This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 21-1-2008 in the presence of  Sri. M.Appa Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence 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 Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )

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

2.     The complainant is an agriculturist, resident of Proddutur village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District and intends to cultivate chilli crop  in Sy.No.357/A  in an extent of Ac.3-00gts., situated at Proddutur Village of Chinthakani Mandal and purchased  Tejaswini  Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 12-6-2006 vide receipt No.35 for Rs.6600/-.  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.60,000/-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.20,000/- per acre for expenses and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.6,30,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award damages to a tune of  Rs.60,000/- and costs.

3.     Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original cash bill, dated 12-6-2006 for Rs.6,600/- issued by the opposite party No-1(ii) Two photographs of chilli crop with negatives.

4.     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.  

5.         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 and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.         This Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field and assess the damage of the crop and sent the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory with the help of A.O. concerned .  In the present case the Commissioner/Advocate neither returned the warrant nor submit his report.

7.         The opposite parties No-2 filed a memo to adopt the contents of their counter as written arguments of opposite party No-2.

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  Chilli Seeds from the opposite parties No-1 on 12-6-2006 and as per the complaint after growing the nursery bed i.e. seedlings were planted in the field  after taking all the precautions and by following all the procedures and as there is no yielding, he approached the opposite party No-1 and  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 Virus attack and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  The opposite party No-2 mentioned in their counter that to find a defect, it is necessary to sent 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 did not file any report before the Forum for consideration and 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 January, 2008.

                                                                     President          Member          Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

                                                         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

                                                                  President        Member             Member                                              District Consumers Forum, Khammam