This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.A.Ravindar, Advocate for the complainant; Notice of opposite party No.1 served and called absent; Sri.A.Sarath Chandra, Advocate for opposite party No.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.VIJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;
2. The complainant is resident of Tutikuntla village, Bonakal mandal, Khammam District, and he is agriculturist and used to raise commercial crops like chillis, cotton, etc.,. The complainant intends to raise chilli crop in Ac.3-00 of land in and out of Sy.No.252 of Tutikuntla Revenue village, Bonakal village. The opposite party No.2 gave wide publicity of mahyco Tejaswini hybrid chilly seed. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and purchased 6 boxes vide receipt No.154 for Rs.5,850/- on 2-7-2006, which was manufactured, produced and marketed by opposite party No.2. As per the product introduced by the opposite parties, it is recommended for cultivation in A.P. and the seeds of the pack are specially conditioned to maintain good germination and the packets of lot tested and germination shown as (min) 60%, GP (min) 95% P.P. (min) 98%. After purchasing the said seed, on the instructions of opposite party No.1, the complainant transplanted the nursery and accordingly the crop has grown up by taking all precautions by using the pesticides and fertilizers. Inspite of taking all precautions, the crop was damaged only due to defective seed that was supplied by the opposite parties. Immediately, he approached the opposite party No.1 and Agriculture Officer, and it came to know that the crop was damaged only due to defective seed that was supplied by the opposite parties.
The opposite parties assured that the complainant get 30 quintals of chilly crop per acre. Due to the supply of substandard and inferior quality of the seed by the opposite parties, the complainant put to heavy loss of Rs.3,75,000/- for Ac.3.00 gts., of land
Due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, he sustained huge loss and also invested an amount of Rs.1,05,850/- towards purchase of seed, manure, fertilizers, pesticides etc.,. Hence, he prayed to pass a decree and directed the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.3,75,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and to award costs.
2. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.2 resisted the claim of the complainant and filed its written statement, denying all the material allegations made in the complaint and stated that,
The opposite parties submit that it is not aware that the complainant is having land of Ac3-00gts.,.
The complainant has to establish that he has purchased 6 boxes vide receipt No.154 for Rs.5,850/- on 2-7-2006, which was manufactured, produced and marketed by opposite party No.2.
The averments such as low growth in yielding, no proper budding and growth completely damaged are false and baseless.
The opposite parties denies that due to defective seeds supplied by it, the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.3,75,000/-.
The opposite party No.2 is a reputed company, it must produce quality seeds and the seeds would be released in the market after conducting various tests. The numerous factors are effecting to yield which are beyond the control of opposite party, i.e. soil fertility, seasonal conditions, pests and crop disease and not take proper care management and plant protection methods. The plant population was good i.e. the germination was good, which supports the scientific officer report. Heavy infestation of insects and pests caused dropping of flowers and ultimately effected the yield. The allegation that the opposite parties provided defective seeds is false and baseless. The opposite parties are not at fault and the very complaint is aimed at to have the wrongful gain and it is frivolous litigation without having any basis and liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. During the pendency of the case, the learned counsel for complainant filed a petition in I.A.No.603/2007 praying to appoint advocate commissioner to inspect chilli crop raised by the complainant with the help of agriculture officer by assessing damage. The said petition was allowed and one B.Prathap, Advocate was appointed as commissioner. The court commissioner failed to submit his report.
4. On behalf of the complainant, except filing complaint and affidavit and purchase bill, no material is placed. On behalf of the opposite part No.2, they filed written statement covering all aspects of the case raised by the complainant.
5. On behalf of the complainant no affidavit is filed in support of his contention and also no documents are marked. Similarly no written arguments are also filed on behalf of the complainant.
6. Perused the contents of the complaint and also counter filed by the opposite parties.
7 Now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages and whether the opposite parties have supplied the defective seeds?
8. On behalf of the complainant, no evidence either oral or documentary has been placed before the forum. In the absence of any conclusive findings as regards the quality of the seeds, the liability cannot be fastened on the opposite parties, solely on the basis of the vague allegations of the complainant. The court commissioner is appointed to ascertain the quality of the seeds supplied, but no report is filed by the court commissioner. In the absence of scientific and technical reports, no inference can be drawn against the opposite parties for supplying of poor quality of seeds. The deficiency on the part of opposite parties cannot be assumed. It needs to be proved. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties supplied non-standard quality seeds. Unless and until the complainant proves that there was negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot claim any compensation to him.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum on this 27th day of January, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
