Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation, Rs.12,800/- being the amount spent for purchasing paddy seeds, Rs.7,200/- for mental agony and for other necessary and appropriate orders.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is an agriculturist residing in Nambur Village and having experience in growing paddy crop.  1^st opposite party is the dealer of 2^nd opposite party and they are doing business in seeds.  Complainant having 4.00 acres of wet land in Nambur Village and also took agricultural wet land of 28 acres on lease.  Complainant purchased 16 bags of paddy seeds (BPT 5204 variety) from 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 12-07-07 for an amount of Rs.12,800/- under bill No.96 for his agricultural fields.  The 1^st opposite party on behalf of 2^nd opposite party made a promise to the complainant that the seeds are without any mixtures and they yield 42 bags per acre.  As per the promises made by opposite parties, the complainant purchased the above said seeds and raised paddy crop in an extent of 32 acres.  The paddy crop was grown up now and complainant provided all pesticides and fertilizers to the field as required and the soil is good soil for growing paddy crop.  The neighboring fields are also paddy crop fields.  The crop was grown up and it was found that half of the crops are with mixtures and there are “Keleelu” in half of the crop.  Hence, it was found that the said seeds are substandard seeds, due to which complainant sustained huge loss.

                Complainant got issued notices to the opposite parties calling upon them to visit the fields of complainant in which paddy crop was raised.  Even after receipt of notice of complainant, 1^st opposite party did not issue any reply nor visited the fields for estimation of loss sustained by complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party received notice and issued reply with false allegations confirming that the seeds were manufactured by them.  The complainant also sent a letter to the Agricultural Officer and the Collector of Guntur requesting the Agricultural Officer to visit the fields of complainant.  The Agricultural Officer along with a scientist visited the field and the scientist issued report stating that there were mixtures in the crop.  The complainant sustained loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre in total Rs.4,80,000/- and suffered mental agony due to the acts of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint.

The 1^st opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                There is no cause of action against 1^st opposite party since 1^st opposite party never sold the alleged paddy seeds to the complainant and there is no relationship between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.  As seen from the bill No.96 dt.12-07-10 on which basis the above case was filed, one V.Srinivasa Rao purchased the paddy seed and he signed under the said bill under column purchaser signature.  So the complainant has no locus standi to file case as he is not a consumer.  As such the complaint is not maintainable against 1^st opposite party.  Most of the averments mentioned in the complaint are misleading, incorrect and not true and the same are not tenable.  The allegations in the complaint are denied and complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that 1^st opposite party is a dealer to 2^nd opposite party and used to sell the certified seed of paddy (BPT 5204 variety) of 2^nd opposite party every year in the agriculture season of every year.  2^nd opposite party used to supply the certified seed of paddy through stitched bags containing 30 kgs. for each bag and in turn this opposite party used to sell the same. Accordingly 2^nd opposite party sent 333 bags of paddy seed (BPT 5204 variety) which is certified seed under lot No.57845-1, each bag contains 30 kgs on                06-07-10 under bill No.645 to this opposite party. In turn this opposite party sold the same to different farmers in and around the villages of Kollipara.  Out of the said 333 bags this opposite party sold 16 such bags to one D.Srinivasa Rao under bill No.96 dt.12-07-10. The said Srinivasa Rao got raised the said bill No.96 in the name of V.Venkata Reddy.  The said Venkta Reddy filed this case with all false allegations stating that there is mixture of seed and due to that the yield is less.  For that the complainant alleges that the said seed is substandard, which is not correct.  If really there is mixture seed in the said paddy seed, the complainant ought to have observed after opening the bags and before spreading the seed in the field.  If the complainant aggrieved, he has to approach the Senior Seed Certification Officer, AP State Seed Certification Agency, Nandyala and 2^nd opposite party, who is manufacturer of said seed but not against this opposite party.  There are no complaints from any ryots in those villages who purchased the paddy seed from this opposite party and raised crop.  As per the Agriculture Department guidelines for one acre of land 30 kgs of paddy is necessary to raise crop in the field.  The 16 bags of paddy seed purchased by complainant are not sufficient for 32 acres of land.  The amount claimed by the complainant is without any legal basis and there are no particulars as to how he arrived to the amount of loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre.  There is no mediator nama to know to what extent the said mixture is there in the said crop and there is no report from the agricultural officer.  The amount claimed is excessive and abnormal.  The complainant filed the case by adding this opposite party as 1^st opposite party only to attract the jurisdiction of this Forum. The present complaint is misconceived and unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

