite parties 2 and 3 to the complainant and hence the complainant suffered loss of crop at the rate of 12 quintals per acer due to defective seed sold to him. The agricultural authorities on the complaint of complainant and other farmers inspected the field of complainant and other 3. The complaint enclosed to the complaint for realiance the cash/credit bill No.91 dt.10.12.2001 as to the purchase of the seed certificate dt.28.03.2002 issued by the panchayat secretary of Pulakurthy village in re-iteration of the complaint averments. The said documents are not marked, as exhibits for want of their substantiation by any sworn affidavit. 4. While opposite party No.1 contest to matter by filling his written version of its defense, denying the truth and the bonafidies of the complaint case, the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly filed their written version running into sixteen pages denying the supply of defective seed and allegations made against it by the complainant and as to it any liability for the claims made by the complainant enclosing there too as many as 10 Un-attested Photostat documents and two citations mentioned in the list of documents besides filling a lengthy sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its defenses taken in its written version. 5. Even the documents so filed by the opposite parties are un-attested Xerox copies, but as there is a reference of it in the written version of the opposite party & sworn affidavit of the opposite party as to the order of Joint Director Agriculture, dt.9.4.2002 the said documents being not disputed by the complainant it is marked for its appreciation as Ex B1. 6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the allegad defect in the seed supplied to him and the ensure of loss of crop a consequent of defective seed supplied to him and the liability of the opposite parties for compensating him and his entitleness to the reliefs sought 7. The complainant except alleging the defect in the seed supplied to him did not place any co-gent material proving the defect in the said seed or filed any sworn affidavit in support of his case or got marked any documents marked in support of his case. Neither did he made any Endeavour and resort to section of the CP. Act to send any sample of the said defective seed supplied to him for any test by any authorized government laboratory to certify any substandardness of the defect in the said seed. Nor he made any approach under Sec. 23 seeds act to any seeds. Act on any seeds inspector for having probe in that regard by the seeds inspector and in discovery of any defect in the said seed supplied. Hence their appearance no material as to the purchase of seed and to hold the seed supplied to the complainant by the opposite party was defective one and it only ensured the loss of crop. 8. Even though the Ex B1 say that the said variety of MRFS seed 1051 was defective directing the payment of compensation to the suffered farmers, but the complaint as has not taken any reference to it in his complaint averments it does not remain of any avail to the benefit of complainant 9. The complainant alleges in the complaint the loss of defective seed was taken to the notice of agricultural authorities and the later has inspected the field of the complainant and expressing dought on the genetic purity of the seed supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties assured proper action against the opposite parties 1 to 3. But no such co gent material such as any report or sworn affidavit of any said agricultural officers is filed by the complainant is substantiation of the said factor. Nor the complainant has got filed even any sworn affidavit of the neighboring filed holders who may be having knowledge of the facts and circumstance relating to the cultivation and yielded crop in the complainants filed and of any defect in seed supplied to the complainant which must have ensured its consequential bearing on the yielded crop. Nor the complainant has filed any co-gent material as to the proper claim in complaint. 10. As the complainant was not able to establish under the circumstance stated above that the loss of crop was due to defective seeds as per the decision of Honble Andhra Pradesh state consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Kesari Venkata Reddy V/S Anaparthy Venkata Chalapathi Rao and another reported in I(2000) C.P.J. 439 the complainant is not entitiled to the compensation. In the same way the decision of the Honble Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Simla in M/s Cosmo Plantgene Limited V/S Asharam Sharma and other reported in I(2000) C.P.J. page 349 also holds that when infestation of plants with some deceased in the CIVIL Court or under seeds Act, 1966. 11. As the proof of the defectiveness in the seed as to be held on consideration of co-gent evidence by way of expert opinion as per 1992 CPJ Page No.97 National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission (NCDRC) New Delhi and the complainant as ahs not discharged his said obligation, there is no material to hold the ensured loss of crop to the complainant was on account of defective seed supplied. 12. Therefore, the case of the complainant is not remaining established by any co gent material is devoid of merit and force not entitling any reliefs to the complainant 13. Hence, in sum up of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed with costs | 
