This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 7-2-2008 in the presence of  Sri. K.Maheswara Prabu, Advocate for Complainant , and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1 & 2& 3 ; 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 observing the wide publicity  given by the opposite party No-3 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-1& 2 by paying Rs.220/- per 10 grams packet which was manufactured and marketed by opposite party No-3  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-1to10 sustained loss of Rs.2,25,000/-,  Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,12,500/-, Rs.1,71,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.1,71,000/-, Rs.1,71,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively,  and as such they approached the Forum for redressal  and the complainants  No.1to10 are claimed damages of Rs.19,75,500/- for the damage of chilli crop and costs.

2.     Along with the complaint, the complainants No.1 to 10 filed affidavit  of complainant No-1 on behalf of all other complainants and also filed (i) original  bill, dated 5-6-2006 for Rs.3,520/- issued by the opposite party No-1  (ii) original  bill, dated 6-6-2006 for Rs.3,360/- issued by the opposite party No-1 (iii) original  bill, dated 13-7-2005 for Rs.1,128/- issued by the opposite party No-1 (iv) original  bill, dated 23-6-2006 for Rs.2,000/- issued by the opposite party No-1  (v) original  bill, dated 5-6-2006 for Rs.5,060/- issued by the opposite party No-1(vi) original  bill, dated 5-6-2006 for Rs.4,400/- issued by the opposite party No-1 (vii) original  bill, dated 5-6-2006 for Rs.4,400/- issued by the opposite party No-1 (viii) original bill dated 3-6-2006 for Rs.2200/- issued by opposite party No-2(ix) original bill dated 8-6-2006 for Rs.2200/- issued by opposite party No-2(x) original bill dated 8-6-2006 for Rs.3300/- issued by opposite party No-2.

 3.     After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint. 

4.         The opposite party No-3 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-3 contended that as per the reports of   scientists the crop has   been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thripts 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-3 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-3 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-3 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 opposite parties No-1&2 filed a memo to adopt the contents of counter of opposite party No-3 as counter of opposite parties No-1& 2.

6.     The complainant filed a petition to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the crop for assessment of damages of the crop, accordingly this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner 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 neither returned his warrant nor filed any report to that effect. 

7.         The opposite parties filed  an adoption memo to treat the contents of opposite party No-2  counter as their  written arguments.

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& 2 and as per the complaint after growing the nursery bed i.e. seedlings the plants were planted in the fields of complainants No. 1to 10 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-3 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 as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.

10.      In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  No costs.

            Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 22nd   day of February, 2008.

                                                                          President       Member        Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

                                                                 President      Member             Member                                           District Consumers Forum, Khammam