2. Sri Venugopala Seeds & Pesticides,

    Rep. by its Proprietor,

    Main Road, Phirangipuram (V & M),

    Guntur district.                                        …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 18-10-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for the complainant,               Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party set exparte, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.1,60,000/- being loss of crop; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses.

1. In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

The complainant is cultivating five acres of wet land (inclusive of Ac.3.30 of wet land taken on lease).  The 2^nd opposite party is distributor of seeds manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant purchased five paddy seed bags of Sonal NP 3114 variety weighing ten kgs each @Rs.450/- per bag from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party promised yield of 40-50 bags per acre.   The complainant raised paddy crop in his field relying on the promise of the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant is having experience in cultivating paddy.   The complainant also applied pesticides to control the pest.   Other farmers of his village raised paddy crop of other variety manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and got good results.   The complainant realized 10 bags of paddy instead of promised yield of 50 bags and thus sustained loss 40 bags per acre amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- @ Rs.800/- per bag.    The 1^st opposite party supplied the defective seed to the complainant.   The complainant and other farmers in the district made a complaint against the 1^st opposite party to the Agricultural Department.   The Agricultural Scientist inspected the field and opined that the seed supplied by the 1^st opposite party is a defective one.   The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of                     1^st opposite party and their contention in nutshell is thus:

        The lands in Kandrika village are being irrigated through NSP canal.   In Guntur district the Khariff season starts either in the month of August or September and ends by December while the Rabi season starts during January and ends by March or April.    During 2009-2010 the Government did not release water to NSP canal till 15^th of October due to shortage.   If any crop is raised during that period it will come to flowering in the month of December to February which is the coldest period of the region.   On account of low temperature, there is every possibility of the crops being infected by viruses and fungus and of having stunted growth and short fall of crop.   The short fall of crop is only due to climatic conditions of cold weather, but not due to any impurity of the seed.   The complainant purchased the seed on 02-10-09 and might have transplanted the same either in November or December     which is not conducive to sow the seeds, on account of untimely sowing the seeds weather in the temperature and improper management may lead to certain pests and diseases and they may go up resulting no flowering, no seed formation and poor yielding.       The opposite parties learnt that the complainant got normal yield.   The certificate said to have been given by the Agricultural Officer did not relate to the property of the complainant.    Even otherwise, the sheath blight might have occurred due to late sowing and transplantation of the crop but not due to defect in the seed.   The complainant never approached opposite parties for any guidance.    Farmers who managed the crop have got results satisfactorily.   The Sonal variety of paddy has been extensively cultivated in Nagarjun Sagar right command area in thousands of acres.   There was no complaint regarding genetic impurity from any quarter.   The claim made by the complainant is false and mischievous.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 were marked on behalf of the complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party. 

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1.   Whether the seed manufactured and supplied by the                          opposite parties are defective?

        2.   Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if                        so to what amount?

        3.   To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

1.  The 1^st opposite party is the producer of the paddy seed                      variety Sonal NP-3114.

 2.  The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party.

 3. The complainant purchased seeds on 02-10-09 under                                   Ex.A-1.

7.   POINT No.1:-     The deficiency of service complained against the opposite parties is  that the complainant realized 10 bags of paddy only instead of 50 bags as promised and it was due to defect in the seeds.  Burden is on the complainant to prove that the seeds purchased under Ex.A-1 from OP2 manufactured by OP1 is defective.   The complainant on 16-02-10 addressed a letter (Ex.A-5) to the Agricultural Officer of the Phirangipuram Mandal to the following affect:

        “        

8.     Ex.A-2 inspection report dated 02-02-10 by Dr. Ch. Pulla Rao, Principal Scientist (Agro) and Head and Smt N. Chamundeswari, Scientist (Plant Breeding), Rice Research Unit, Bapatla visited the lands of the farmers of Lingamguntla of Narasaraopet Mandal, Paragadicherla of Rompicherla Mandal, Vipparala of Vipparalareddypalem Mandal and Butchipapannapalem of Rompicherla Mandal but not the village Kandrika.   Therefore Ex.A-2 report did not pertain to the case.  

9.     Ex.X-1 report was marked through Mandal Agricultural Officer, Phirangipuram (PW2).  The relevant portion in Ex.X-1 is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “It is observed that the crop growth is not uniform as stated by the farmers and crop is severely attacked by disease like sheet blight, blast and bacterial leaf blight.  Most of the panicles are unfilled grains.   Now the crop was harvesting stage and they are going to harvest 21^st or 22^nd of February.   They said if they are not harvest the crop, remaining grains also fall and they get nothing from the fields.   Photographs of the affected fields were submitted along with applications”.

10.    In this case the complainant did not take steps to send the paddy seed for scientific investigation.   On the other hand the opposite parties filed IA.317/2011 to send the sample seed bag of Paddy Sonal NP-3114 to Principal Scientist/breeder, Rice Research Unit, ANGRAU, Bapatla for ascertaining the genetic, physical purity of the seed and deposited the sample bag concerned in this case.   The complainant resisted the same.   This Forum on 03-09-11 dismissed the above said IA and became final as both the parties did not canvass further.    

11.   PW2 in his chief examination stated that on 20-02-10                        he inspected the land of the complainant and other ryots in Kandrika village of Phirangipuram Mandal on the complaint given by the complainant and other ryots.   But in Ex.A-5 letter the complainant mentioned that he raised paddy in the fields located in Bethapudi village.  The complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant was silent in which village he raised paddy.   It can therefore be inferred that Ex.X-1 also did not relate to the land of the complainant located in Bethapudi village.   Under those circumstances we opine that no agricultural officer visited the land of the complainant located in Bethapudi village.  

12.   The decisions therefore relied upon by the complainant reported in India Seed House vs. Ramjilal Sharma and another [(2008 (III) CPJ 1996 (NC)], H.N. Sankar Sastry vs. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karnataka [2004 (II) CPJ 37 (SC)] and Civil Appeal No.7543 of 2004 on the file of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the case.   

13.   Relying on the decision reported in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu and another [2005 (III) ALT 25 (SC)] the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mahyco Seeds Limited vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and others [2011 (II) CPR 35 (NC)] held that in any case genetic dfect in the seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.   In this case there is no scientific report from laboratory.  

14.   It was already observed that Ex.A-2 report and Ex.X-1 report did not relate to the lands located in Bethapudi village.   Under those circumstances we opine that the complainant failed to prove that the seeds supplied by OP2 produced by OP1 are defective.    For the above discussion we answer this point in favour of opposite parties.

15.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above finding in the result the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.    Therefore this point is also answered in favour of the opposite parties.

16.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31^st day of October, 2011.

    MEMBER                                  MEMBER                               PRESIDENT   

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PW2: Sri A. Ankarao

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For opposite parties:   NIL

                                                                             PRESIDENT