This C.C coming on before us for final hearing on 1-4-2009 in presence of Sri.Sk.Latheef, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri.T.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainant is an agriculturist and having agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2-00 in S.No.835 of Papakollu of Khammam District and by observing the wide publicity of the opposite parties with regard to seeds of Krishi Dhan cotton seeds and approached the opposite party No-1 and purchased Rakhi (KDCHH-621) BG II premium cotton hybrid seeds on 20-6-2007 vide receipt No.16 for Rs.1,840/- and sowed the seeds in his land by taking all measures for good yielding, but there is no yielding and after noticing the same the complainant informed the A.O. concerned, and the A.O. informed that the crop damaged due to defective seeds and the complainant further stated that he used to get 20 quintals yielding per acre and also spent Rs.15,000/- per acre towards seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, ploughing and labour charges and the complainant alleged that by taking all precautions and by following the procedure, he raised the crop, but there is no yielding and as such he sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and as such he approached the Forum for redressal and the complainant claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original bill, dated 20-6-2007 for Rs.1,840/- issued by opposite party No-1 , (ii) Pahani copy, (iii) photograph of the cotton crop, (iv) representation made by the complainant, dt.29-10-2007 to the A.O.(Z.D.), Khammam, (v) Letter addressed by the complainant on 5-11-2007 to the A.O., Julurupad, (vi) postal acknowledgments (3)Nos., (vii) empty seed pouches (3) Nos. (viii) empty seed packets (2) Nos.
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. The opposite party No-2 who filed counter and contended that the crop was affected with bacterial infection and also contended that the alleged crop was not properly protected and raised by the complainant, due to which the crop was affected with Kawadi and as such the balls were not properly opened and the bacterial infection is attacked due to lack of care i.e. stoppage of water and doses of insecticides and pesticides to the crop. The opposite party No.2 also stated that the complainant already plucked the cotton atleast more than three times before filing of the complaint and there is no proof of application of dosage of pesticides and fertilizers. The opposite party No.2 further contended that the seeds of Krishidhan cotton is developed in 160 days, but the complainant made a complaint to A.O. at very late and after that the commissioner/advocate visited the crop without giving notice to the opposite parties and also contended that the report of Advocate/Commissioner is not having scientific value u/s.13 of C.P.Act and the A.O. did not take samples of the damaged crop, assess the damages by naked eyes and also contended that there is no proof of assessment of damages and no proof of expenditure and also failed to give usage of pesticides and fertilizers and the complainant might have used the pesticides and fertilizes without following the procedure and caused damage to his crop by his own negligence. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
The complainant filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the crop for assessment of damages of the crop, accordingly this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner through an I.A.No.770/2007 and directed, to observe the physical features of the crop and to assess the damages with the help of A.O. concerned after issuance of notice to both the parties and after inspecting the alleged crop the Advocate/commissioner and A.O. filed their reports.
In support of his allegations, the complainant filed chief affidavit and written arguments
In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.
As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of cotton seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 20-6-2007 and as per the complaint after sowing of seeds the complainant raised the crop by taking all precautions and by following all the procedures. It is the case of the complainant that the crop was not yielded, he approached the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the field, opined that due to defect in the seeds there is no yielding and as such the complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties and it is the case of the opposite parties that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the alleged damage was due to the affect of bacterial infection and the opposite party No-2 mentioned in their counter that the complainant did not take plant protection measures such as proper water facility, fertilizers and pesticides, for getting good yielding, as a result the crop affected with bacterial infection and the balls were not opened properly and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. In view of the above versions put forth by both the parties, it is clear that there is no proof regarding the defect in the seeds as alleged by the complainant and moreover the complainant who filed the complaint only basing on that allegation, did not choose to take steps and did not file any proof to that effect, mere allegation is not sufficient to come to a conclusion and the Commissioner/advocate or the A.O., who appointed for the purpose of assessment of damage of the crop and assessment of cause of damage to the crop, filed their reports. As per the report of A.O., he mentioned that the symptoms of damage and approximate yielding per acre, but the A.O. concerned failed to report, whether the crop was damaged due to defect in the seeds or due to any other cause. Simply, he mentioned the average number of balls, the number of damaged balls and the number of branches per plant and moreover in the chief-examination affidavit of A.O., it is clearly mentioned that, ‘in case of matured green balls, disease spots are seen and are turning into pink and later brown…’ as such it clearly speaks that the crop having disease spots and moreover the Commissioner/Advocate or A.O. failed to clarify whether the complainant sustained loss of the crop due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and also failed to file any documentary evidence in that regard. In the absence of sufficient proof regarding the quality of seeds, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion regarding the quality of seeds and moreover at the time of inspection of A.O. concerned the crop age is 5 months 17 days, but as per the counter of opposite party No.2 the crop period of Krishi Dhan is of 160 days, it is cleared that the A.O. inspected the crop at belated stage. In view of the above discussion, the point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
9. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 23rd day of April, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
