This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 19-11-2008 in the presence of Sri. B.Gangadhar, Advocate for Complainant , and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1& 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.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having land to an extent of Ac1-00gts out of Sy.No.496 situated at Perumalla Sankeesa (v), Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. That the complainant had purchased Mahyco Hybrid Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 16-6-2006 for 10 packets @Rs.210/- per packet and paid Rs.2,100/- and obtained bill. At the time of purchase of the seeds the opposite party No-1 made the complainant to believe that it will give minimum yielding of 30 quintals per acre.
3. As per the instructions of the opposite party No-1 the complainant prepared seed bed by taking all precautions. He sowed the seeds after 30 days the seedlings were transplanted in the said land by using pesticides and fertilizers and he is also having open wells and electric motors with sufficient water facility. But in spite of taking all precautions he observed variation of growth of the crop and height 3 feet and he found that 95% of plants were abnormally growned which were different with the normally appearing as Tejaswini plants. These abnormal plants were very low budding and the pods were deformed shape and wrinkled. This is due to defective seeds and the complainant approached Mandal Agricultural Officer to show the damage of crop and also in time to opposite party No-1 but the opposite party No-1 neither inspected the crop of complainant nor give any reply. The complainant invested an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards seed purchase, transplantation of plants, engaging coolies, towards fertilizes and pesticides etc. The complainant is estimated loss of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre at minimum present market price Rs.5,000/- per quintal. Hence this complaint directing the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss of crop, due to un qualitative seeds supplied to the complainant, and causing mental agony and sufferance, and to award costs of the complaint
4. That the complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:
(i)original bill, dated 16-6-06 for an amount of Rs.4,330/-
5. Opposite Party No- 2 filed the following counter and the opposite party No-1 adopted counter of opposite party No-2.
It is submitted that the complainant is not produced any expert opinion to prove that seeds supplied were defective. Further there is no material evidence on record produced by the complainant which can prove that Tejaswini chilli seed supplied to the complainant were defective. Further there is no genetic impurity has been noticed in the affected Chilli crop.
6. That during September & October, 2006 there was a long dry spell for 2 months in the region which affected on the fruit flowering formation of chilli crop. Further due to long dry spell there was severe infestation of “Thrips” and “Sucking pest” on the Chilli crop. The said insect pest has spread other viruses on the Chill crop which resulted into less fruit & flower formation on Chilli plants. The department of Agriculture, Khammam and accordingly they inspected the affected farmers fields in Khammam urban area. The team of scientist including Dr.Khalid Ahmed, Principal Scientist and Smt. T.Vijaya Lakshmi, Scientist of chilli section from Regional Agricultural Research station, LAM Guntur and other members visited the affected plots of the farmers and observed that the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of “Thrips” infestation. The findings of the team of scientist has been confirmed by Associate Director of Research, RARS, LAM, Guntur vide his communication dated 6-11-2006 addressed to the Director of Research, ANGRAU, Hyderabad. A copy of the said communication dated 6-1-06 along with report of team of Scientist already submitted .
It is false to say that the opposite parties had assured crop above 30 quintals per acre. It is also false to say that the market value of Chilli crop Rs.5,000/- per quintal. There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.25,000/- for cultivation of chilli crop.
7. As per section 13 (1)(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is mandatory that “where the complaint 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.” As per the judgment 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 & Ors. Where in the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ It was for the complainant or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate steps as per the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, That was not done”
8. The complainant is not entitled any damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards crop loss and causing for mental agony.
9. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
10. The complainant filed his affidavit along with complaint.
11. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
12. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.25,000/- . Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts except the seed purchase receipt of Rs.4,330/- .
13. The main contention of the opposite parties is that to prove the defective seeds, it is mandatory u/s. 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the defective seed must send to the appropriate laboratory for testing analysis.
14. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.296/07 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damages. The advocate/commissioner did not file report best reasons known to him.
15. It is also the contention of the opposite parties is that a team of scientists visited the fields of some farmers and gave their opinion that due to long dry spells of 2 months, Chili crop was severe infestation of Thrifts and sucking pest. Due to this sucking pest the chilli crop resulted into flower loss and fruit formation. To prove their contention the opposite parties have submitted the report of scientists of chilli crop in Khammam District.
16. Hence, we are of the opinion that to prove the defective seed the complainant must 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.
17. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Open Forum on this 2nd day of December, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