2^nd opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                   There is no cause of action against this opposite party to file this complaint since this opposite party never sold the alleged paddy seeds to complainant.  The complainant has no locus standi to file this case as he is not a consumer.  The Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against this opposite party.  Most of the averments mentioned in the complaint are misleading incorrect and not true and the same are not tenable.  The allegations of the complaint are denied and complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that this opposite party used to manufacture paddy seed namely BPT 5204 variety (certified seed) and used to sell the same to the dealers and ryots in the state of AP every year.  This opposite party sold the said paddy seed BPT 5204 which was certified by Government to 1^st opposite party during agriculture season for the year August, 2010 to January, 2011.  This opposite party supplied the certified seed stitched in the bags containing 30 kgs for each bag and in turn the 1^st opposite party used to sell the same.  Accordingly this opposite party sent 333 bags of paddy seed under lot No.57845-1 each bag containing 30 kgs on 06-07-10 under bill No.645 to 1^st opposite party.  In turn 1^st opposite party sold the said bags to different farmers in and around the villages of Kollipara.  Out of the said 333 bags 1^st opposite party sold 16 bags to one V.Srinivasa Rao under bill No.96 dt.12-07-10.  The said Srinivasa Rao got raised the said bill in the name of one Venkata Reddy.  The said Venkata Reddy who is complainant herein filed this case with false allegations stating that there is mixture of seed and due to that the yield is less and alleges that the said seed is substandard, which is not correct.  If really there is mixture seed in the paddy seed, the complainant ought to have observed by opening the bags before spreading the said paddy in the field.  If the complainant is aggrieved he has to approach the Senior Seed Certification Officer, AP State Seed Certification Agency, Nandyala.  This complainant has no locus standi to file the case since he is not the purchaser of the said paddy seed and the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and this opposite party.  The BPT 5204 paddy seed is a notified variety by Government of AP to the said paddy seed, the breeder is Acharya NG Ranga Rytu Sankshema and Seed Development Corporation, Jangameswarapuram, Gurazala Mandal of Guntur District.  This opposite party handed over the foundation seed to one P.Lingamesh, producer/farmer to raise the paddy crop for the purpose of seed to sell the same in the Market to farmers.  After completion of crop in the field of said producer, this opposite party took back nearly 190 quintals 80 kgs of seed and after processing the same, got certified the said seed through AP State Seed Certification Agency, Nandyala on 17-05-10 for which they issued a certificate No.242212 dt.25-05-10, in which it is clear paddy variety name is BPT 5204, lot No.57845-1, total 190 quintals 80 kgs, pure seed 99.3%, inert matter 0.7%, germination 93%, moisture 10.8%.  This opposite party packed the said seed as 30 kgs each bag and sent 333 such bags to 1^st opposite party on 06-07-10.  In turn the 1^st opposite party sold the said paddy to the ryots in and around Kollipara village. There are no complaints from any ryots in those villages who purchased the said paddy seed from the 1^st opposite party and raised crop.  As per the guidelines of Agriculture Department 30 kgs of paddy seed is necessary for one acre but complainant alleges that he has purchased 16 bags for 32 acres, which is not sufficient.

                The amount claimed by complainant is without any legal basis and there are no particulars as to how he arrived to the amount of loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre.  There is no mediator nama to know to what extent the said mixture is there in the said crop and there is no report from Agriculture Officer and the amount claimed is excessive.  On receipt of notice from the complainant this opposite party gave reply dt.09-11-10 with true facts. The complaint is misconceived and untenable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.  The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                Complainants and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions reiterating the same. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed additional versions.

The brief facts of the additional versions of opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows:

                The alleged report of Dr.B.Krishna Veni, Scientist, Rice Research Unit, Bapatla, is nothing to do with the facts of the present case. Either the complainant or Agricultural Department Officials or Dr.B.Krishna Veni, Scientist did not give any notice or did not inform either of the parties about their alleged inspection of fields of farmers of Kollipara and Nambur Villages. The 2^nd opposite party manufactured the BPT 5204 paddy variety certified by certifying agency of Government Department under lot No.57845-1 and sold the same to 1^st opposite party and in turn 1^st opposite party sold the same to the farmers in and around the villages of Nambur and Kollilpara.  Either of the opposite parties are nothing to do with the paddy seed under lot No.57845.  The report of Dr.B.Krishna Veni did not reveal as to what type of scientific test or lab test she conducted before reaching her conclusions that on average 3-5% of the population processed tall statured plants with short bold grains, which are already matured and another 10-15% of the population is also already matured with medium slender grains etc. and further there is no date on which she prepared the alleged report and there is no endorsement of other Agricultural Department Officials about their remarks etc. on the said report of Dr.B.Krishna Veni.  In the above circumstances, the alleged report of Dr.B.Krishna Veni is not correct and serving the alleged report on opposite party on 26-08-11 by the complainant without furnishing the copy of same along with complaint, at the time of serving notice is nothing but after thought to get unlawful gain from the opposite parties. Therefore, the said report needs no consideration.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

                Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed affidavits in support of their additional version reiterating the same.

                On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. On behalf of 1^st opposite party Ex.B1 is marked.

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINTS 1 & 2

                The case of complainant is that he purchased 16 bags of paddy seed (BPT 5204 variety) from 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 12-07-10 for an amount of Rs.12,800/- and raised paddy crop in an extent of 32 cents and that it was found that half of the crops are with mixtures and that he sustained huge loss of Rs.15,000/- per acre, in total Rs.4,80,000/-, as the seed is of substandard and that thereby complainant suffered mental agony.

                The case of opposite parties 1 and 2 is that one V.Srinivasa Rao purchased the paddy seed in question from 1^st opposite party and signed under the bill, as such the complainant is not a consumer and that the said seed is of lot No.57845-1 but not 57845 and that the said seed was certified by the Government agency, that the seed alleged to have been purchased is not sufficient for 32 acres of land, that there are no complaints from any other ryots in and around the villages where they sold the seed, that there is no mediator nama to show the extent of the mixture in the said crop of complainant, that the amount claimed by the complainant is excessive and abnormal, that the report of scientist namely Dr.B.Krishna Veni is nothing to do with the facts of present case that the said scientist  or officials of Agriculture Department did not give any notice or inform either of the opposite parties about their alleged inspection in the fields of farmers of Kollipara and Nambur villages, that as per the report of scientist the seed is under lot No.57845 but not 57845-1, which was sold by them in question and the report of scientist does not reveal as to how she reached her conclusions and that the alleged report of scientist is not correct and that it is nothing but an after thought as it was not served along with the complaint and the said report of scientist needs no consideration.

                As seen from Ex.A1 bill dt.12-07-10 it was passed in the name of complainant and one V.S.Srinivasa Reddy signed underneath Ex.A1. Simply because one Srinivasa Reddy signed underneath the bill on behalf of complainant who purchased the seed it cannot be said that complainant is not a consumer since the said bill was passed in the name of complainant. Therefore the allegation of opposite party that complainant is not a consumer cannot be taken into consideration.

                Complainant purchased seed from 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party in the jurisdiction of this Forum under Ex.A1. Therefore, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

                Subsequent to raising paddy crop as it was found by the complainant that half of the crop is mixture and there are keleelu in half of the crop, complainant got issued legal notice (Ex.A4) to opposite parties 1 and 2 stating the facts and requested opposite parties 1 and 2 visit his field and estimate the mixtures in the paddy crop of complainant.  On receipt of said notice Ex.A4 1^st opposite party has not given any reply and 2^nd opposite party gave reply under Ex.A7 stating that the seed was manufactured as per the rules and regulations of Government and after getting it certified by the Government only 2^nd opposite party marketed the said seed and denied the allegation that there are keleelu mixture in half of the crop of complainant. But 2^nd opposite party has not chosen to visit the field of complainant as requested by complainant in his notice. The complainant has also submitted a representation to District Collector under Ex.A8.  The complainant alleged that 1^st opposite party at the time of purchase of seed promised that there are no mixtures and that the seed will yield 42 bags of paddy per acre. But complainant has not placed any evidence in order to prove the said allegation regarding the said promise made by 1^st opposite party at the time of selling the seed. The allegation of opposite party is that 16 bags of paddy purchased by complainant is not sufficient for raising crop in 32 acres as per the guidelines of Agriculture Department and that each acre require one bag of seed containing 30 kgs i.e., in all 32 bags are required for raising crop in 32 acres of land and it was alleged by opposite party that as the seed is not sufficient the complainant might have purchased some other seed and mixed with the certified seed purchased from them and might have sown the same in his fields. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not filed any guidelines of Agriculture Department and they failed to prove the said allegation.

