This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 21-1-2008 in the presence of  Sri. K.Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainant,  and in the presence of Sri.I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the  opposite party No-1,and in the presence of   Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 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) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having dry land to an extent of Ac.1-30gts out of Sy.No.410 situated at Jeellacheruvu Village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District.  The complainant had purchased Mahyco Hybrid Tejaswini Seeds from opposite party No-1 on 9-7-05 for 12 packets vide Lot No.705, Rs.190/- per packet  and  paid  Rs.2,280/- and obtained bill from the opposite party No-1. 

3.         At the time of purchase of the above said seed, the opposite party No-1 assured that the seeds supplied by him would yield  20 quintals  per acre.  As per the instructions of the opposite party No-1 the complainant prepared seedbed for sowing the above  seeds by taking all precautions.  After sowing the seeds the complainant applied pesticides and fertilizers, but inspite of taking all precautions the crop was not grown up properly and there was no budding and crop completely damaged and also appearing some of chilli on yellow and grown colour some of chilly appearing very shortly  and there is no hope of minimum yielding.  The complainant approached Mandal Agricultural Officer on 24-1-2006 and the complainant made many rounds with the opposite party No-1 for inspection of crops.  The Mandal Agricultural Officer and opposite party did not visit the land of complainant.  That the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for raising the chilli crop.  The opposite parties supplied inferior quality of defective seeds.  Hence this complaint direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the loss of crop, due to defective seeds supplied to the complainant and to award costs of the complainant.   

4.         The complainant filed his  affidavit along with the following documents:

(i) Original bill, dated 9-7-05 for Rs.2,280/- (ii) Representation given to Mandal Agriculture Officer by the complainant, dated 24-1-2006. (iii) Empty seed covers 4 in number of the opposite parties (iv)Photo with negative of chilly crop of the complainant.

5.         The opposite party No-2 filed the following counter.  The same is adopted by opposite party No-1.

6.         It is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner is not a competent person to assess the loss of the crop as he has no agricultural background.  Further the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Forum in the first week of March, 2006 when the crop already reached to its flag and stage. It is harvest stage and by that time  the field inspection of crop by the Advocate/Commissioner when  the complainant already harvested the yield from the chilli crop.  As per Agricultural standard practice and procedure the duration of the chilli crop is 180 days where as the field was inspected after 240days from the date of purchase of seeds  i.e. 9-7-05.  Further it is not a time to assess the genetic purity of crop as the crop was reach harvesting stage.

7.         This Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as it is not a consumer dispute.

8.         The complainant did not file any experts or scientific report to prove that there was any defect in the seed.  The respondent relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported CPJ –II (2005) Page No.94 between   between Sonekaran Gladiolo Growers V/s. Babu Ram decided on 10-02-2005 as per this decision expert opinion is necessary to prove quality of seeds.

9.         As per  section 13 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, when the complainant  alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods then the samples of said lot be sent to the appropriate laboratory for analysis.  The complainant did not  send  the seed for laboratory test.  In this regard the opposite party No-2  relied on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005 NC, Page No.47 between Hindustan Insecticides Limited V/s. Kopoulu Sambasiva Rao & Others.

10.      The  Seed Lot SKD-200705B was uniformly tested in the Seed Testing Laboratory of Company prior to its sale vide  test reports dated 17-7-04 and 29-7-04.  It is denied that the complainant is an agriculturist and he is having dry land to an extent of Ac1-30gts in Sy.No.410 .  The opposite party No-1 also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court  reported India 2005(AR) SCW 1208 in the matter of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. V/s.Sadhu and another where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that variation in the condition of the crop may not be attributed to the quality of the seed but it may be due to other factors including water quality used for irrigation, long dry spell, salt  accumulation in surface layer, sowing methodology, moisture content at the sowing time and soil physical condition.

11.      It is submitted that during this season, most of the fields in Khammam District were affected by Mosaic Virus and wilt  which had been cause to  the crop loss.

12.      Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with the costs of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice.

