Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking direction on opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service in supplying non-germinated seeds, compensation for mental agony and costs.

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

        The complainant purchased 7 bags of cotton seeds weighing 450 gms of Mallika I variety NSL Lot No.4084047 @ Rs.640/- each,   on 21-06-10 from the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite party stated that the said variety is a good one and is expected to yield 15 to 20 quintals per acre.  The complainant sown the said cotton seeds in his field providing all irrigation facilities, manure, pesticides and insecticides time to time.  The other farmers of the complainant’s village and of neighboring village also purchased the said variety of cotton seeds from the 2^nd opposite party and sown, but they are not germinated.  Immediately the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and informed the same.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that as per the directions of the 1^st opposite party he would supply another variety of cotton seeds and also the expenses incurred by the complainant.  But the opposite party did not do the same.  The complainant vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties complained to the District Collector through “Dial your Collector” (grievance cell) programme requesting to take necessary action against the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and the said news was published in daily news paper, Guntur edition on 27-07-10 and also gave a representation to the District Collector, Guntur copy circulated to Joint Director: Agriculture, Guntur, Asst Director Agriculture, Krosure and A.O. Atchempet, on 30-07-10.  Subsequently, the Joint Director, Agriculture, Guntur sent a letter dated 24-10-10 to the complainant, basing on the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer, Atchemept dated 07-08-10, that he cannot take any action against the opposite parties because the complainant has given belated complaint. 

3.     The complainant approached opposite parties and informed about the non germination but there was no response from them.  There is no negligence on the part of the complainant. It is the opposite parties who committed deficiency of service. Due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties the complainant sustained loss.  Hence the complaint. 

4.      1^st Opposite party filed its version and 2^nd Opposite party filed adoption memo in respect of version filed by the 1^st opposite party. The following is the version of 1^st opposite party.  

         This opposite party is one of the leading seed producing companies in the country and is promoted by highly qualified technocrats and having the best of infrastructure in the form of R&D farms, modern processing plants, GOT farms, in-house seed testing laboratory.  As a policy it releases seed lots which pass the quality tests and after obtaining licenses from the Government. 

5.     This opposite party prior to releasing the Mallika I variety seed obtained permission regarding the same and it was a truthful labeled seed and this variety is extensively cultivated in thousands of acres in Nagarjunasagar Right Command.            

6.      The main allegation made by the complainant is regarding the non germination of the seed. The report of the Agricultural Officer, revealed that the land of the complainant is full of cotton crop. Thus the seed supplied by the 2^nd opposite party is fully germinated.  Hence the question of non germination does not arise.  The germination and non germination of any seed will depend upon several factors like improper management, climatic conditions, soil condition, pest and disease control method adopted before sowing the seed.  The complainant has not mentioned the date of sowing which will have much bearing.  The germination problem can be assessed only within 10 days after sowing.  In this case the complainant complained to the officers 40 days after the date of sowing.  As per the report of Joint Director of Agriculture Mr.Y.Pullareddy, the field was with full of cotton crop as the seed was germinated properly and there are no gaps in between the crop. 

7.      There is no complaint from any of the farmers who purchased the seed of the same lot No.  On enquiry this opposite party came to know that the crop raised by the complainant yielded normally and there is no loss sustained by the complainant.     

8.      The opposite parties never represented or assured that the seed will give yield of 15 to 20 quintals per acre. 

9.      The complainant never made any complaint to this opposite party prior to making representation to the Agricultural Department or District Collector or news paper.    

10.    The opposite parties and the employees of agricultural department have been making vide publicity to the farmers to use less fertilizers and pesticides.  The complainant mentioned that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.34,480/- but he did not specify the name and quantity of the pesticides or the fertilizers used in the crop.  The complainant never approached the opposite parties for necessary guidance.  The complainant alleged latches and negligence on the part of 2^nd opposite party but not this opposite party.       

11.    If the complainant is intended to send the sample of said lot No.4084047 to the laboratory for genetic purity or germination tests this opposite party is ready to deposit the said sample in this Hon’ble Forum.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Therefore the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

12.    The complainant and both the opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. The 2^nd opposite party filed  third party affidavits four in number along with bills. The complainant and 1^st opposite party served interrogatories from the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Atchempet, which were answered by the same.  Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant.

