A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1215/2008 against C.D. 252/2007, Dist. Forum, Khammam
Between:
Sadineni Saradaiah
S/o. Guravaiah, Age: 68 years
Agriculture, Tutikuntla Village
Bonakal Mandal, Khammam Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1) Sri Balaji Raghavendra Traders
Pesticides, Fertilizers & Seeds Dealers
Chithakani Mandal
Khammam Dist.
Rep. by its proprietor B. Srinivas
2) Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Ltd.
Presently Mahyco Seeds Ltd.
Resham Havani, 78, Veera
Nariman Road, Mumbai
Rep. by its Director. *** Respondents/ Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. S. Raj Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased chilly seeds from Op1, a dealer of Op2 the manufacturer by paying its price on 11.6.2006 in order to raise the crop in an extent of Ac. 10.00 owned by him in his village Tutikuntla . He had applied fertilizers, pesticides etc., however, the crop could not grow due to defective seeds. He would have got about 25 qunitals and even as per the market value he would have got Rs. 12.50 lakhs. He spent about Rs. 4,24,300/- towards fertilizers, pesticides, labour etc. Therefore he claimed Rs. 12,50,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs.
3) Op2 resisted the case by filing its counter which was adopted by Op1. However, it admitted that it has manufactured the chilly seeds, but it was not having any genetic impurity. A team of specialists at the instance of Department of Agriculture visited the fields and observed that the crops have been affected due to long dry spells which resulted in spread of ‘thrips’ infestation. A rain fall of 18.33 mm as against the normal rain fall of 106 mm was received during October, 2006. Dry spell coupled with high temperatures were prevailed during October, 2006. In fact there was no defect in the seeds. The problem arose due to long dry spells in the region. This was confirmed by the report of ANGRAU, Hyderabad. The advocate who was appointed to assess the loss of crop did not file his report. At any rate he inspected the fields after completion of harvest and expiry of the maturity date. His report was not furnished. No expert was examined to prove that there was deficiency in seeds, and therefore it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) Neither the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence nor the opposite parties.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the pleadings of both the parties opined that the complainant could not establish that there was defect in the seed. The very commissioner who was appointed did not file his report, nor the complainant has taken steps for the said report. Considering the above circumstances the complaint was dismissed.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have waited for the report of the commissioner and disposed of the matter hurriedly, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased chilly seeds on payment of Rs. 14,700/- from Op1 a dealer of Op2 the manufacturer. The fact that he owned agricultural lands and sowed these seeds on a particular day and the fact that they did not yield properly and it is afflicted with virus was not even alleged by him by filing his affidavit evidence, nor got his field examined either by an Agricultural Officer or by an expert. Evidently a commissioner was also appointed. His report did not find a place. It is not known why the complainant did not direct the Commissioner to file his report nor re-endorsement of warrant. For whatever reasons the Commissioner did not file his report. Absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the crop was failed. The Dist. Forum has no other go than to dismiss the complaint. In one of the grounds of appeal the complainant alleges that the Dist. Forum has disposed of the case without waiting for the Commissioner’s report. If that were to be so there is no reason why the complainant did not file the said report during pendency of this appeal. No steps have been taken by the complainant to direct the commissioner to file his report. Initially the burden lies on the complainant that he raised the crop and that it was failed. No evidence whatsoever was let in to state that the complainant had sustained loss of crop. The very opposite parties submit that in view of dry spells in and around Khammam the crop was failed. However, the complainant had to prove that there was defect in the seed. Since absolutely no evidence whatsoever is let in, we have equally no other go than to dismiss the appeal.
9) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 08. 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
