BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., L.L.B., President,

And

                                                                               Smt. C.Preethi,M.A.,L.L.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com.,LL.B.,Member

Monday the 18^th day of Aug, 2003

C.D.No.126/2002

Between:

1. Gundi Babu, S/o Gundi Geroge,
2. 2. K.Dastha Giri, S/o Dastagiri,
3. O.Prathap, S/o O.Isaiah
4. B.Chand Basha S/o Mohammed Hussaini,
5. K.Prasad, S/o K.Bhurganna
6. Syed Salam S/o Syed Gulam Hussaini,
7. M.Jashuwa, S/o Yesaiah,
8. Y.S.Subbarayudu S/o AbrahamY.Mallikarjuna, S/o Deva Sahayam,
9.  K.Swaminatham, S/o DevashayamK.Swami Nathan, S/o Deva Sahayam,
10.  S.Banga Reddy S/o Chinna veera reddy
11.  M.Abdul Rasheed S/o Khadar sahib
12. M.Khallel, S/o Azzez Miah
13. K.Chandrahas, S/o Nadipi Gurranna
14. N.Nageswara Rao, S/o Naganna

All are residents of Chabolu(V), Nandyal (M),Kurnool Dist.

                                                        ………………………………….. Inperson.

VS

1. M/S Sri Jagadeeswara Seedss, H.No.25/25E,Near Sanjeeva Nagar Gate, Nandyal, Kurnool      

                     Opposite parties No.1represented by their counsel Sri T.C.Venkata Ramana.   

2. 2. Kaveri Seed Co.Ltd. 513 B,5th floor,Minerva Complex,S.D.Road,secunderabad-50003.

          Opposite parties No.2 represented by their counsel Sri N.Nagendranath Reddy                        

Order

1. The Consumer Disputes of the complainant and 13 others under section 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay them each RS. 30,000/- towards the loss of the crop and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of mental agony and legal expenses.

2. The brief facts of the complainants case as per their invalid complaint which is warranting the due verification affix contents by the complainant complainants are that they purchased Hybrid paddy seed verity No.4668  from the opposite parties No.1 of the kaveri seed company private limited i.e., opposite party No.2 and sowed the same in their lands of chabolu village as per the instructions given by the opposite parties by investing Rs.10,000/- each for application of fertilizers pesticides and towards cultivation and mature etc.,  as per the advice of the agriculture officer. As the climate was good and favorable the germination was as per the specification and when the crop was gone to the seed stage, the crop was infected with blast and sheath blight so severally that drying of the leaves, they suspected that the seeds supplied was defective and were not genetically pure and complained about the same to the opposite parties, but the opposites never cared for above said facts and afterwards the mandal agriculture officer, nandyal was inspected the said lands, the complaints further alleged that the opposite parties advertised that the  seed and thus the opposite parties mis-led by the said publicity. In furtherance of it they purchased the seed and due to entire crop damage they sustained loss of Rs.30,000/- each and it was due to defective supply of the seed and the complainants are constrained to resort this forum for rederssal.
3.       The complaint enclosed to the complaint an un-attested Xerox copies of two adangales pertaining to Sri Gundi Geroge, S/o Shikhamani who was father of one of the complainants of the CC and filed un-attested Xerox copies of bills but not filed any of the sworn affidavits of it in support and in proof of the above facts and the above Xerox copies of the documents have no relevance in what so ever to their case and mere filling of such documents does not dispense with their proof said documents are not marked as exhibits.
4. In Pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case from this forum opposite parties contested the case by filling the affidavits and written versions in defence to the complainant’s averments. In the above given versions of the opposite parties questioned the justness and maintainability of the complainants averments of the written version the opposite parties admitted that the complainants purchased the paddy seeds of the complainants produced by the opposite party No.2 under the different lots and expirly of the validity of the seeds was also was covered by the certificate of the certification agency as required by the sec. 9 of the seed act conforming that the seeds covered by these lots conformed the prescribe standards which were not lower than the minimum limits of germination and the purity required by the central government under sec.6 of the seed Act. The opposite party No.1 filed in to the record with memo the Xerox copies of form No.II issued by the A.P.Seeds certification agency report of MOU committee issued by the District MOU committee, Kurnool dt.22.1.2002 and 30..1.2002 laboratory analysis is report dt.28.12.2001 along with office memos form-II issued by AP state seed certification agency dt.10.3.2001. These above said documents could not be marked as exhibits for want of their attestation as true copies and as not supported by the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 or of any body on his behalf who are acquainted with and speak of them. Further the opposite party No.1 states that he was not aware whether the complainants regarding sowing the application of fertilizers and pesticides and not aware of any advise given by the agriculture officer and also denied about the investment of Rs.10,000/- each towards cultivation charges, fertilizers, pesticides and manure etc., per acer and the allegation that the was good and favorable was also dined and the complaint about the defective nature of the seeds was ever Made to the opposite parties.
5. In response to the complaint received on crop damages of WGL 48684 paddy variety from the farmer of the chabolu, Babanagar Village to the members of the Kurnool District MOU they visited the fields on 22.1.2002 to ascertain the crop condition, by that time the crop was 60 to 80 days old and according to the MOU the crop was infected with blast and sheath blight aggravated and in their view the crop losses were not due to genetic impurity of the seed but only due to the selection of wrong variety and unfavorable environmental and management practices adopted by the cultivators the opposite party No.1 relied on the un-attested copy of the above said report was filed through the memo as already mentioned in supra and the opposite party no.1 further submitted that the never advertised about the night quality and yiled since their quality and the yield were proven.

