This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of   Sri.T.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the opposite party No-1; Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 2 and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for opposite party No.3; 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;

                        The complainant, who is an agriculturist, resident of Ramakrishnapuram village Chinthakani Mandal, Khamamam District, and the complainant is having agricultural land in the name of his wife to an extent of Ac.2-20gts  in Sy.Nos.160 and  the complainant purchased Chilly  Seeds from  the opposite party No-1 on 3-7-2006 vide receipt No.32, for Rs.3,900/- in the name of one Gandhi Reddy, which was produced and marketed by opposite party No-2  and after taking all precautions and by following directions  planted the seedlings in his field to  an extent of Ac.2.20gts., and the steams of the plants were raised  well for 20 days and after that leaves of the plants fallen down, causing stems  dry and the chilies also yielded in different colours and as such the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and representatives of opposite party No-1 inspected the crop, and the opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to intimate opposite party No-2 and 3 about the damage caused, but there is no response from the opposite parties, and the complainant alleges that he  suffered huge loss and further stated that he invested Rs.20,000/- per acre towards ploughing fertilizers and pesticides  and  as such he spent  Rs.50,000/- on Ac.2.20gts of land.  The complainant alleged that due to the defective seeds he lost yielding of   75 quintals in all and claiming Rs.4,50,000/- towards  loss of crop and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs.

3.                     Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed (i) Bill dated 3-7-2006 for Rs.3,900/- issued by opposite party No-1, ii) declaration certificate issued by Village Secretary of Ramakrishnapuram.

4.       After receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations.  

5.         The opposite party No-1, in their counter denied the allegation that the crop was damaged due to defective quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties and  the opposite parties  are liable to pay damages  and further mentioned that, due to heavy rains  and heavy moisture in the soils,  was affected the rate of yielding  and also stated that it cannot be said that the seeds were defective and the damage if any was due to improper care and poor crop management practices and improper conditions of nature etc., are effects the yielding and the opposite party No.1 is only the dealer and the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the loss of the complainant  and as such the opposite party No-1 is not liable to pay any damages  and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       In the counter the opposite party No-2 mentioned that 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 file any document regarding the defect in the seeds further the opposite party No-2 contended that the complainant failed to file any scientific report to prove his claim and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  In the counter the opposite party No-2 further mentioned that the complainant did not send samples of the seeds for analysis as per the procedure laid down  u/s 13 (1) of C.P.Act and thus the opposite party No-2 questioned the very maintainability of the complaint and also stated that failure of crop is only due to poor agricultural practices followed by the complainant, and failure to take proper steps for irrigation and use of timely manure, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that as per the reports of   scientists the crop has   been affected due to Thrips’ infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University the crop was affected due to infestation of Groundnut 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 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.

            The opposite party No-3, in their counter denied the allegation that the crop was totally damaged due to the defective quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the damages and further mentioned that the germination was good and as such it cannot be said that the seeds were defective and the damage if any was due to improper care and poor agronomical and intercultural operations and as such the opposite party No-3 is not liable to pay any damages and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.         The Advocate/Commissioner filed his report basing on the report furnished by the M.A.O. and as per the report the crop symptoms compared with virus symptoms and also mentioned other reasons which caused the loss of yielding.  The opposite party No.2 filed its objections on the A.O. report. 

8.         In view of the above submissions made by the both 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 it is the case of the complainant that due to the defective seed supplied by the opposite parties the yielding was affected and claimed damages from the opposite parties.  On the other hand it is the contention of the opposite parties that the loss of yielding was not due to defect in the seeds and the same was due to the attack of virus symptoms and other reasons.  The complainant who approached the Forum for damages by alleging the quantity of seeds, did not filed any proof to show that the seeds are inferior in quality and did not taken any steps to get analyze the seeds  in a laboratory and in the absence of any such proof regarding the defect alleged, it is difficult to hold the liability of the opposite parties and, the report  of the commissioner/advocate and M.A.O. also did not speaks any thing against the quality of the seeds and moreover  as per the  report loss of yielding was due to the attack of virus and for other reasons and basing on the report, it cannot proper to hold  that the loss of yielding was due to defect in the seeds.  In view of the above discussion this Forum opined that the complainant failed to establish the allegation that the loss sustained by him was due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought.

10.     In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs. 

                        Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this      day of February, 2009.

                                                                   President  Member                Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil

                                                                            President         Member             Member                                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam