This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.M.Nagesh Babu, Advocate for the complainant;Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri.A.Sarath Chandra, Advocate for 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:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.VIJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;
2. The complainant are resident of Vuyyalawada village, Dornakal mandal, Warangal District, and they are agriculturists and used to raise commercial crops like chillis, cotton, etc.,. The complainant intends to raise chilli crop in his land to an extent of Ac.1.00., in and out of S.No.87/A of Vuyyalawada village, Dornakal mandal, Warangal District. The opposite party No.2 gave wide publicity of mahyco Tejaswini hybrid chilly seed. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and purchased 10 packets for Rs.2,200/- dt.13-6-2006, which was manufactured, produced and marketed by opposite party No.2. As per the product introduced by the opposite parties, it is recommended for cultivation in A.P. and the seeds in the pack are specifically conditioned to maintain good germination and the packets of lot are tested ones and germination shown as (min)60% GP(min)95% PP (min) 98%. After purchasing the said seed, on the instructions of opposite party No.1, the complainant prepared seedbed for seeing the above seeds by taking all precautions and cultivated land for transplantation of chilli plants and the same were transplanted in the said lands by using the pesticides and fertilizers. Inspite of taking all precautions and manures, he found that the chilly plants have grown-up to the height of 2 to 4 feet nearly without proper and sufficient flowering. He approached the Agriculture Officer, to show the damage of crop due to defective seed supplied by the opposite party, made many rounds around the opposite party No.1, but the opposite parties neither inspect the crop of the complainant nor gave any reply and they failed to pay compensation.
The opposite parties assured that the complainant get 30 quintal of chilly crop per acre. Even by taking into consideration, some variation in the yield, the complainant should get 22 quintals per acre. As per the market value minimum Rs.5,000/- onwards. The complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of one year crop. The complainant invested an amount of Rs.45,200/-.
Due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, he sustained huge loss and also investing huge amounts and hard labour apart from mental agony. Hence, he prayed to pass a decree and directed the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,65,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and to award costs.
2. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 resisted the claim of the complainant and filed a counter, denying all the material allegations made in the complaint:
The opposite parties No.1 submit that it is not aware that the complainant is having land to an extent of Ac.1-00.
The complainant has to establish that he has purchased complainant 10 packets for Rs.2,200/- dt.13-6-2006, which was manufactured, produced and marketed by opposite party No.1.
The averments such as low growth in yielding, no proper budding and growth completely damaged are false and baseless.
The opposite party denies that due to defective seeds supplied by it, the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.1,65,000/-.
The opposite party No.2 is a reputed company, it must produce quality seeds and the seeds would be released in the market after conducting various tests. The numerous factors are effecting to yield which are beyond the control of opposite party, i.e. soil fertility, seasonal conditions, pests and crop disease and not take proper care management and plant protection methods. The plant population was good i.e. the germination was good, which supports the scientific officer report. Heavy infestation of insects and pests caused dropping of flowers and ultimately effected the yield. The allegation that the opposite parties provided defective seeds is false and baseless. The opposite parties are not at fault and the very complaint is aimed at to have the wrongful gain and it is frivolous litigation without having any basis and liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. During the pendency of the case, the learned counsel for complainant filed a petition in I.A.No.493/2007 praying to appoint advocate commissioner to inspect chilli crop raised by the complainant with the help of agriculture officer by assessing damage. The said petition was allowed and one Sri.P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate was appointed as commissioner. The court commissioner failed to submit his report.
4. On behalf of the complainant, except filing complaint and affidavit, no material is placed. On behalf of the opposite part No.1, he filed counter covering all aspects of the case raised by the complainant.
5. On behalf of the complainant no affidavit is filed in support of his contention and also no documents are marked. Similarly no written arguments are also filed on behalf of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant reports to the court to decide the case on merits.
6. Perused the contents of the complaint and also counter filed by the opposite parties.
7 Now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages and whether the opposite parties have supplied the defective seeds?
8. On behalf of the complainant, no evidence either oral or documentary has been placed before the forum. In the absence of any conclusive findings as regards the quality of the seeds, the liability cannot be fastened on the opposite parties, solely on the basis of the vague allegations of the complainant. The court commissioner is appointed to ascertain the quality of the seeds supplied, but no report is filed by the court commissioner. In the absence of scientific and technical reports, no inference can be drawn against the opposite parties for supplying of poor quality of seeds. The deficiency on the part of opposite parties cannot be assumed. It needs to be proved. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties supplied non standard quality seeds. Unless and until the complainant proves that there was negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot claim any compensation to him.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open forum on this 26th day of November, 2008.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
