Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Thursday, the 22^nd day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 07/2004

Between:

Terala Ramanaiah, S/o Rajamallu,

R/o Kapulakanparthy Sangem Mandal,

Warangal District.

                      … Complainant

AND

1. Monsanto India Ltd.,

    Rep. By its Managing Director,

    Ahyra Centre, 5^th floor,

   96-Mahakali Cave Road,

   Andrai East, Mumbai – 400 093.

2. Mahyco Seeds Ltd.,

    Rep. By its Marketing Manager,

    Resham Bhavan, 4^th floor, 78-Veemariman Road,

    Mumbai – 400 020.

3. Pavan Sai Agencies,

    Rep. By its Proprietor,

    Dealers in Seeds & Pesticides,

    Kashibugga Chowrastha, Warangal.

4.  Mahyco Mansanto Biotec India Ltd.,

     271-224, Midas Sahara Plaza,

     Mrasanji Road, Andheri East,

     Mumbai – 58.                                                             … Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. V. Raju,  Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties  : Sri N. Surender, Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                  ORDER

       Per Smt.V.J. Praveena, Member.

          This is a compliant filed by the complainant T. Ramanaiah against the Oppoiste parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pass decree for Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one packet of MECH-162 B.T. seeds plus 120 gms Non B.T. seeds at Rs.1600/- per 450 grams on 14-6-2002 under cash bill No.273 from Opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the above seeds and packing and Opposite party NO.1 is the license holder of Gene Cry IAC that has been incorporated into the B.T. cotton seed.  The seeds are purchased by the complainant for the purpose of rising cotton crop in one acre of complainant land and complainant also followed the guidelines given by Opposite parties 1,2 and 3.  The complainant sowed the Non B.T. seeds around the field, but due to inferior qualities of seeds sold by Opposite parties No.1 to 4 the complainant did not get even the normal yield.  Thereby the complainant suffered huge loss.  Consequently the complainant invested physical labour and efforts have gone in vain and the complainant sustained loss of Rs.25,000/-.  Thereafter he got issued legal notice and Opposite parties 1 and 2 gave reply.  Thereafter he got issued rejoinder to all the parties in a subsequent dates and under section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Then he filed this case before this Forum and requested this Forum to pass decree  for Rs.25,000/- @ interest 24% p.a. and with cost.

          Written version filed by Opposite parties 1 and 2 and 4 that the facts mentioned in the complaint are baseless and invalid.  Actually the seeds supplied by them are in a good quality because the complainant could not see the crop by way of lack of water and lack of fertilizers he sustained heavy loss but not for the cause of quality less seeds, and he requested this Forum to dismiss this complaint.

          The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-8.   On behalf of Opposite party No.1 Sunil Kumar and on behalf of opposite party No.4 Mahendra Chavan filed their Affidavits in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

          Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.25,000/- against Opposite parties @ interest 24% and with cost.

          After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

The complainant purchased one packet of MECH-162 B.T. seeds plus 120 gms Non B.T. seeds at Rs.1600/- per 450 grams on 14-6-2002 under cash bill No.273 from Opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the above seeds and packing and Opposite party NO.1 is the license holder of Gene Cry IAC that has been incorporated into the B.T. cotton seed.  The seeds are purchased by the complainant for the purpose of rising cotton crop in one acre of his land and complainant also followed the guidelines given by Opposite parties 1,2 and 3.  The complainant sowed the Non B.T. seeds around the field, but due to inferior qualities of seeds sold by Opposite parties No.1 to 4 the complainant could not get even the normal yield.  Thereby the complainant suffered huge loss.  Consequently the complainant invested physical labour and efforts have gone in vain and the complainant sustained loss of Rs.25,000/-.  Thereafter he got issued legal notice and Opposite parties 1 and 2 gave reply.

          Opposite parties contention is that actually the seeds supplied by them are in a good quality because the complainant could not see the crop by way of lack of water and lack of fertilizers he sustained heavy loss but not for the cause of quality less seeds.

          In this case no doubt the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A-8, but those documents are not at all helpful to the case of the complainant.  Those documents are only the invoice bill, the  legal notices, rejoinder and postal acknowledgements.  Ex.A-1 Bill, Ex.A-2 legal notice, Ex.A-3 rejoinder and Ex.A-4 letter by complainant Advocate to Opposite parties.  These documents does not help the case of the complainant.  The complainant stated in his complaint that due to non quality seeds supplied by Opposite parties he sustained heavy loss. And for that no document filed by the complainant to prove with regard to the seeds are less quality seeds.  Here our answer is that the seeds are quality seeds because as per Ex.B-1 copy of inspection report given by Joint Director of Agriculture. In this name of the complainant is not mentioned but name of the seed is mentioned in the report i.e, Ex.B-1 as MECH 12 B.T. cotton hybrid genetically pure.  So this shows that seeds are quality seeds.  But further in the absence of any documentary proof and in the absence of documents filed by the complainant this Forum cannot say, that seeds are quality less seeds.  If really the complainant filed any single document  from laboratory after testing the seed, certainly this Forum can believe that the seeds are quality less.  But as per Ex.B-1 “MECH 12 BT cotton hybrid genetically pure” and further the complainant has not filed any document from any laboratory to show that the seeds are very quality less seeds.  In the absence of any proper and valid laboratory test of the seeds, no one can offer a logical and scientific opinion regarding defect in the seeds. 

To draw proper and valid scientific findings, it is mandatory that the seeds should be sent to the appropriate laboratory to analysis to ascertain quality of seed as per section 13 (1) © of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

          In this case admittedly no document filed from laboratory with regard to the quality of the seeds. As per Ex.B-1 the seeds are quality.  In the absence of any documentary proof this Forum cannot say that the seeds are quality less and further only the complainant sustained heavy loss of Rs.25,000/- only with regard to non watering  and applying fertilizers. 

          For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that the seeds are good quality.  When the seeds are good quality Opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation or decree in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant this point also decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 22^nd May, 2008)

                                                     Sd/-                Sd/-                     Sd/-

                                                 Member           Member            President,

                                                     District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Affidavit of O.P.1 filed.

                                                                   Affidavit of O.P.4 filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Original bill issued by Opposite party No.3, dt.14-6-2002.
2. Ex.A-2 Office copy of Legal notice issued to Opposite parties NO.2 & 3, dt.9-7-2003.
3. Ex.A-3 Rejoinder, dt.1-8-2003.
4. Ex.A-4 Office copy of Legal notice issued to Opposite parties NO.2 & 3, dt.14-8-2003.
5. Ex.A-5 Rejoinder, dt.11-11-2003.
6. Ex.A-6 Original postal receipt.
7. Ex.A-7 Original postal receipt.
8. Ex.A-8 Postal Acknowledgment.

 On behalf of Opposite party.

1. Ex.B-1 Field inspection report of cotton hybrid in Warangal District of variety MECH 12 by J.D. Agriculture, Warangal.
2. Ex.B-2 Quality control report of Mahyco

      Sd/-

President.