Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the loss of crop in his Ac.6.00 of land and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

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

The complainant being a farmer on 23-08-08 purchased four packets of paddy seed of variety NLR 145 from the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party produced and supplied the said paddy seed to the 1^st opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 2 assured the complainant that 30 kgs of seed is sufficient to raise paddy in Ac.1.50 of land and guaranteed an yield of 35-40 bags per acre.   After sowing the said seed resulted in irregular maturity and chaffy panicles caused damage causing a huge loss to the complainant.   The complainant along with other farmers approached the opposite parties and agricultural officers of Savalyapuram Mandal.  Agricultural Officer enquired into the matter and sent the seed to concerned labs for testing quality.  The scientist report revealed that there was admixture in the seeds as evident from the field inspection.   The seed produced by the 2^nd opposite party is spurious in nature and caused huge loss to the complainant.   The yield is below 5 bags per acre.  The paddy seed supplied by other companies yielded about 35 bags per acre.    The complainant lost about Rs.30,000/- per acre due to supply of spurious seeds by the opposite parties.    The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party had purchased the paddy seed from the 2^nd opposite party on 19-08-08 and those bags containing the seed was sold to the complainant. It cannot be tampered by the                     1^st opposite party as it was sealed with the requisite label.   The                    1^st opposite party is only a retailer.    The 1^st opposite party never assured and advertised the yield.    Growth of the paddy depends upon number of circumstances.   The 1^st opposite party was not served with any notice prior to the alleged inspection by the Agricultural Officers.               30 kgs of seed packet in general would be sown in an extent of Ac.1.00.  When the complainant purchased the stock from the              1^st opposite party on 19-08-08 inspection of his lands by the committee is not at all correct.   The dates cannot be corrected by the officials and if any tampering there it was by the complainant.   The claim of the complainant is exaggerated.   The report suffers from irregular infirmity.   The 1^st opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented to suit his case.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

        The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of purchase of seeds by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party is a recognized seed producer by the authorities of Nellore Agricultural University and its allied institutions.   The 2^nd opposite party is having good reputation.    The 2^nd opposite party followed the standard procedure in distributing paddy seeds.   Those seeds which were of 80% or more germination were packed.   The complainant has to prove the ownership or connection with the land stated by producing necessary documents.   The land extent and quantity of seeds used by the complainant is not tallied.    The 2^nd opposite party supplied the seeds to different places and no complaint from any quarter.    The complaint is bad for non joinder of Agricultural authorities.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.    Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 on behalf of the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party were marked respectively.

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

        1.   Whether the paddy seeds supplied by the 2^nd opposite party                       to the 1^st opposite party are spurious?

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

         3.   To what relief?

7.   POINT No.1:-    The 2^nd opposite party supplying the paddy seed of NLR 145 to the 1^st opposite party and the complainant purchasing paddy seed under Ex.A-1 are not in dispute.   The complaint as well as affidavit revealed that there was germination of paddy seed.  The allegation of the complainant is that he did not realize the expected yield as promised by the opposite parties.  The date mentioned in the complaint regarding purchase of seed was                  23-08-08, but in his chief affidavit the complainant mentioned the date of purchase of paddy seed was 30-08-08.   Thus the date of purchase of paddy seed mentioned in the complaint and affidavit differ.   The complainant also alleged that the seed purchased under Ex.A-1 is spurious.  In Ex.A-1 bill the following was mentioned as a caution:

“

        The above caution in Ex.A-1 bill negatived the promise said to have been made by the opposite parties regarding quantity of yield. 

8.      The burden is on the complainant to prove that the said seed is defective or spurious as held by the Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu and another 2005 (II) CPJ 13 (SC) and followed by the NCDRC in Mahyco Seeds Limited vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and others 2011 (II) CPR 35 (NC). 

