This C.C. is coming before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Machha Nagesh Babu, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri Anamchinni Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments 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. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and resident of Kondavanamala (V), Konijerla Mandal of Khammam District, for eaking his livelihood, cultivating the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac. 4.15gts i.e. Ac.2.15gts in Sy. No. 50/Vu/1 and an extent of Ac.2.00gts in Sy.No.51/A/Ee, situated at his village. The complainant further submitted that the opposite party is a corporation, formed by the Govt. of A.P. to produce good quality of seeds and sold the same to the farmers through the sale points at Mandal headquarters. Accordingly, the complainant had purchased four bags of paddy seeds of B.P.T. 5204 through the M.A.O., Konijerla @ Rs.650/- per bag, in total he purchased the seeds for Rs.2,600/- vide cash bills No.12341 and 12342 on 16-06-2010. The opposite party sold the said seeds by giving subsidy at Rs.5/- per Kg and given a discount of Rs.500/- . The complainant also submitted that he prepared his land for sowing the seeds by applying fertilizers and pesticides timely and had taken all necessary precautions and cultivating methods by spending Rs.20,000/- and odd per Acre and in total he spent an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- . The normal yield per acre in the said area is at 35bags per acre but to utter surprise, he got only 80bags of yielding in total i.e. about 40 to 50% loss of expected yield. Therefore, the complainant had sustained loss of Rs.25,000/- per acre because of spurious seeds manufactured and supplied by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and as such approached the Forum and prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,10,000/- towards monitory loss per cultivation of paddy crop in an extent of Ac.4.15gts and Rs.15,000/- towards expenses and mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards costs and also prayed to award interest @24% p.a. on the said amounts from the date of filing of complaint.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as exhibits.
Ex.A1:- Original Bill No.12342 dt.16.06.2010 for Rs.1050/- issued by opposite party
Ex.A2:- Original Bill Nos.12341 dt.16.06.2010 for Rs.1050/- issued by opposite party.
Ex.A3:- Pahani copy for an extent of Ac.6.00gts.
3. On receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint. In the counter, the opposite party admitted that it sold the paddy B.P.T. No.5204 seeds through A.P.S.S.D.C., Konijerla under subsidy and issued cash bill to that effect and also submitted that the M.A.O, visited the field of the complainant on 02.12.2010 and collected the samples. The M.A.O. submitted his report to the complainant and the Advocate/Commissioner by stating that there is no difficult in the seeds and in yielding and in his report, he opined that, “due to continuous rains during kharif 2010, there is a chance of varietal variations”. The opposite party further submitted that, they sold 270 quintals of paddy seeds of B.P.T. 5204 batch in Konijerla Mandal, no complaint was made in the Mandal level as well as district level except the present complaint. The opposite party sold the seeds only after thorough verification and scanning with regard to the germination and quality of seeds. The expenditure spent for cultivation, as mentioned in the complaint is false and further stated that the complainant cultivated his lands on commercial purpose, not for his livelihood; therefore, he is not a consumer. The opposite party also stated that the complaint was filed in the month of November 2010 i.e. after completion of crop period and as such, the genetic purity of the seeds can not be assessed and the complainant also failed to file any scientific analysis report, followed under section 13 (1) (c) of C.P. Act. The rate of yielding may be depends upon various factors like soil condition, rain fall, irrigation facilities usage of fertilizers and pesticides from time to time, the complainant failed to take proper steps on these aspects and as such there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The opposite party filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in its counter.
5. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed an I.A. for appointment of Commissioner/Advocate for estimation of loss and damage caused to the complainant with the help of M.A.O., concerned. Accordingly, this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner for the said purpose but failed to file any report even after giving sufficient chances. Therefore, this Forum closed the petition.
6. 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:- As seen from the above averments, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of paddy seeds from the opposite party on 16-06-2010 for an amount of Rs.2,600/- through M.A.O., concerned. The only dispute is with regard to the spurious seeds, as alleged by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant, after purchasing of paddy seeds, which was manufactured and sold by the opposite party, sowed in his fields by following all the procedure and precautions from time to time. But there was no required yielding at all and sustained loss of Rs.1,25,000/-, even though, the opposite party did not respond to compensate the complainant and as such he knocked the doors of the consumer Forum on his grievance. On the other hand, the opposite party denied the averments as mentioned in the complaint by submitting that the seeds supplied by it were not defective and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint. After perusing the material papers on record and petition for appointment of advocate/ commissioner, we observed that the complainant had failed to produce any sufficient proof regarding the cause of damage to his crop and also failed to file any expert opinion, regarding the spurious seeds and could not take any steps to that effect for estimation of cause of loss and damage and more over the advocate/commissioner, who was appointed to assess the damage and loss, failed to file the estimation/analysis report even after granting sufficient time and as such in the absence of any such proof we can not find out any damage caused to the complainant due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite party and in the absence of any such proof, we cannot fasten any liability on the part of opposite party and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 17th day of April, 2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: None
Witnesses examined for opposite party: None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A1:- Original Bill No.12342 dt.16.06.2010 for Rs.1050/- issued by opposite party
Ex.A2:- Original Bill Nos.12341 dt.16.06.2010 for Rs.1050/- issued by opposite party.
Ex.A3:- Pahani copy for an extent of Ac.6.00gts.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:-
- Nil -
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
