This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 5-2-2008 in the presence of  Sri. M.Appa 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(1)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.     The complainant is a cultivator, resident of Proddutur village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District and intends to cultivate chilli crop  in Sy.No.357/AA  in an extent of      Ac.2-00gts., situated at Proddutur Village of Chinthakani Mandal taken the lands on lease  and purchased  Tejaswini  Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 15-6-2006 vide receipt No.68  and  also purchased Tejaswini Chilli Seeds Lot. No.TKD 2010632, vide net weight  10gramsx 1packet each packet costs Rs.220x20 packets, worth of Rs.4,400-00/-.  The opposite party No-2 had assured that the seed germination Min 60%, GP(Min) 95%, P.P.(Min) 98%.

3.         In the month of July,2006 the complainant raised the nursery and in the month of September, 2006 the seedlings were transplanted  by taking all precautions and  by investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides  and fertilizers,  and the complainant had taken all precautions from time to time and  the plants raised greenish and thereafter started falling of leaves  and there is no further growth and yielding and the complainant sustained entire crop loss without any yielding,  after noticing the same the complainant approached  the opposite party No-1 and the opposite party No-1 and some of the representatives of the opposite party No-2 inspected the crop and found that the crop was damaged and there was no yielding and assured that they will inform the opposite party No-2,  but there is no response.  The complainant further stated that  the opposite party No-2 assured that the crop will give 30 quintals per acre  and also stated that by taking all  precautions and by following the procedure prescribed by the opposite parties, he raised the chilly crop but there is no yielding,  he invested an amount of  Rs.20,000/- and  sustained total crop loss due to supply of defective seed by the opposite parties and as such he approached the Forum for redressal.  The complainant mentioned that he spent an amount of Rs.40,000/- per acre for expenses and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.4,20,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award damages to a tune of  Rs.40,000/- and costs.

4.    That the complainant filed his affidavit  along with the following documents: (i) original cash bill, dated 15-6-2006 for Rs.4,400/- issued by the opposite party No-1(ii) Two photographs of chilli crop with negatives.

5.     After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel.  The opposite party No-2 filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.  The opposite party No-1 did not   file their counter.  

6.     Opposite Party No-2 filed following counter:

                  The complainant  is not produced any expert opinion to prove that the seed supplied to him was defective.  The complainant did not produce any material evidence to show that the seed supplied by opposite party was defective.  There is no genetic impurity has been noticed in the affected chilli crop.         

7.     That during September & October, 2006 there was a long dry spell for 2 months in the region which affected  on the fruit flowering formation of chilli crop.  Further due to long dry spell there was severe infestation of “Thrips” and “Sucking pest” on the Chilli crop.  The said  insect pest has spread other viruses on the Chill crop which resulted into less fruit & flower formation on Chilli plants.  The department of Agriculture, Khammam and accordingly they inspected  the affected farmers fields in Khammam urban area.  The team of scientist including Dr.Khalid Ahmed, Principal Scientist  and Smt. T.Vijaya Lakshmi, Scientist of chilli section from Regional Agricultural Research station, LAM Guntur and other members visited the affected plots of the farmers and observed that the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of “Thrips” infestation.  The findings of  the team  of scientist has been confirmed by Associate Director of Research, RARS, LAM, Guntur vide his communication dated 6-11-2006 addressed to the Director of Research, ANGRAU, Hyderabad.  A copy of the said communication dated 6-1-06 along with report of team of Scientist already submitted .   

                   It is false  to say that the opposite parties had assured crop above  30 quintals per acre.  It is also false to say that the market value of Chilli crop  Rs.7,000/- per quintal.  There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.20,000/-  for  cultivation of  chilli crop.

8.         As per section 13 (1)(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is mandatory that  “where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the samples of said lot be sent to the appropriate laboratory for analysis.”  As per the judgment   by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005 NC, page No.47 between Hindustan Insecticides Limited V/s. Kopoulu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Where in the Hon’ble National Commission held that  “ It was for the complainant or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate  steps as per the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, That was not done”

9     The complainant is not entitled any damage of Rs.4,20,000/- and Rs.40,000 towards expenditure to raise the chilli crop.

10.      Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-

11.       The opposite parties filed a memo that written statements  of opposite party No-2 may be treated as chief affidavit and  written arguments of opposite party No-1 &2. The complainant  did not file any  written arguments. The complainant filed his chief-affidavit along with complaint.

12.     The point for consideration whether the complainant  is entitled as prayed for?

13.     It is the contention of the complaint  that the  complainant is having Ac2-00gts of land and he purchased 15 packets of seed from the opposite party No-1 and he raised the said crop in his field by investing  an amount of Rs.20,000/-.  The crop grown up to a height of 2 to 4 feet without flowering. This fact was intimated to opposite party No-1 and agricultural officer.  The agricultural officer visited his field and opined that the  damage of crop was due to defective seed .

14.     For this the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any documentary evidence to show that  he is having Ac2-00gts of Agricultural land .  Admittedly the complainant did not file any Pattadar Pass book or Pahany to  show that he is having  this much of land.

15.     Another contention of the opposite parties  is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.40,000/-.  Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase  receipt of Rs.4,400/-.

16.      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.

17.     The complainant filed the petition  I.A.No.273/06  to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field  of the complainant to assess damages.  The advocate/commissioner did not file  report best reasons known to him.

18.      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.

19.        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.

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

            Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 8th day of February, 2008.

                                                                                  President          Member          Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                -Nil-                                                                                                    

                                                                  President        Member             Member                                              District Consumers Forum, Khammam