                It is the case of 2^nd opposite party that they handed over the foundation seed to one P.Lingamesh, producer/grower/farmer to raise the paddy crop for the purpose of seed to sell the same in market to farmers.  After completion of crop in the filed of said producer, 2^nd opposite party took back nearly 190 quintals 80 kgs of seed and after processing the same, got certified the said seed through AP State Seed Certification Agency, Nandyala on 17-05-10, for which they issued a certificate No.242212 dt.25-05-10 for the same, wherein it was clear paddy variety name is BPT-5204, lot No.57845-1 and pure seed 99.3%, inherit matter 0.7%, germination 93%, moisture 10.8%.  Accordingly, 2^nd opposite party packed the said 190 quintals 80 kgs, as 30 kgs each bag and sent 333 such bags to 1^st opposite party and in turn 1^st opposite party sold the said paddy to the ryots in and around  Kollipara village.  As per the said version of 2^nd opposite party 192 quintals and 80 kgs paddy seed in bulk was certified by the Government agency and later it was packed into 30 kgs bags by 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore it cannot be said that each bag containing 30 kgs of seed was separately certified by the Government agency.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the bulk seed certified by the Government agency was as it is filled in the bags containing 30 kgs each.

                The case of complainant is that on his representation to the Collector, the Scientist along with Mandal Agriculture Officer and farmers visited the fields and gave inspection report under Ex.A9.  The inspection report (Ex.A9) of the Scientist, Rice Research Unit, Bapatla is as follows:

                “I submit to inform that I have visited the paddy fields of BPT 5204 in Nambur village of Pedakakani Mandal along with the complainant farmers and the Mandal Agril. Officer, Pedakakani on 04-12-10.  The farmers informed that they have sown the paddy seed supplied by Ramakrishna Trading Company, Kollipara which was produced by Sri Venkateswara Seeds, Nandyal belonging to lot No.57845.  All the paddy fields were sown during the second fortnight of July and the age of the crop is 130-135 days.  In the paddy fields shown by the Agril. Dept. officials, the paddy variety BPT 5204 is in two stages viz. maturity stage and grain hardening stages. On an average, 3-5% of the population possessed tall statured plants with short bold grains which were already matured. Another 10-15% of the population is also already matured with medium slender grains.  The rest of the crop is in grain hardening stage, whose morphological characters are in confirmation with BPT 5204.”      

                It was alleged by the opposite parties that no notice of the inspection of scientist was given to them, that they sold the paddy seed under lot No.57845-1 but not 15845 as mentioned in the inspection report of scientist in Ex.A9.  Further it was alleged by opposite parties, the said report of scientist does not reveal what type of scientist test or lab test, the scientist conducted before reaching to her conclusions that on an average 3-5% of the population processed tall statured plants with short bold grains, which were already matured and another 10-15% of population is already matured with medium slender grains and the rest of the crop is in grain hardening stage.  Further the said report was not served to the opposite parties along with copy of complaint and it was served at a later stage and that therefore it is an after thought of complainant, therefore, the said report cannot be taken into consideration and the report of scientist is not based on any lab report.  In support of the said version of opposite parties, the learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party relied on a decision reported in III (2011) CPJ 99 (NC) between Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. G.Venkata Subba Reddy & Others, wherein it was held

                “In any case, genetic defect in seeds cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory”

                As seen from Ex.A9 report of scientist it was given on visual inspection.  It does not reveal that the seed was tested in a scientific laboratory.  The scientist has not mentioned the survey numbers or the names of farmers, wherein she inspected, in her report.  The Mandal Agriculture Officer, who accompanied the said scientist, has also not endorsed the said inspection report of scientist (Ex.A9).  The lot number mentioned in the report is also not tallying with the lot number certified by the Government agency as alleged by the opposite parties.  Therefore, in view of the facts and in view of the decision relied on by the counsel for 2^nd opposite party, Ex.A9 report of the scientist cannot be given due consideration, since it is not based on a scientific lab report.  The onus to prove the defects in the seed lies on the complainant.  Further the complainant has not placed any evidence to show that he has applied all the necessary pesticides and fertilizers for the paddy crop in question.  In view of the facts and circumstances of case, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the allegations made against the opposite parties regarding the mixtures in the paddy seed sold by them to the complainant. Therefore, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this issue is answered against the complainant.

                In the result the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances of case each party shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of September, 2011.   

       MEMBER                            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For 1^st opposite party :

                                                                             PRESIDENT