This complaint is coming before us for hearing, in the presence of       Sri. M. Suguna Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri. T. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 & 2; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, resident of Thummalapalli Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, having land in an extent of Ac-3.00 gts. out of Survey No.35/4 situated at his village.  The complainant used to raise cotton crop in his agricultural land.  Having attracted the vide publicity of opposite parties, purchased 4 packets (450 gms. in each packet) of Kaveri ATM KCH – 311 BG-II Cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1 vide bill dt.13-06-2015 for Rs.3,480/-.  The opposite parties introduced their product by recommending good germination and assured that the crop would give yielding within 180 to 190 days from date of sowing.  Accordingly, the complainant sowed the seeds in Ac.2-00 gts. out of Ac.3-00 gts. of his land by providing water and other requirements for good yielding.  The crop has grown up to the height of 5 to 7 feet without flowering.  On his grievance, approached opposite party No.1 and Agriculture officer.  The agricultural officer came to the field and opined that the crop was damaged due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties.  The report of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Telangana DNA finger printing and transgenic crops monitoring lab, Hyderabad confirmed that the samples sent by the M.A.O. for analysis are substandard.  The complainant further submitted that he sustained loss of crop at 25 quintals per acre and spent Rs.1,50,480/- towards purchase of seeds, ploughing, fertilizers, pesticides, watering, manure and labour charges.  As per market value of cotton crop in relevant crop season is at Rs.4,500/- per quintal.  So, he sustained loss of crop an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, thus in all the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,50,480/- + Rs.2,25,000/- = Rs.3,75,480/-.    The complainant alleges that he sustained huge loss and suffered a lot due to supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties, therefore, prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,75,480/- towards loss of crop and Rs.25,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony.

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Affidavit and Exhibits A1 and A2.

4.      On receipt of notice, the opposite parties filed counter by denying the averments of complaint.  In their counter, the opposite parties contended that the complainant has to prove the facts with regard to sowing of seeds and possession of land, where the seeds were sowed. The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite parties nor made any complaint on non-flowering of crop before filing of present complaint and denied all the other allegations with regard to spending of huge amounts for cultivation and manure etc, and non-flowering of plants despite growing 5 to 7 feets of height.  Further they also submitted that the report given by local agriculture officer is false and not according to the prescribed standards.  The agricultural officer did not given any intimation before collecting samples, so, the opposite parties lost their right for testing the samples to disprove the accuracy of alleged test report.  The seeds were thoroughly tested in their own seed testing laboratory before releasing into the market, according to the said reports, the BT protein Cry 1 Ac and Cry 2 Ab readings were 94.4. and 93.3 respectively.  After satisfying the said readings only, the seeds were packed and released into the market.  During the relevant crop period, the opposite party supplied 3.480 packets under this lot number throughout Telangana and A.P. States.  Except this complaint, no complaints were raised on the allegation of supply of substandard seeds by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties always supplied very high quality of seeds by maintaining high standards of genetic and physical purity.  The opposite party also submitted that the difference in BT protein may be depending upon various reasons, i.e. 1.  Sampling variation, sample type (Seed Vs. Leaf) and sample collection, 2. Mode of trans port of leaf sample to the laboratory 3. Condition of leaf sample on receipt at testing laboratory as leaf material is perishable and condition of leaf samples effects ‘Elisa’ results. 4. Factors prevailing in seed laboratory, could be responsible for recording low BT proteins presence in the seed lot.  The failure of crop could be resulted due to several soil and agronomic as practices followed for rising of crop.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

5.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased 4 packets of Kaveri ATM KCH – 311 Bollaguard-II  Cotton seeds from the opposite party No.1, produced by opposite party No.2 on 13-06-2015 for Kharif-2015 season.  Thereafter, sowed the seeds in his land by taking all precautions as required but there was no flowering despite following all the procedures.  On which, the complainant approached the Agricultural Officer by submitting complaint regarding mixture of non BT seed in BT seed.  On receipt of complaint, the M.A.O. Konijerla visited the field and collected 50 leaf samples from 50 individual plants from standing crop and sent to the laboratory by packing in polythin covers separately.  The samples, so received by the Seed Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Telangana State, conducted  ‘Elisa’ test for determination of presence of BT Cry 1 Ac and Cry 2 Ab BT protein.  The authorities conducted said test by using Monoclonal antibody coated microwel plates, supplied by CICR, Nagpur for detection of BT protein.  The test was repeated twice and given its report by confirming that the product supplied by the opposite parties were substandard as the sample does not confirm to the minimum BT protein standards of 90% Cry 1 Ac gene and Cry 2 Ab gene.  The said analysis report also stated that out of 50 leaves only 30 were positive for presence of Cry 1 Ac and Cry 2 Ab proteins.  Therefore, we cannot suspect the authenticity of procedures adopted by the seed testing laboratory for detection of BT protein.  Accordingly, it is a fact that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties were of 40% substandard and the complainant sustained 40% of crop loss out of average yielding.  Generally, the average yielding in cotton crop is 6 to 18 quintals per acre, so the average yielding is 12 quintals per acre.  Accordingly, in our view, the complainant would have a chance to obtain yielding of 24 quintals of crop in an extent of Ac.2.00 gts of land.  As the complainant sustained 40% of crop loss, the total loss of yielding is 9.60 quintals out of 24 quintals in Ac.2-00 gts of land.  As per official website of Telananga State Government Agricultural Marketing Department, Khammam district, the modal price of cotton as on 31-03-2016 (fag end of crop) is @ Rs.4,130/- per quintal.  Accordingly, the complainant sustained Rs.39,648/- towards crop loss.  The Seed analysis report clearly confirms that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties were not up to the standards of 90% Cry 1 Ac gene and Cry 2 Ab gene,  so, declared as substandard. In our view, supply of substandard seeds is definitely amounts to unfair trade practice, so the opposite parties are also held liable to pay compensation towards damages for supply of substandard seeds.  In view of above observations, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation towards crop loss and damages for committing unfair trade practice, further they also liable to pay damages for analysis test spent by the complainant.

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.39,648/- towards crop loss and Rs.8,000/- towards damages for supply of substandard seeds to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which,  the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till its realization.  Further the opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation charges and costs for analysis test.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of April, 2017.

              Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

-None-                                                                            -None-                                              

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

              Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam