This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswara 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 Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;

                        The complainant, who is an agriculturist, resident of Ramakrishnapuram village Chinthakani Mandal, Khamamam District, and the complainant is having agricultural land in the name of his father to an extent of Ac.2-20gts  in Sy.Nos.113 and  the complainant purchased Chilly  Seeds from  the opposite party No-1 on 12-6-2006 vide receipt No.5896, for Rs.5,125/-, which was produced and marketed by opposite party No-2  and after taking all precautions and by following directions  planted the seedlings in his field to  an extent of Ac.2.20gts., and the steams of the plants were raised  well for 20 days and after that leaves of the plants fallen down, causing stems  dry and the chilies also yielded in different colours and as such the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and representatives of opposite party No-1 inspected the crop, and the opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to intimate opposite party No-2 about the damage caused, but there is no response from the opposite parties, and the complainant alleges that he  suffered huge loss and further stated that he invested Rs.20,000/- per acre towards ploughing fertilizers and pesticides  and  as such he spent  Rs.50,000/- on Ac.2.20gts of land.  The complainant alleged that due to the defective seeds he lost yielding of   75 quintals in all and claiming Rs.4,50,000/- towards  loss of crop and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs.

3.                     Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed (i) Bill dated 12-6-2006 for Rs.5,125/- issued by opposite party No-1, ii) pahani copy, iii) empty seed pouches Nos.24.

4.       After receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and the opposite party No.1 failed to file its counter, the opposite party No.2 filed counter by denying the allegations.  

5.       In the counter the opposite party No-2 mentioned that there is no negligence or deficiency on their part   and further contended that the burden lies on the complainant to prove any deficiency and the complainant failed to prove the same and moreover did not  file any document regarding the defect in the seeds further the opposite party  No-2 contended that  the  complainant failed to file any scientific report to prove his claim and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  In the counter the opposite party No-2 further mentioned that the complainant did not send samples of the seeds for analysis as per the procedure laid down  u/s 13 (1) of C.P.Act and thus the opposite party No-2 questioned the very maintainability of the complaint and also stated that failure of crop is only due to poor agricultural practices followed by the complainant, and failure to take proper steps for irrigation and use of timely manure, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that as per the reports of   scientists the crop has   been affected due to Thrips’ infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University the crop was affected due to infestation of Groundnut Bud Necrosis Virus and Cucumber Mosaic Virus and the same shows that the problem is not due to the quality of seeds, the same was due to infestation of pest and virus and for which they cannot be held responsible. The opposite party No-2 further contended that the Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. did not disclose that the problem was due to defect in the seeds and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.     The Advocate/Commissioner filed his report basing on the report furnished by the M.A.O. and as per the report the crop was attacked by systemic mosaic and also mentioned other reasons which caused the loss of yielding.  The opposite party No.2 filed its objections on the A.O. report. 

8.         In view of the above submissions made by the both parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled  to any relief as prayed or not?

9.       As seen from the above averments it is the case of the complainant that due to the defective seed supplied by the opposite parties the yielding was affected and claimed damages from the opposite parties.  On the other hand it is the contention of the opposite parties that the loss of yielding was not due to defect in the seeds and the same was due to the attack of systemic mosaic virus and other reasons.  The complainant who approached the Forum for damages by alleging the quantity of seeds, did not filed any proof to show that the seeds are inferior in quality and did not taken any steps to get analyze the seeds  in a laboratory and in the absence of any such proof regarding the defect alleged, it is difficult to hold the liability of the opposite parties and, the report  of the commissioner/advocate and M.A.O. also did not speaks any thing against the quality of the seeds and moreover  as per the  report loss of yielding was due to the attack of virus and for other reasons and basing on the report, it cannot proper to hold  that the loss of yielding was due to defect in the seeds.  In view of the above discussion this Forum opined that the complainant failed to establish the allegation that the loss sustained by him was due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought.

10.     In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs. 

            Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this day of February, 2009.

                                                                   President              Member                Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil

                                                             President            Member             Member                                                                                          District Consumers Forum, Khammam