This C.C. came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant; Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, 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) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;
The complainant is an agriculturist, residing at Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam town and intends to cultivate chilli crop in his land situated at Vuyyalawada (V), Dornakal(M), Warangal District in Sy.No.703 in an extent of Ac.1 ½ gts., and purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 vide receipt No.5904 and raised the nursery in the month of July, 2006 by investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides and fertilizers as per the advises given by the opposite party No-1 and A.O. , Dornakal and the crop was grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feet without any flowering and after noticing the same the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and A.O. concerned and the above who came to the field, opined that the crop was damaged due to the defective seeds and the complainant further stated that by taking all the precautions and by following the procedure prescribed by the opposite parties, he raised the crop, but the crop did not even flowered up to 10 % and as such he sustained a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and as such he approached the Forum for redressal. The complainant mentioned that he spent an amount of Rs.53,800/- for purchasing of seeds, ploughing and for manure and fertilizers and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.1,50,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award damages to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original cash bill, dated 28-6-2006 for Rs.2,800/- issued by the opposite party No-1
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and the opposite party No.2 filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The opposite party No-2 who filed the counter and submitted that as per the complaint itself there is no negligence or deficiency on their part and further contended that the burden lies on the complainant to prove any deficiency and the complainant failed to prove the same and moreover did not filed any document regarding the defect in the seeds. Further the opposite party No-2 contended that as per the reports of scientists the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thrips infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University the crop was affected due to infestation of Peanut Bud Necrosis Virus and Cucumber Mosaic Virus and the same shows that the problem is not due to the quality of seeds, the same was due to infestation of pest and virus and for which they cannot be held responsible. The opposite party No-2 by denying all the allegations made in the complaint contended that whenever there is an allegation regarding the defect, it cannot be determined without proper analysis as per section-13 (I)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the present case there is no such analysis to find the defect in the seeds. Further the opposite party No-2 contended that after completion of harvesting season the Commissioner/advocate inspected the crop and it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the crop. The opposite party No-2 further contended that the Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. did not disclose that the problem was due to defect in the seeds and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The Advocate/Commissioner who appointed to inspect the field, filed her report stating that the A.O. and H.O. collected the samples of seeds and they sent the seeds to the laboratory for analysis, except this nothing was placed by the Advocate/Commissioner or the concerned officers, who sent the seed samples for analysis.
6. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.
7. As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 and as per the complaint after growing the nursery bed i.e. seedlings the plants were planted in the field of complainant after taking all the precautions and by following all the procedures. It is the case of the complainant that the crop was grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feets and as there is no flowering, he approached the opposite party No-1 and the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the field, opined that due to defect in the seeds the flowering was not found and as such the complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties and it is the case of the opposite parties that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the alleged damage was due to the affect of Virus attack and prayed to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party No-2 mentioned in their counter that to find a defect, it is necessary to sent the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and section-13(I) (C) of C.P.Act 1986 also speaks the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/-. In view of the above versions put forth by both the parties, it is clear that there is no proof regarding the defect in the seeds as alleged by the complainant and moreover the complainant who filed the complaint only basing on that allegation, did not choose to take any steps in that regard and the Commissioner/advocate or the A.O. or H.O. who collected the sample for analysis, did not furnish the analysis report and in the absence of scientific analysis report regarding the quality of seeds, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion regarding the quality of seeds and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
8. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 24th day of March, 2009.
Senior Member/ I/c.President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
Senior Member/ I/c. President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
