2. Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,  

    Mandava Prabhakar,

    8-2-684/2/A, Plot Nos.1-4,

    Road No.12, Banjara Hills,

    Hyderabad-500 034.                                 …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 18-10-11 in the presence of Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, advocate for the complainant, Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for 2^nd opposite party and                    1^st opposite party remained absent and 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 compensation of Rs.1,600/- being cost of the seed; Rs.50,000/- towards costs and expenses of pesticides, fertilizers; Rs.1,12,500/- towards the crop loss; Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and physical strain; Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and costs of the complaint.

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

The complainant is having Ac.2.50 cents of land. The complainant purchased four bags of paddy seed of the variety              Sonal-NP 3114 from the 1^st opposite party supplied by the 2^nd opposite party being its producer.  At the time of purchase the opposite parties promised yield of 45-50 bags per acre and about 95% of germination.  After purchase of seeds the complainant raised nursery immediately and one month thereafter transplanted the seedlings in a scientific manner.   After transplantation the complainant used pesticides to control pests whenever required and also used fertilizers.    At early stages the crop was not bad and later the growth was uneven.  Gradually growth of paddy plants was stunned and no proper flowering.   Due to the above reasons the yield was not proper.   The complainant spent Rs.20,000/- per acre towards pesticides and fertilizers.   The complainant brought the said situation to the notice of the opposite parties and Agricultural Department.   ADA; AO along with VAO and M.A.O., visited the paddy seed and submitted their inspection report.  The opposite parties promised the complainant and other farmers to compensate the loss.   The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party filed version and their contention in nutshell is thus:

        The lands in Karalapadu 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.  On account of shortage of water, 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 16-11-09 and might have transplanted the same either in December or January 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 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 complaint are these:- 

1.  The 2^nd opposite party is the producer of the paddy seed                     variety Sonal NP-3114.

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

 3. The complainant purchased seeds on 16-11-09 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 OP1 manufactured by OP2 is defective. Ex.A-3 revealed that the complainant gave a petition to the Collector, Guntur district.    Ex.A-4 dated 09-03-10 revealed that the complainant made his grievance to the Agricultural Officer of Piduguralla village.   Ex.A-5 is the inspection report of Mandal Agricultural Officer dated 25-03-10.   In Ex.A-5 the following was mentioned:

             “On inspection it is revealed that the crop has been damaged due to neck blast, by that choffy grains (i..e, unfilled grains) are occurred.   By this the yield may severally affect and may come to less than 90%”. 

8.     In Ex.A-8 pamphlet it was mentioned

9.   Nowhere in Ex.A-8 it was mention that the paddy seed was hundred percent resistant to all types of plant diseases.    A caution was also made in Ex.A-8 and it reads as follows:

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.294/2011 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.   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.  

12.   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 defect in the seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.    There was no scientific report from a laboratory in this case.  We therefore opine that the complainant failed to prove that the seeds are defective and answer this point against the complainant.

13.   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.

14.  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

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For opposite parties:      NIL

                                                                             PRESIDENT

Read by:

Compared by: