This C.C came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Complainant; Sri.B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for opposite party Nos.1 and 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments.
The complainant is an agriculturist and he has been growing the cotton crop since the last 15 years. In the month of September, 2007, he approached the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the best quality of the cotton seeds, on belief the words of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased three packets of R.C.H.-2, B.T.Cotton Seeds for Rs.2,250/- in lot No.070122540-143409 and sowed the same in his land, but there is no crop even after three months. After three months, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and revealed the same, but the opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to approach opposite party No.2. Further the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and informed the crop condition, but there is no proper reply. The complainant had invested Rs.75,000/- towards the fertilizers, pesticides and labour charges over the crop. Due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.75,000/-. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to pay the damages of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 24% P.A. and to grant any other relief.
2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter, denying the averments made in the complaint that the information about the crop condition, proper reply was not given by the opposite party No.2, investment for Rs.75,000/- towards fertilizers, pesticides and labour charges. The opposite parties further stated that the germination and vegetative growth of plants, the yield of crop depends on several factors viz., type of soil, sowing time, favourable climatic conditions, etc., the complainant did not make any representation to officers of Agricultural department or seed inspector concerned in respect of alleged poor yield of crop. It is further stated that the calendar issued by N.G.Acharya university, Hyderabad prescribed that sowing of the cotton seed between 25-5-2007 to 21-6-2007 whereas the complainant belatedly in the month of September, 2007 after more than three months, which shall have adverse affect on yield of crop. It is further stated that RCH-2 BT cotton seed is a certified seed and approved by Department of Agriculture, Govternment of A.P., except the complaint of one Polempalli Joga Rao vide C.C.No.737/2007, no other farmer have experienced any adverse results out of 38,000/- packets of said variety of seed marketed by opposite party No.2 during relevant season. It is also stated that the alleged expenditure of Rs.2,500/- per acre is baseless and concocted to have wrongful gain. Hence, the complaint may be dismiss with costs.
3. On behalf of complainant, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2.
Ex.A.1 - Bill No.98 for Rs.4,500/- issued by opposite party No.1 in
favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A.2 - Bill No.99 for Rs.1,500/- issued by opposite party No.1 in
favour of the Complainant.
4. On behalf of the opposite parties, the following documents have been filed and marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4.
Ex.B.1 - Xerox copy of Licence to carry on the business of a dealer
in seeds issued by the Addl. Director of Agriculture.
Ex.B.2 - Xerox copy of Form VII issued by Seed Inspector.
Ex.B.3 - Xerox copy of page No.14 in Agriculture Panchangam
2007-08.
Ex.B.4 - Xerox copy of receipts pertaining receipt Nos.97 to 100.
5. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed a petition in I.A.2/2008 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. This forum has appointed Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao as Advocate commissioner to assess the damage of the crop. But he did not file commissioner report.
6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
P O I N T:
7. It is the case of the complainant is that on belief the words of opposite party No.1, he purchased the cotton seed, sowed the same in his Ac.3-00 of land by investing the amounts of Rs.75,000/-, but there is no growth in the crop. Admittedly there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the same. It is further case of the complainant that when he represented about the damage of crop before the opposite parties, there is no proper reply. It is denied by the opposite parties in their counter that there is no representation before them and stated that the the complainant did not make any representation to officers of Agricultural department or seed inspector concerned in respect of alleged poor yield of crop. It is further stated that the calendar issued by N.G.Acharya university, Hyderabad prescribed that sowing of the cotton seed between 25-5-2007 to 21-6-2007 whereas the complainant belatedly in the month of September, 2007 after more than three months, which shall have adverse affect on yield of crop.
8. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.75,000/-. Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts except the seed purchase receipts.
9. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.2/2008 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damage of crop, the same was allowed and appointed an advocate/commissioner to assess the damage of the crop with the help of Agriculture Officer. But the Advocate/commissioner did not file report.
10. Hence, we are of the opinion that to prove the defective seed the complainant must take steps to send a sample of the seed to agricultural laboratory and basing on the report of laboratory test we can come to the conclusion that due to defective seed the crop was failed or for some other reasons. The complainant did not take any steps to send the seed for laboratory test. Hence, he failed to prove that the seed is defective. Hence, the complaint is liable for dismissal. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed. The point is answered against the complainant.
11. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 10th day of July, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.A.1 - Bill No.98 for Rs.4,500/- issued by opposite party No.1 in
favour of the Complainant.
Ex.A.2 - Bill No.99 for Rs.1,500/- issued by opposite party No.1 in
favour of the Complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B.1 - Xerox copy of Licence to carry on the business of a dealer in
seeds issued by the Addl. Director of Agriculture.
Ex.B.2 - Xerox copy of Form VII issued by Seed Inspector.
Ex.B.3 - Xerox copy of page No.14 in Agriculture Panchangam 2007-08.
Ex.B.4 - Xerox copy of receipts pertaining receipt Nos.97 to 100.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