13.      The opposite party filed the following documents;

(i) Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, dated 10-2-05.

(ii) Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, dated 12-5-05.

(iii) Germination Test Result of Hy.Chilli seeds, dated 17-7-04.

(iv)Grow Out Test Result , dated 21-7-04.

(v) Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble State Commission, Bangalore, dated 5-6-95

(vi)Copy of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 18-2-05.

(vii)Viral and Mycoplasmal Diseases of  Vegetable Crops (page no.99 to 110)

(viii)Diseases of Vegetable crops published by Dr.R.S.Singh.

(ix)Copy of certificate of Ministry of Science & Technology, dated 23-3-04.

(x)Copy of certificate issued by International Seed Testing, dated 20-7-05.

14.      The opposite party No-1 filed a memo stating that the counter of opposite party No-2 may be treated as Chief affidavit and written arguments of opposite party No-2.

15.      That the complainant filed a I.A.No.39/06 to appoint an Advocate/ Commissioner to assess  the damages of Chilli crop and also to collect the samples and to sent these sample to the laboratory for the purpose of analysis.  The Advocate/Commissioner filed his report.

16.      Whether the complainant is entitled  as  prayed for?

17.      It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased Mahyco Vegetable Chilli Seeds from opposite party No-1 on 9-7-05 believing the version of opposite party No-1 that the above said seeds  will give yield of 20 quintals per acre.  The complainant raised the seedbed and transplanted the seeds in his field by using fertilizers.  But in spite of  taking all precautions the crop was not proper and there was no budding and the crop is completely damaged and some chilli  appeared in yellow and grown colour.  This is due to defective seed supplied by the opposite parties.  The complainant also incurred an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards expenditure.  Hence this complaint to award damage of Rs.1,50,000/-.

18.      For this the contention of the opposite party No-2 is that the Advocate/Commissioner visited the field after 240 days from the date of purchase of seeds that is 9-7-05 at a time the  crop period is already over.

19.      Another main contention of the opposite party is that to prove the defective seeds as per section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act when alleges the defective in goods which cannot be determined without proper laboratory test analysis.  In this case this was not done.  It is also the contention of the opposite party No-2 is that the Seed Lot SKD-200705B was uniformly tested in the Seed Testing Laboratory of Company on 17-7-04 and 29-7-04 as per those reports the germination was 88% and 96.3%.  Another contention is that during that season most of fields in Khammam District affected by  Mosaic Virus.  The complainant  chilli crop was also affected  with Mosaic Virus.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

20.      We have perused the documents filed by the complainant and the opposite parties .  The complainant filed the bill issued by opposite party No-1, dated 9-7-05 and also filed a letter submitted to the Mandal Agricultural Officer by the complainant.  And also filed photos with negatives expect these documents the complainant did not file any bills showing the expenditure and so also the complainant did not prove that the complainant is having land in Sy.No.410 to an extent of Ac.1-30gts.

21.      The Advocate/Commissioner  admittedly visited the field of the complainant on 5-4-06.   As per the contention of opposite party No-2 the duration of the chilli crop was only 180 days and as per the bill filed by the complainant  the seeds on purchased          9-7-05.  The Advocate/Commissioner visited the field on 5-4-06 by the time the crop period is already over.  To prove the contention of the complainant that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective the seeds shall be tested by the appropriate laboratory to say that the seed supplied by the opposite parties are defective.  In this case the complainant did not take any steps to send the seeds for laboratory test.  Merely relying on the Advocate/Commissioner report we cannot come to the conclusion that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective. 

22.      Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant fails to prove his case.  Hence the complaint liable for dismissal.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.  The point is answered against the complainant.

23.      In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  No costs.

           Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 25th    day of   January, 2008.

                                                                                       President         Member              Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

                                          APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                          WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Complainant                                                                                     Opposite parties

Nil                                                                                                        Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant                                                                         Opposite parties

   Nil                                                                                     Nil

                                                       President         Member             Member                                                                                          District Consumers Forum, Khammam