This complaint came before us for final hearing, in presence of Sri. T. Nagarjuna, Advocate for the Complainant, and of Sri. A. Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2; opposite party No.3 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainants No.1 and 2 are agriculturists.  The complainant No.1 is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.00 and the complainant No.2 is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5.00 at Mallaram village of Thallada, Khammam District.  According to the complaint, they intends to cultivate Paddy in their fields, prepared the land for sowing by believing the words of opposite parties that the seeds produced by the opposite parties would give yield of 25 to 30 quintals per acre.   The complainants No.1 and 2 have purchased BPT-5204 paddy seeds from the opposite party No.3.  Thereafter, sowed the seeds according to the instructions of opposite parties after taking necessary precautions and by using pesticides and fertilizers as required. Despite taking all precautions, there was no growth and yielding and the crop was having “Berukulu and Taalu Kankulu”.  The complainants alleged that the entire crop was damaged due to defective seeds, supplied by the opposite parties. Upon which, the complainants approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 on many times and also given the representations to the officials, concerned and M.A.O but there was no response from the opposite parties, due to which, the complainants 1 and 2 were sustained heavy loss.  They spent Rs.25,000/- per acre towards purchasing of seeds, sowing and cultivation of crop and engaging of coolies etc,.  The complainants lost one year crop at minimum market rate of Rs.2,000/- per 1 quintal.  According to the complaint, the minimum yielding per acre is at 40 quintals, therefore, the complainants claimed the compensation of Rs.40,000/- per acre.  Having no other go, approached this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- per acre towards damages for loss of crop of complainants No. 1 and 2 and costs. 

3.         Along with the complaint, the complainant’s No. 1 and 2 were filed individual affidavits along with following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 & A2.

Ex.A1:-Photocopy of Bill dt.24-06-2013 for Rs.3750.00/-, in the name of complainant No.2.  

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of Bill dt.24-06-2013 for Rs.3750.00/-, in the name of complainant No.1.

4.         On being noticed, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter by admitting that they sold BPT-5204 paddy variety to the complainants on subsidy through opposite party No.3 and denied the other allegations regarding no yielding.  Further it is also submitted that they sold 270 quintals of paddy seeds on subsidy in the same Mandal and out of district but they did not receive any complaint except this complaint.  After verification of standards of seeds, issued seed certification by the ISI department.  Thereafter, the seeds will be marketed by the company.  The opposite parties denied their liability towards loss of crop as alleged by the complainants and spending of amounts towards maintenance of crop.  Further, they also averred that complainants purchased huge quantity of seeds to raise the crop for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainants are not consumers as defined under consumer protection act.  The present complainant is filed in the month of November, i.e. after completion of crop period and as such the genetic purity of seeds cannot be assessed.  The seeds purchased by the farmers did not send for analysis under section 13(1)(c).  The opposite parties also submitted that non-yielding of crop was based on various factors i.e. poor agricultural practices, soil condition, inadequate rain fall, poor quality of fertilizers and usage of inferior quality of pesticides and insecticides etc,.  The complainants neither informed the failure of crop nor requested the company personal for inspection of crop and as such the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint, which is false and frivolous.

5.         Along with the complaint, the complainants No.1 and 2 filed a petition vide IA.No.163/2013 for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner to assess the loss of crop with the help of A.O. concerned.  Upon hearing, appointed an Advocate/Commissioner for assessment of damage of crop with the help of A.O.,concerned. Inspite of giving sufficient chances, the Advocate/Commissioner neither returned the warrant nor turned up for filing any report.

6.         The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in the counter.

7.         In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

As seen from the above averments, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of BPT – 5204 paddy seeds from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 through opposite party No. 3.  The only dispute is with regard to the damage of crop, as alleged by the complainants.  It is the case of the complainants, after purchasing of paddy seeds, manufactured by the opposite parties No.1 and 2, sowed in their fields by following all the procedure and precautions from time to time.  But there was no required yielding at all and sustained huge loss, even though, the opposite parties did not respond to compensate the complainants and as such knocked the doors of the consumer Forum on their grievance.  On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 denied all the averments as mentioned in the complaint by submitting that the seeds supplied by them were up to the mark and after verifying the rate of germination and its quality by ISI department, marketed by them and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on their part.  After perusing the material papers on record and after gone through the petition for appointment of advocate/ commissioner, we observed that the complainants failed to file sufficient proof regarding the cause of damage as alleged and also failed to place any expert opinion, regarding the quality of seeds and could not taken any steps for assessment of cause of loss and damage.  Moreover, the advocate/commissioner, who appointed to assess the damage and loss, failed to file the assessment/analysis report even after granting sufficient time and as such in the absence of any such proof we cannot find out any damage caused to the complainants because of seeds, supplied by the opposite parties and in the absence of any such proof, we cannot fasten any liability on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 28^th day of January, 2016.

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam