This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 6-10-2008 in the presence of Sri. K.Maheswara Prabu, Advocate for Complainants, and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1to6 ; 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) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainants are agriculturists and by attracted the publicity given by the opposite party No-6 and by believing the same, the complainants intends to cultivate chilly crop in their fields and purchased Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No.s-1to 5 by paying Rs.220/- per 10 grams packet which was manufactured and marketed by opposite party No-6 and sowed the seeds in their fields by investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides and fertilizers as per the advises given by the Agricultural Officers, the lands of the complainants are fertile lands and suitable for raising commercial crops like chilli, cotton, etc and also having sufficient water sources but there is no yielding at all and after noticing the same the complainants informed to the concerned Agricultural Officers and the agricultural officers visited the fields of the complainants on several times but they did not take necessary action for compensating the complainants and the complainants further stated that the opposite parties gave an assurance that the crop will give 30-40 quintals yielding per acre and the complainants alleged that by taking all the precautions and by following the procedure prescribed by the concerned A.O., they raised the crops, but there is no yielding and as such the complainants No-1to7 sustained loss of Rs.10,12,500/-, Rs.1,71,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,12,500/-, Rs.1,12,500/- and Rs.1,12,500/- respectively, and as such they approached the Forum for redressal and the complainants No.1to7 are claimed damages of Rs.19,71,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant No-1 filed his affidavit on behalf of all other complainants and also filed (i) original bill, dated 7-6-2006 for Rs.28,000/- issued by the opposite party No-3 in favour of complainant No-1 (ii) Xerox copy of bill, dated 22-6-2006 for Rs.2,050/- issued by the opposite party No-1 in favour of complainant No-2 (iii) bill, dated 27-6-2006 for Rs.2,750/- issued by the opposite party No-2 in favour of complainant No-3 (iv) bill, dated 7-6-2006 for Rs.2,290/- issued by the opposite party No-3 in favour of complainant No-5 (v) bill, dated 5-6-2006 for Rs.2,000/- issued by the opposite party No-5 in favour of complainant No-6 (vi) original bill, dated 10-6-2006 for Rs.2,530/- issued by the opposite party No-5 in favour of complainant No-7 .
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1to6 appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The opposite party No-6 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 complainants to prove any deficiency and the complainants failed to prove the same and moreover did not filed any documents regarding the defect in the seeds. Further the opposite party No-6 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-6 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-6 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-6 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.
6. The opposite parties No-1to 5 filed memos to adopt the contents of counter of opposite party No-6 as their counters.
7. The complainant filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the crop and assess the damages of the crop, accordingly this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner vide I.A.No.385/2007 for inspecting the crop and assess the damages of the crop and also directed to send the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis with the help of A.O. concerned, but in this case the Advocate/Commissioner or A.O. did not file any report to that effect.
8. 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.
9. As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite parties No-1 to 5 and as per the complaint after growing the nursery bed i.e. seedlings the plants were planted in the fields of complainants No. 1to 7 after taking all the precautions and by following all the procedures. It is the case of the complainants that the crop was not grown properly and there is no yielding, the complainants approached the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the fields of the complainants, but the A.O. did not taken any steps to compensate the complainants, and as such the complainants 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-6 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 costs 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 complainants and moreover the complainants 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 in the present case on hand the complainants and their fields, date of purchase of seeds, sowing of seeds and the opposite parties are different as such there is no same cause of action arising between the parties to the proceedings as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
11. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 13th day of October, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
