This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 4-2-2008 in the presence of  Sri. Y.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and  of   Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party   No-  1 &2 ;  upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 with the following averments;

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under;

        The complainant having land to an extent of Ac.4-00gts out of Sy.No.330/A, the said land situated at M.Venkataipalem village of Khammam Rural Mandal.  The complainant purchased 40 packets of Mahyco Hybrid Tejaswini  seeds from opposite party No.1  at the rate of Rs.200/-, total for a sum of Rs.8000/- by obtaining a bill.  The opposite party No.1 assured that the above seed will get yielding of 20 quintals of chilli per acre. 

                        As per the instructions of the opposite party No.1, the complainant prepared the land and sowed the seeds.  The seedlings were transplanted after 30 days in the above land.  The complainant took all precautions like using fertilizers and pesticides and also gave sufficient water to the above mirchi crop.  But, inspite of it the 90% of the pants grown abnormally unlike Tejaswini plants and the remaining 10% of the plants were normal appearing as Tejaswini plants.  The 10% of the Tejaswini plants observed normal budding and yielding, but the 90% of the plants were abnormal and very low budding and the pods were deformed shape and wrinkled.  This fact was intimated to Mandal Agriculture Officer and also to the opposite party no.1.  But, they did not turn up to inspect the crop.  This non yielding of crop purely due to unqualitative, inferior quality and defective seed supplied by opposite party No.1 and produced by opposite party No.2.  The complainant estimated damages of Rs.4,00,000/- on Ac.4-00 of land.  The present market value of the mirchi crop is Rs.5,000/- per quintal.  Hence, this complaint. 

                        To direct the opposite parties   of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss of the crop due to unquality seeds and to award costs or to grant any other relief. 

                        Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed a bill dt.17-7-2006 for Rs.8,000/- . 

3.     After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations made in the complaint.   The opposite party No-1 did not file their counter.

4.         The opposite party No-2 who filed the counter   and submitted that as per the complaint itself there is no negligence or deficiency on their part and further contended that the burden lies on the complainant to prove any deficiency and the complainant failed to prove the same and moreover did not filed any document regarding the defect in the seeds.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that as per the reports of   scientists the crop has   been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thripts infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University  the crop was affected due to infestation of Peanut  Bud  Necrosis Virus and Cucumber Mosaic  Virus and the same shows that the problem is not due to the quality of seeds, the same was  due to infestation of pest and virus and for which they cannot be held responsible.  The opposite party No-2 by denying all the allegations made in the complaint contended that whenever there is an allegation regarding the defect, it cannot be determined without proper analysis as per section-13 (I)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the present case there is no such analysis to find the defect in the seeds.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that after completion of harvesting season the Commissioner/advocate inspected the crop and it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the crop.  The opposite party No-2 further contended that the Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. did not disclose that the problem was due to defect in the seeds and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            The opposite parties filed memo that written statement of opposite party No-2 may be treated as chief affidavit and written arguments of opposite party No-2.  The complainant did not filed any written arguments.  The complainant filed his  chief affidavit along with complaint.

       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.

5.     The contention of the opposite parties  is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase  receipt of Rs.8,000/- .

6.         The main contention of the opposite parties is that to prove the defective seeds, it is mandatory   u/s. 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the defective seed must send  to  the appropriate laboratory for testing analysis.

7.     The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.229/07 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field  of the complainant to assess damages.  The Advocate Commissioner did not file his report best reasons known to him.

 8.        It is also the contention of the opposite parties is that a team of scientists visited the fields of some farmers and gave their opinion  that due to long dry spells of 2 months,  Chili crop was severe infestation of Thrifts and sucking pest. Due to this sucking pest the chilli crop resulted into flower  loss  and fruit formation.  To prove their contention the opposite parties have submitted the report of  scientists of chilli crop in Khammam District.

9.     Hence, we are of the opinion that to prove the defective seed the complainant must send  a sample of the seed to agricultural laboratory and basing on the report of laboratory test we can come to the conclusion that due to defective seed the crop was failed or for some other reasons.  The complainant did not take any steps to send the seed for laboratory test.  Hence, he failed to prove that the seed is defective.  Hence the complaint is liable for dismissal.  Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.  The point is answered against the complainant.

10.       In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  No costs.

 Dictated to stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 15^th   day of   February, 2008.

                                                                            President        Member            Member

                                                                              District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

                                                                                                                                                                                              President                Member             Member                                                                                    District Consumers Forum, Khammam