This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 23-7-2008 in the presence of Sri. V.Kasi Viswanadha Rao, 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 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;
The complainant purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Chilly Seeds Lot No.URD 200585, vide net weight 10gramsx 1packet each packet costs Rs.200/-x20packets, worth Rs.4,000/- vide Receipt No.76, from the opposite party No-1, dated 4-7-2006. The opposite party No-2 had assured that the seed Germination Min.60% p.p.(Min)98% G.P.(min)95%.
3. In the month of July-2006, the complainant raised the nursery, for the transplantation of the Mirchi crop in an extent of Ac.2-00gts in Sy.No3&4 situated at Vennaram Village, Dornakal Mandal. In the month of 1st week of September, 2006 the transplantation of the said Mirchi crop was taken place by taking all the precautionary measures and followed all the directions.
4. That the plants stems were raised greenish thereafter started falling of leaves and there is no further growth and there were no yielded of Tejaswini crop and no flowering. The villagers who are also suffered with same problem in respect of Tejaswini Seeds. The opposite party No-1 with some of the representative of the opposite party No-2 came and inspected the crop of the complainant and other crops, and found the “Trade mark of Tejaswini Chilly Seeds” have caused heavy damage and there was no yielding at all. The opposite party No-1 promised to inform the opposite party No-2 for differentiating the damages caused to the complainant. But so far there was no progress. It is found and clear that the standing chilly crop is badly damaged due to supply of non-qualitative seeds by the opposite party No-1 & 2. The opposite parties assured 20 quintals per acre. That the complainant invested amount of Rs 20,000-00, towards seeds and for costs of pesticides and fertilizers, total amounting to Rs.40,000/- for Ac.2-00gts. Hence, this complaint direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,60,000/- for 2 Ac. For the damages of Chilli crop and to award of damage of Rs.20,000/- or to award any relief.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit along with the original receipt issued by opposite partyNo-1 on 4-7-06 for an amount of Rs.4,000/-
6. Opposite Party No-2 filed following counter and the same is adopted by opposite party No.1
The complainant is not produced any expert opinion to prove that the seed supplied to him was defective. The complainant did not produce any material evidence to show that the seed supplied by opposite party was defective. There is no genetic impurity has been noticed in the affected chilli crop.
7. 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 20 quintals per acre. It is also false to say that the market value of Chilli crop Rs.4,000/- per quintal. There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- for cultivation of chilli crop.
8. 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”
9. The complainant is not entitled any damage of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.20,000 towards expenditure to raise the chilli crop.
10. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
11. The complainant and opposite parties did not file any written arguments. The complainant filed his chief-affidavit along with complaint.
12. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
13. It is the contention of the complaint that the complainant is having Ac2-00gts of land and he purchased 20 packets of seed from the opposite party No-1 and he raised the said crop in his field by investing an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The crop grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feet without flowering. This fact was intimated to opposite party No-1 and agricultural officer. The agricultural officer visited his field and opined that the damage of crop was due to defective seed .
14. For this the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any documentary evidence to show that he is having Ac2-00gts of Agricultural land . Admittedly the complainant did not file any Pattadar Pass book or Pahany to show that he is having this much of land.
15. Another contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase receipt of Rs.4,000/-.
16. 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.
17. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.320/07 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 5th day of August, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