9.   In order to discharge his burden the complainant relied on Ex.A-3 note submitted by the verification committee to the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-3 is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “It is submitted that through reference Rc.No.Fert.II/2030/08, dt.30-12-08, the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur has constituted a field verification Committee to assess the crop loss due to supply of false seed.  In compliance of the orders issued, it is further submitted that the team members have visited Pothuru, Mothukumalli, Bhaskaranagar, Guntupalem and Vykallu in Savalyapuram Mandal, Lingamguntla, Ikkurthi, Ravipadu in Narasaraopet Mandal and Indragiri, Muttemapalli, Vdlamudivaripalem, Tungapadu, Veeravattam, Ramireddypalem, Santagudipadu, Vipparapalem, Annavaram in Rompicherla Mandal on 05-01-08 and 07-01-08 respectively along with Mandal Agricultural Officers and affected farmers of the respective villages.   It was observed that there is admixture in the seed of NLR-34449 and NLR-145 varieties.   Pollination has taken place only in four to five main tiller and all the panicles of secondary tillers have become chaffy as there was pollination problem.   There is no uniformity in all the fields and the yield losses are expe4cted to be 40% to 50%.   The appearance of the grain and height of the plants is not of NLR-34449 which is to be verified and confirmed by the Scientist (Rice breeding), ARS, Nellore.   This is submitted for favour of information”.    

10.  The relevant observations in Ex.A-2 inspection report of                       Dr. B. Krishna Veni, Scientist (Breeding) Rice Research Institute (in respect of NLR-145) the following was mentioned:

                “On an average, 50% to 60% admixtures of the following                                 three paddy varieties were observed.

1. Tall plants with medium bold grains in grain filling stage.

2. Tall plants with long slender grains having long purple awns in              grain filing stage.

3. Medium tall plants with long slender grains which were                                already matured were present.

The NLR 145 variety with long slender grains are in grain filling                         stage”.

11.    The above observation revealed that three paddy varieties were observed in the fields they inspected.  It is not the case of the complainant that he obtained lab report.   In Mahyco Seeds Limited vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy and others 2011 (II) CPR 35 (NC) it was held

                “10. The report of the agricultural officer who has opined that the crops failed due to genetic failure of the seeds is ambiguous.   As already pointed out by counsel for petitioner, in the first place, it is in evidence that the inspection was conducted after the harvesting was over and as observed by the Joint Director (Agriculture) a senior authority, at this stage any assessment of defects in the seeds is not possible.   The report itself is full of contradictions because while it states in one place that the germination is good, it does not adequately spell out the reasons for the so called failure of the crops.   In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.   We also note that there is adequate evidence on record that the respondent did not take due care in adhering to the recommended schedule for planting the seeds, as also the type of land which is best suited for cotton seeds.   Respondent’s action in not informing the petitioner about the so called failure of the seeds and not involving him in the inspections also make his case further suspect.    On the other hand, there is credible evidence that the seeds were tested and certified for genetic purity in a Government of India recognized laboratory and no evidence was led by Respondent to contradict these findings of the laboratory.   Further, the onus to prove the defects in the seeds was not on the petitioner but on the respondent.   This point has been squarely covered in a number of rulings of this Commission as well as the order of the Apex Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu and another”. 

12.   In Chenna Rayudu vs Prabhat Agri Bio-tech Limited & Another 2010 (1) CPR 50 it was held in paras 12 and 13,

                “The complainant never tried to send the said seed to scientific analysis as required under section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Had the complainant was vigilant and sent the seed to an expert, he would have got whatever the compensation claimed.

                In the light of evidence of expert it cannot be said that the seed is defective.   Necessarily, the complainant has to prove that he used the fertilizers, pesticides, manure etc., at appropriate stages.  He had to prove that there was sufficient moisture in the soil at the time of filling of the seeds”.

13.   The complainant did not mention either in his affidavit or in the complaint regarding survey number in which he raised paddy crop.      The complainant did not file any document from the Revenue Authorities to show that he is either owner or occupier of the land     in spite of the second opposite party raising dispute about the complainant owning land and raised paddy.   Even Ex.A-4 also did not contain any survey numbers.   Ex.A-4 is not issued by any competent authority.   Nothing prevented the complainant from mentioning the survey numbers in which he raised paddy either in the complaint or in his affidavit or in Ex.A-4 in the least.  Absence of these material particulars in our considered opinion corroborated the contention of the opposite party.  We therefore opine that the complainant miserably failed in proving that he raised paddy and the seeds supplied by the 1^st opposite party and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party are defective or spurious.   For the above discussion we answer this point against the complainant.  

14.   POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings on point No.1 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  The complainant in CC 34 of 2011 (under Ex.X-1) sought information from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur regarding the expenditure and probable return.   The same will not help the complainant as he failed to prove that the seed supplied suffered from genetic impurity. We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

15.   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 dated this the 30th day of September, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:

                                                                                               PRESIDENT