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

 1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of

     service?

2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

14.    POINT NO. 1:-  The complainant filed memo requesting the Forum to receive two purchase bills dated 04-07-2010 issued by Sri. Tirumala Traders, Atchempet, when the matter was posted for giving reply by him. (The complainant later filed IA 429/11 for the same relief and got it not pressed on 01-12-11).  This Forum, rejected the said memo and it became final. 

        The complainant did not mention any where in the complaint or in the affidavit that he had sown the seeds subsequently purchased in his fields subsequent to the non-germination of the seeds in issue i.e. Mallika I BT variety. 

The opposite parties relied upon the following citations in support of their contentions:

        “In National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2011(2) CPR 8 (NC) in Gujarat State Coop.Mktg. Federation Ltd., Vs Ghanshyambhai Fulabhai Patel. It was held: 

“It is well acknowledged that germination depends on factors like the type of irrigation, fertility of the soil, proper use of pesticides, fertilizers etc.  In the instant case, in view of credible evidence that there was no defect in the seeds, the onus to prove otherwise including the fact that proper agronomic practices had been adopted by the Respondent was on the Respondent as held in several judgments of the apex court as well as this commission.  The Respondent failed to do so.  Even the panchnama produced by him is not of any help to the Respondent.  The District Forum on the basis of credible evidence and facts has given clear and convincing reasons for concluding that there was no credible evidence that the seeds were of inferior quality”. 

In National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2012 (3) CPR 203 (NC)   in Mahyco Mansanto Bio Tech (India) Ltd,, Vs.DCD Dabasappa and Others.  It was held:

                “It is well settled through a catena of judgments including of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corportion Ltd v.Sadhu & Anr. As well as in Mahyco Seeds Co. Ltd., v.Basappa Channappa Mooki & Ors. That variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributable to quality of Seeds but could be due to other factors unless there is specific mention in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds”.

15.       The complainant’s allegation is about non-germination of Mallika I BT variety seeds purchased from 1^st opposite party and sown in his 5 Acres field.  The complainant sought the help of District Collector and gave representation on 30-07-2010 in this regard requiring necessary action on the suppliers & manufactures of the seeds i.e., opposite parties.   Following the instructions of the District Collector the Joint Director, Agriculture, Guntur, enquired about the matter and obtained a report from the Agriculture Officer, Atchempet (dated 06-08-10) on 07-08-10 and sent a letter to the complainant that the report sent by the Agriculture Officer revealed that the aspect of non-germination can not be decided after 40 days of the sowing. Basing on that report the J.D.A., expressed his inability to take action on the opposite parties.

 16.   The complainant alleged that he approached 2^nd opposite party after noticing the non-germination of the seeds in his field and that the 2^nd opposite party stated that it would supply another variety of cotton seeds and pay the expenses incurred by the complainant.  The opposite parties denied the same.  But the complainant did not produce any document to show that he approached the 2^nd opposite party immediately after noticing the non-germination in his field by cogent evidence. 

17.    The complainant gave representation to the District Collector after 38 days after sowing the seeds i.e., 21-06-2010. There is almost 28 days delay on the part of complainant.

18.    The replies for the interrogatories revealed that the germination test could be conducted within 7 to 10 days after sowing.  The complainant delayed complaining for about 40 days and it is not possible to conduct germination test at that stage.

19.   The replies for interrogatories further revealed that 9 to 11 bags of 450 gms each of Mallika I variety cotton seed is recommended to sowing in 5 Acres of land which means 7 bags of the seed is not sufficient to sow in 5 acres land of the complainant and those 7 bags are sufficient to sow in 3.5 acres only.  Thus the quantity sown in the complainant is insufficient for five acres. 

20.   The complainant alleged that the visit of Agricultural Officer, Atchempet to his fields happened in his absence and without giving any notice to the complainant.

21.    In view of the above findings the Forum opines that attributing deficiency to the opposite parties is not proper.  Therefore the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and they are not liable to compensate the complainant.  

22.    POINT NO. 2:- Since there is no deficiency of service, the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. 

23.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. 

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 20^th day of October, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:  NIL

PRESIDENT