M/s. Krishna Sai Seeds and Agro Implements, rep. by its Managing Partner. , Khammam. & another 2. M/s. Monsanto India Limited, Mumbai
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 16th day of June, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C. No.35/2009 Between: Perumallapalli Yesu, S/o Papaiah, Age:35yrs, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o Gate Karepally Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District. . Complainant and 1) M/s Krishna Sai Seeds and Agro Implements, K.V.R. Complex, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam Town and District. 2) M/s Monsanto India Limited, 5th Floor, Ahura Centre, 96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, rep. by its Managing Partner. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri. H. Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for complainant, Sri Md. Kareem, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri K.P. Satynarayana Rao and P. Krishna Rao, Advocates for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments this forum passed the following O R D E R (Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member) 1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and having land to an extent of Ac. 2.00 gts. out of Sy.No.23/3B in Gate Karepally Village of Khammam District and intends to raise Maize crop, approached the opposite party No.1 on 18-12-2008 and purchased two bags of Maize seed on 18-12-2008 vide bill No.44 for Rs.3,200/- by believing the assurances of opposite party No.1 that the seeds will give good yielding. The complainant further submitted that he prepared the seed bed by providing sufficient fertilizers and sowed the seeds as per the instructions of opposite party No.1 and applied necessary fertilizers and pesticides and prepared the land for proper yielding and expected to get 5 to 6 quintals yielding per acre, but to surprise there is very less yielding and after observing that there is only 10% 20% flowers to the plants, immediately he approached the A.O. and Revenue Officials concerned and requested to inspect his land and assess the loss caused to him. But they never visited the fields of the complainant. The complainant also submitted that at the time of purchase of Dekalb Pinnacle variety of Maize seeds, the opposite party No.1 had assured that the said seeds will give 50 quintals per acre but to surprise he sustained loss of 88 quintals per 2 acres and as per the market rate, he sustained a loss of Rs.70,000/- for 2acres, due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties. As such the complainant approached the forum and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.70,000/- towards damages and costs and also directed the A.O. concerned to visit the fields of the complainant and assess the damages caused to him. 2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as exhibits. Ex.A1:- Bill dated 18-12-2008 for Rs.3200/- Ex.A2:- Representation dated 21-02-2009 made by the complainant to the District Collector, Khammam. Ex.A3:- Empty Seed pouches [2 in No.] Ex.A4:- Pahani copy. 3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and the opposite party No.2 filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint. 4. In the counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant cultivated the Maize crop for commercial purpose not for domestic use or for consumption and the complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable and also submitted that the complainant failed to file any scientific analysis report to prove his case and not follow the procedure as prescribed in Section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act, to find out the defective and inferior quality in the seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the failure of yielding depends upon various reasons i.e., poor agricultural practice, inadequate rain fall or utilization of poor quality of fertilizers and pesticides and lack of proper care to the crop and also submitted that, before releasing the seeds into the market, the manufacturer thoroughly tested the seeds and also submitted that the advocate/commissioner failed to assess the actual loss by filing his report only basing on the information given by the complainant and he is not a competent person to technically assess the actual damage to the crop. As such prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 5. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed a petition to appoint an advocate/commissioner to verify the Maize crop with the help of A.O. concerned, accordingly this forum appointed an advocate/commissioner and according to the commissioners report, the crop was very thin and the stems were dried up. The average height of the stem is @ 2 ½ to 3 feet and found that the stems having dried corns were covered with small grain and most of the stems were up rooted and also filed photographs, which shows the dried crop and also filed one C.D. 6. The opposite party No.2 filed objections on commissioner report by submitting that the commissioner/advocate is not a competent person to assess the cause of damage and also submitted that the commissioner/advocate had failed to explain the other reasons i.e. crop management utilization of fertilizers and pesticides and fertility of the land etc. 7. In support of their averments, both the parties filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in the complaint and counter along with the supportive rulings. 8. In view of the above submissions, now the point for consideration is, Whether the complainant is entitled the relief as prayed for? POINT:- As per the averments of the complaint and counter, the complainant had purchased Dekalb Pinnacle brand Maize seeds from the opposite party No.1 and raised the Maize crop by following the procedure prescribed by the opposite party No.1 and also taken all precautions for more yielding, despite that, he observed 10 to 20% of flowering to the plants due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties. As such the complainant knocked the doors of the Consumer Forum for redressal but on the other hand the opposite parties contended that there is no proof regarding the defective seeds supplied by them and the damage caused to the crop of the complainant depends upon various factors and the report filed by the commissioner also failed to follow any scientific manner and the complainant also failed to file any scientific report to that effect and prayed to dismiss the complaint. After hearing the both parties and having perused the documents, we find that there is no proof regarding the defective seeds as alleged by the complainant and as per the report of commissioner/advocate there is no proper assessment of damages and failed to analyze the cause of damage in a scientific manner by taking the assistance of any scientific officer or A.O. concerned and as such in the absence of any such proof, we cannot come to a conclusion regarding the cause of damage caused to the complainant and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant. 9. In the result, the C.C. is dismissed no costs. Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 16th day of June, 2010. President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Bill dated 18-12-2008 for Rs.3200/- Ex.A2:- Representation dated 21-02-2009 made by the complainant to the District Collector, Khammam. Ex.A3:- Empty Seed pouches [2 in No.] Ex.A4:- Pahani copy. Exhibits marked for opposite parties: Nil President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
