This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 17-12-2007 in the presence of  Sri.G.Satya Prasad, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence of   Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1 &2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(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;

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, resident of Vallapuram(v), Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District, having land to an extent of Ac2-00gts in Sy.No.204  and purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 27-7-2006  for Rs.3,900/- and as per the directions of the opposite party No-1 the complainant prepared seed bed  by taking   all precautions and  investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides  and fertilizers as per the advises given by the opposite party No-1  and the complainant noticed that the crop was  not grown properly and observed the variation of growth and 90% of plants were abnormally grown and the complainant approached  the opposite party No-1 and A.O. concerned and   there is no response. 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.1,80,000/-  towards  crop loss  and as such he approached the Forum for redressal.  The complainant mentioned that he spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.2,30,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award  costs.

3.     Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original cash bill, dated 27-7-2006 for Rs.3,900/- issued by the opposite party No-1 

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

5.         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  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-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 and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  The opposite party No-1 filed a memo and stating that to treat  the contents of counter of opposite party No-2 as  the counter of opposite party No-1.

6.         This Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner  to inspect the field,  and assess the damage of crop and to sent the seed samples with the help of concerned Horti Culture Officer and Village Assistant to an appropriate laboratory, but he did not choose to file his report  before the Forum for consideration.

7.      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.

8.      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  27-7-2006 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 not grown properly and  90% of the plants were in abnormal growth and  there is no flowering, and he approached the opposite party No-1 and the A.O. concerned and further alleged that  there is no response 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 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.

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

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 3rd   day of   January, 2008.

                                                                   President         Member             Member

                                                             District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Complainant                                                                        Opposite parties

Nil                                                                                                        Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant 

          Nil                                                        Opposite parties

                                                                                            Nil

                                                   President         Member             Member                                                          District Consumers Forum, Khammam