This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 17-11-2008 in the presence of Sri. H.Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainants , and opposite party No-1&2&3&5 served and called absent, and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for opposite party No-4 and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 6 ; 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(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainants 1to 12 are agriculturists, residents of Vennaram(V), Dornakal(M), Warangal District and intends to cultivate chilli crop in their lands and the complainant No-1 purchased Mahyco Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 for Rs.3,300/- and the complainants No-2&8 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-2 on 13-6-2006 for Rs.1,980/- and the complainant No-3 also purchased the said seeds from opposite party No-1 on 8-6-2006 for Rs.1,500/-, and the complainants No-4&7 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 for Rs.3,300/-, the complainant No-5 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 for Rs.3,300/- the complainant No-6 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-3 on 1-7-2006 for Rs.1,000/- the complainants No-7&4 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-1 on 28-6-2006 for Rs.3,300/- the complainants No-8&2 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-2 on 13-6-2006 for Rs.1,980/- the complainants No-9&10purchased the seeds from opposite party No-2 on 13-6-2006 for Rs.6,820/- the complainants No-10&9 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-2 on 13-6-2006 for Rs.6,820/- the complainant No-11 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-4 on 22-6-2006 for Rs.5,060/- the complainant No-12 purchased the seeds from opposite party No-5 on 30-6-2006 for Rs.1,680/- and raised the nursery and investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides and fertilizers as per the advises given by the opposite parties and the crop was flowered 30 to 40% and after noticing the same the complainant approached the A.O. concerned and the complainants feels that the crop was damaged due to the defective seeds and the complainants further stated that by taking all precautions and by following the procedure prescribed by the opposite parties, he raised the crop, the complainants further stated that the opposite parties assured that the crop will give 30 quintals per acre, in fact the crop will not give sufficient yielding and as such they sustained huge loss and as such they approached the Forum for redressal. The complainants mentioned that they spent Rs.35,000/- to Rs.38,000/- per acre for purchasing of seeds, ploughing and for manure and fertilizers and also sustained one year crop loss and as such the complainant claimed Rs.19,09,250/- towards damages of chilli crop and costs.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant No-1 filed affidavit and also filed (i)Xerox copies of purchasing bills and pahanies .
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. The opposite party No-4, in their counter denied the allegation that the crop was totally damaged due to the defective quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the damages and further mentioned that the germination was good and as such it cannot be said that the seeds were defective and the damage if any was due to improper care and poor agronomical and intercultural operations and as such the opposite party No-4 is not liable to pay any damages and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint
6. The opposite party No-6 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-6 contended that as per the reports of scientists the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thrips 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-6 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-6 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-6 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.
7. The complainant filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner to assess the damages of the crop, accordingly this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner as per I.A. No.605/2007 and directed the Advocate/Commissioner to assess the damage of the crop and send the samples to an appropriate laboratory with the help of A.O. concerned, In fact neither the Commissioner/Advocate nor the A.O. file any report to that effect.
8. 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.
9. As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of Tejaswini Hybrid Chilli Seeds from the opposite parties and as per the complaint after growing the nursery bed i.e. seedlings, the plants were planted in the fields of complainants after taking all the precautions and by following all the procedures. It is the case of the complainants that there is no sufficient flowering, they approached the opposite parties and the A.O. concerned and the complainants feels that due to defect in the seeds the flowering was not found 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 Virus attack and prayed to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party No-10 mentioned in their counter that to find a defect, it is necessary to send the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and section-13(I) (C) of C.P.Act 1986 also speaks the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 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 any steps in that regard and the Commissioner/advocate or the A.O. or H.O. who collected the sample for analysis, did not furnish the analysis report, and in the absence of scientific analysis report regarding the quality of seeds, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion regarding the quality of seeds and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
10. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 28th day of November, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam