This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Ramesh, Advocate for 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 Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member, FAC President)

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

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants No. 1 to 10 are agriculturists, the complainant No.1 having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in survey No.51/A, and 53/AA,  complainant No.2 having Ac.5.00 in survey No.248 & 21/A, complainant No.6 having Ac.2.27gts in survey No.189/A and 191/A, complainant No.7 having Ac.7.00 of land in survey No.105, 556 and 305 and complainant No.8 having Ac.2.00 of land in survey No.106 situated at Rejerla Village, of sathupally mandal, complainant No.3 having Ac.2.00 in survey No.21/A in Sadasivunipalem village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District, complainant No.4 having Ac.4.00 of land in survey No.119/A, situated at Siddaram village, complainant No.5 having Ac.4.00 land in survey No. 91, situated at Kothuru village, sathupalli mandal, complainant No.9 having Ac.5.00 of land in survey No.380, 381, 382, 267 and 268 and complainant No.10 having Ac.5.00 of land in survey No. 263/A and 263/E situated at Berapally Village of sathupally mandal, Khammam District.  Basing on the propagation made by the opposite parties, that the paddy seed BPT – 5204 is a standard quality and quantity composition seed in paddy crop, which yields 25-30 quintals per acre, the complainants and other agriculturists of their village believed information and purchased the paddy seed from the opposite parties.  The complainants further submitted that they have purchased packets of BPT- 5204 paddy seeds from the opposite party No.3 by paying the amount.  The complainants further submitted that as per the instructions of the opposite parties, complainants sowed the paddy seeds by taking all precautions, but inspite of taking all precautions and the manures, there is no growth and yielding in the paddy crop, because there are BERUKULU and TALU KANKULU and some crop was not grown and caused damages on entire crop.  The complainants immediately intimated the same to the opposite party No.1 to 3, so many times, gave representations to the Agriculture Officer of Sathupalli and Vemsoor Mandals and other Officers with regard to the defective and poor quality of seeds which were supplied by the opposite parties.  The complainants further submitted that they had taken all the precautions but due to inferior quality and defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties they have sustained heavy loss, they spend an amount of Rs.25,000/- per acre towards purchase of seed, sowing the crop and for coolies etc,.  The complainants submitted that they lost one year crop, which is minimum of market value of Rs.2,000/- per quintals for a minimum yielding of 40 quintals for per acre, the yielding was completely damaged as such in all, the complainants claiming an amount of Rs.40,000/- per acre, even after making representations as the opposite parties failed to pay compensation as such the complainants approached this Forum.   

3.       The complainants along with their complaint filed a petition IA.No. 160/2013 for appointment of Commissioner / Advocate to visit the petition scheduled land and inspect the standing crop raised there in and assess the damages of the paddy crop if any and note down the physical features with the Assistance of V.A.O. and Agricultural Officer concerned and the same was allowed by this Forum on 02-12-2013 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.   Even after lapse of 2 years the Commissioner / Advocate failed to return the warrant.            

4.       Along with the complaint, the complainants filed affidavit and photocopies of following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.

Ex.A1:-Photocopy of Purchase bills issued by opposite parties             (10 Nos.) on 19-06-2013 24-06-2013 and 28-06-2013.

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of representation submitted by the complainants to the opposite party No.2.

5.       On receipt of notice, the opposite parties No.1&2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In their counters the opposite parties No.1 and 2 admitted the purchase of seeds by the complainants from the opposite party No.3 under subsidy, for that the opposite party No.3 issued cash bill.  The opposite parties submitted that they sold 270 quintals of paddy seeds in the Sathupally Mandal and throughout the district on subsidy basis.  The opposite parties further submitted that they selling the seeds with subsidy and the said seeds are come to the market after thoroughly verifying and scanning the seeds for its germination and after certifying by the ISI department, the complainants did not give any information letter to the A.P. Seeds.  The opposite parties no.1 and 2 denied the expenditure and loss incurred by the complainants and they submitted that the complainants took up the cultivation of paddy for commercial purpose for that they purchased huge quantity of seed and sowed in large extent to get profit it indicates that the complainants purchased the seeds for getting profits obviously in production in huge quantities and not for domestic use or consumption which clearly indicates that alleged yield was to resell in a commercial basis.  Therefore, the complainants are not come under the definition of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the consumer protection Act and this complainant is not maintainable.  The opposite parties further submitted that the complainants filed the complaint in the month of November 2013 i.e. after completion of the crop period and genetic purity of seeds cannot be assessed and the complainants failed to file any scientific analysis report to prove their claim.  The opposite parties submitted that as per the procedure contemplated under section 13 (1)(c) of the consumer protection act, the seeds should be sent for analysis, to prove that the seed supplied to them by the opposite parties are defective and inferior.  The opposite parties also submitted that the documents filed along with the complaint are fabricated and created for the purpose of filing this complaint for getting wrongful gain.  They further submitted that the crop can fail due to various reasons, i.e. poor agriculture practice followed by the complainants, poor soil condition, inadequate rain fall, poor quality of fertilizers and also due to poor quality or inadequate or overdose of pesticide, insecticides, failure to take proper steps for irrigation on use of timely manure, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers.  The opposite parties submitted that there is no genetic disorder in the seeds manufactured by the opposite parties and it is a false ground raised by the complainants, the seeds are genetically procured and thoroughly tested in the laboratories before releasing into the Market and the complainants never informed the opposite parties about the condition of the crop nor made any request to send any person for personal inspection, therefore the complaint is false and frivolous  and prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

6.       Written arguments of opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed.      

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

          Whether the complainants is entitled to the relief

                    as prayed for?

Point:-                  

          There is no dispute regarding the purchase of paddy seeds BPT – 5204 by the complainants from the opposite parties.  According to the complainants as per the instructions of the opposite parties, the complainants sowed the seeds by taking all precautions, they used the pesticides and fertilizers as required, inspite of taking all precautions and the measures there is no growth and yielding because there is BERKULU AND TAALU KANKULU in the paddy crop and some crop was not grown and caused damages on entire crop, the same was intimated to the opposite parties, as the opposite parties failed to take steps the complainants approached the Forum for redressal. 

          From the documents and material available on record, we observed that the complainants have purchased the paddy seed BPT – 5204 from the opposite parties and the same was sowed and as there is no growth and yielding in the paddy crop they intimated the same to the opposite parties and approached this Forum.  Basing on the petition filed by the complainants this Forum appointed Commissioner / Advocate to visit the petition scheduled land, inspect the standing crop raised there in and assess the damages of the paddy crop if any and note down the physical features with the assistance of V.A.O. and Agriculture Officer concerned, but the Commissioner warrant is not returned.  Without commissioner report or any scientific analysis report we cannot declare the seeds are defective and poor quality and we cannot attribute any deficiency against the opposite parties as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainants.  

8.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

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

                     FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.