6.  The opposite party No.2 re-iterates what the opposite party No.1 said in his written version averments and relied on them.

7. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant and five other are entitled to the reliefs prayed

8. The complaint itself in an invalid one for want of verification of its contents by the complainants and hence the very complaint is not remaining a valid complaint for entertaining. Further the said invalid complaint of the complainants expect alleging the defective seed was supplied to them by the opposite parties ensured the loss of the crop did not substantiate them by any co-gent  accessible evidence expect filling some un-attested Xerox documents which are not supported with ant sworn affidavits of persons acquainted with the said facts nor the complainants  paid any deligent interest inprosecuting thematter as they remained absent to the proceedings continuous since the matter ripen for hearing. As the opposite parties denied the allegations of the complaint in their duly verified written version filed requiring  their strict proof of the complainants. The complainants are obligated to prove their dought as to the alleged defect in the said seeds.

9. When all the seeds so purchased even if was used up and there is nothing available from the farmers which could be sent to the analysis as per the discussion made in maharastra Hybrid seeds Co.Ltd., V/s annapureddy Veijender Reddy and another reported in III CPJ 283. Such farmer to lodge a complaint under sec.23, seed act, 1968 in writing that the failure of the crop is due to defect quality of the seed inspector shall take into his possession marks or lables, the seed containers and sample of the un used seeds to the extent possible from the complainants for establishing the source of the supply of the seeds and shall investigate the cause of the failure of the said crop by sending samples of the lot to the seed analysis for the detailed analysis at state seed testing laboratory and submits his report as to the findings as soon as possible to the competent authority and in case seed inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop was due to the quality of the seed supplied to the farmers being less than minimum standers mortified by the suppliers government, he shall launch the proceedings against the suppliers for the contravention of the provision of the act and its rules. But as no such endeavour even bonafide doubt on the alleged defectiveness to the seeds purchased by the complainants.
10. Hence, in the set of circumstance the complainants are remaining utterly failed in establishing by any co-gent means and material as to the alleged defect in the seeds in question and of the incurred expenditure if any of them by any co-gent material or affirmation and there by not themselves entitled to the reliefs that could be awarded under sec.14 of the CP Act, 1986.

Consequently the case of the complainants as is remaining of devoid of merits and force is dismissed, and in the circumstance of the case each of the parties to bear their own costs.