This complaint is coming before us for hearing, in the presence of       Sri. G. Nagaraju, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri. K. Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 & 2; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is resident of Ramanujavaram village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, has been doing agriculture for his livelihood in his own land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts.  For producing vegetables, purchased Ridge Gourd Vegetable seeds from the opposite party No.1 on 28-05-2011 for Rs.540/-, produced by opposite party No.2.  The complainant sowed the seeds in an extent of 20.00 gts. out of 40.00 gts. (Ac.1-00) by investing Rs.50,000/- for laying of fencing and engaging of coolies apart from money spent for irrigation.  When the crop was harvesting, it has good yielding but produced bitter taste of Ridge Gourd vegetables.  Upon which, submitted a complaint to the Agricultural Officer, Manuguru on 30-07-2011, instead of receiving, the A.O. refused to accept the same.  Having no other go, constrained to file the present complaint by crawling compensation.  The complainant further submitted that he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- towards investment and Rs.50,000/- towards crop loss. Therefore, he contended that the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.15,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation apart from loss of crop and investments, in total, the complainant had prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,20,000/- together with interest at @12% per annum towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by them. 

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Affidavit and Exhibits A-1 and A-2. 

4.      On receipt of notice, the opposite party No.2 filed counter by denying the averments of complaint.  In its counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and has no cause of action and privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties.  The complainant not preferred any complaint before the opposite parties at any point of time regarding the quality of seeds, if so, the opposite party No.2 would definitely sent the technical expert for examination of crop and for giving suggestions for remedial measures if any.  The seeds will be sold after testing its percentage of germination and genetic purity.  The present complaint is having complicated questions, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint under C.P. Act.   The complainant did not mention the particulars regarding date of purchase; sowing of seeds and extent of land, he had sowed the seeds of opposite parties. The allegations levelled against them are false and fabricated without cogent proof, raised only for the purpose of filing this case. The defect in the seeds can be determined by proper analysis in an appropriate laboratory.  The opposite party No.2 further submitted that perhaps the complainant had followed wrong agricultural practices, inappropriate farming techniques or any negligent conditions, leads to cause of loss, which are only established by proper analysis under section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act.  There is no defect in the seeds supplied by them, therefore, the liability in payment of compensation will not be arise and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.   

          The opposite party No.2 filed a memo by stating that to treat the contents of counter of opposite party No.2 as its written statement.

5.      In support of their averments, the complainant and the opposite parties filed Written Arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned supra.

6.      Along with proof affidavit of its Business Development Manager, the opposite party No.2 filed photocopy of license to carry on the business of a dealer in seeds (Form ‘C’), dated 09-02-2011 with covering letter dated        23-02-2011 addressed by the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P. to the opposite party No.2 and also filed photocopy of release order dated 01-02-2011.  Through a petition vide IA.No.80/2013 the opposite party No.2 also placed Ajeet-811 seeds, bearing Lot No.201013A(3812), those were marked as exhibits B-1 to B-3.

7.      During the proceedings, the complainant and the opposite parties produced sample of seeds before this Forum through petitions vide IA.No.6/2012 and IA.No.80/2013 respectively by praying to send Ajeet-811 Ridge Gourd Vegetable seeds vide lot No.201013A(3812) to the appropriate laboratory for assessment of quality standards, germination and its purity.

8.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased Ajeet-811 Ridge Gourd Vegetable Seeds from the opposite party No.1, produced by opposite party No.2 on 28-05-2011 for Rs.540/- per 50 gms. packet.  The complainant sowed the seeds in an extent of 20 gts. out of 40 gts. of his own land by following all procedures. It is the case of the complainant that he spent Rs.50,000/- for providing supporting for growing of Ridge Gourd Vegetable (climbers) plants and engaging of coolies apart from spending of charges for irrigation.  The plants yielded sufficiently but produced bitter taste of vegetables, due to which, the complainant had sustained heavy loss.  On his grievance, approached the M.A.O. and tried to submit his complaint, due to non receiving of complaint by the M.A.O., filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.   On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the loss of yielding was not due to seeds supplied by them, it was only because of wrong agricultural practices, in-appropriate farming techniques followed by the complainant and also averred that the complainant failed to send the seeds for scientific analysis under section 13(1) (c) of C.P. Act.  We cannot agree with the plea taken by the opposite parties by considering the economic inability of farmer, who raised vegetable garden for his livelihood in an extent of only 20.00 gts. of land, cannot spend single penny for testing of seeds.  So, the burden of proof did not lie on him, placing of seeds before this Forum is enough.  In view of creating high degree of probability of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the onus will shifts on the other side to discharge the onus to prove their denied.       

During the proceedings, both the parties filed separate petitions vide IA.No.6/2012, dt. 20-01-2012 and 80/2013, dt.03-07-2013 by praying to send the seeds, placed by them to the laboratory for assessment of its quality in germination and yielding, even after giving sufficient time for depositing prescribed fee for analysis, both the parties failed to deposit the amounts and furnishing of particulars of Laboratory, concerned. Finally, at their request, this Forum addressed a letter, dt.25-08-2013 to the Director, Telangana State Seed Testing Laboratory, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad by asking to furnish particulars of fee for furnishing quality standards, germination and purity of seeds to initiating the proceedings, evidenced under Exhibit C-1.  In response to the same, the Deputy Director (FAC) TSSCA, Hyderabad addressed a letter dt. 01-09-2015 by stating that “the State Seed Testing Laboratory conducting seed testing of certification samples of the Hybrids and varieties notified U/sec. 5 of Seeds Act in prescribed manner.  Hence the samples of Hybrid Ridge Gourd Ajeet-811 cannot be accepted”, evidenced under Exhibit   C-2, it seems that the seeds purchased by the complainant were not approved by the State Government for sale under notified kind / variety, it is sufficient for attributing deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in supply of defective seeds.  Accordingly, it is clear that the complainant has suffered loss of crop due to supply of defective seeds.  In general, the Ridge Gourd vegetable crop would yield up to 15 tons per hectare. Accordingly, the complainant had sustained loss of crop to an extent of 30 quintals out of 20 gts. of land.  As per official website of Telananga State Government Agricultural Marketing Department, Bowenpally vegetable Market, Hyderabad, the model price of Ridge Gourd Vegetables as on 10-08-2011 is @ Rs.800/- per quintal.  So, the complainant sustained Rs.24,000/- towards loss of Ridge Gourd crop.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are held liable to pay compensation towards crop loss and also liable to pay damages for adopting unfair trade practice.

9.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.24,000/- towards loss of Ridge Gourd Vegetable Crop and Rs.6,000/- towards damages for supply of substandard seeds to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which,  the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till its realization.  Further they also liable to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of April, 2017.

Member                  FAC President

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

-None-                                                                   -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

C-1:- Letter dt.25-08-2015 addressed by this Forum to the Director, TSSCA, Seed Testing Laboratory, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.

C-2:- Letter dt.01-09-2015 addressed by Deputy Director, TSSCA, Hyderabad to this Forum.               

Member                  FAC President

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.