This C.C. came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant; Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the opposite party No.1; and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No.2; 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) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;
The complainant is an agriculturist, residing at Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam town and intends to cultivate chilli crop in his land situated at Vuyyalawada (V), Dornakal(M), Warangal District in Sy.No.80/1 in an extent of Ac.3-00, and purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 17-6-2006 vide receipt No.70 and raised the nursery in the month of July,2006 by investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides and fertilizers as per the advises given by the opposite party No-1 and A.O. , Dornakal and the crop was grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feet without any flowering and after noticing the same the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and A.O. concerned and the above who came to the field, opined that the crop was damaged due to the defective seeds and 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.3,75,000/- and as such he approached the Forum for redressal. The complainant mentioned that he spent an amount of Rs.80,500/- for purchasing of seeds, ploughing and for manure and fertilizers and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award damages to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original cash bill, dated 17-6-2006 for Rs.5,500/- issued by the opposite party No-1.
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and the opposite party No.2 is called absent. The opposite party No.1 filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The opposite party No-1, 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-1 is not liable to pay any damages and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.1 filed a memo to treat the contents of counter as written arguments.
6. The Advocate/Commissioner who appointed to inspect the field, filed her report stating that the A.O. and H.O. collected the samples of seeds and they sent the seeds to the laboratory for analysis, except this nothing was placed by the Advocate/Commissioner or the concerned officers, who sent the seed samples for analysis.
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 17-6-2006 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 grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feets and as there is no flowering, he approached the opposite party No-1 and the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the field, opined that due to defect in the seeds the flowering was not found and as such the complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties and it is the case of the opposite party No.1 that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the alleged damage was due to improper care and poor agronomical conditions and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 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 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 to find a defect, it is necessary to send the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and section-13(I) (C) of C.P.Act 1986 also speaks the same. 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 24th day of March, 2009.
Senior Member/ I/c.President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
Senior Member/I/c. President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
