This C.C. is coming before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Pamba Venkaiah, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri P. B. Sri Ramulu, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments 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.  The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, having land to an extent of Ac. 1.17gts in Sy. No. 52/EE/1 and 52/E/1, situated at Pallegudem (V), Khammam Rural Mandal.  The complainant prepared the said land for sowing the seeds, approached the opposite party No.1 and purchased 12 packets @Rs.260/- each of spic hybrid Shiva chilli seeds on 20-7-2009 for Rs.3,120/-, which is manufactured by the opposite parties No.2. The complainant believed that the seeds, supplied by the opposite parties would get more yielding than other seeds and the minimum rate of yielding is 20 quintals per acre.  The complainant had followed all the guidelines and precautionary methods given by the opposite parties and sowed the seeds.  After germination, the plants were transplanted in the said land by applying all the required fertilizers and pesticides.  The complainant further submitted that the said land having sufficient water facility, even though 90% of the plants were abnormally grown, low budding and pods were in deformed shape and wrinkled only 10% of the plants were appeared as spic hybrid Siva Plants and immediately the same was informed to the M.A.O., and made many rounds to the opposite party No.1 and the M.A.O and invited them for inspection of crop and as there is no response from the opposite party No.1 and the M.A.O concerned.  The complainant further submitted that he spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards purchasing of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, manures, ploughing and labour charges, but he sustained huge loss because of the inferior, defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties, usually the estimated yield is of 20 quintals per Acre.  Therefore, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- towards of loss of one year crop and as  such approached the Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damage of chilli crop and costs. 

2.         Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, which were marked as exhibits.

Ex.A1:-   Original bill dated 20-07-2009 for Rs.3120/-.

Ex.A2:-   Photocopy of ROR Title Deed, issued by M.R.O., Khammam Rural Mandal.

Ex.A3:- Empty seed pouches (Nos.12).

3.         On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and the opposite party No.2 filed counter by denying the averments made in the complaint.  In the counter, the opposite parties submitted that they never supplied any defective seeds and the seeds supplied by them were of good quality and the alleged low yielding is only due to improper pest control, low fertility, heavy rain fall and adverse climatic conditions, but not due to any defect in the quality of seeds supplied by them.  Further, they submitted that the complainant had never complained about the low yielding either to the opposite parties or to the M.A.O.  and also submitted that the yielding of crop depends upon  quality of soil, irrigation facility, proper fertilization at appropriate time, proper infestation and climatic conditions but the complainant himself admitted that the germination of seeds was satisfactory, which speaks seeds supplied by the opposite parties are of good quality and as such there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

4.         Along with the complaint, the complainant filed an I.A. for appointment of Commissioner/Advocate for inspection of crop and estimation of loss, caused to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner for the said purpose, in fact the warrant was not taken by the advocate/commissioner even in spite of giving number of chances.   

5.         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:-             As seen from the above averments, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of spic hybrid Siva seeds from the opposite parties on 20-07-2009 for an amount of Rs.3,120/-. The only dispute is with regard to the defective seeds, as alleged by the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant, after purchasing of spic hybrid Siva chilli seeds, which was manufactured by the opposite party No.2, sowed in his fields by following all the procedure and precautions prescribed by the opposite parties from time to time.  But there was no yielding at all and even after giving information regarding the abnormal growth in 90% of the plants, low budding and wrinkled pods, the opposite parties did not give proper response. As such he knocked the doors of the consumer Forum on his grievance.  On the other hand, the opposite parties denied the averments as mentioned in the complaint by submitting that the seeds supplied by them were not defective and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  After perusing the material papers on record and petition for appointment of advocate/ commissioner, we observed that the complainant had failed to produce any sufficient proof regarding the cause of damage to his crop and also failed to file any expert opinion, regarding the defective seeds and could not take any steps to that effect for estimation of cause of loss and damage and more over the advocate/commissioner, who was appointed to assess the damage and loss, could not taken the warrant even after granting sufficient time and as such in the absence of any such proof we can not find out any damage caused to the complainant due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and in the absence of any such proof, we cannot fasten any liability on the part of opposite parties and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

6.                     In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no costs.        

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this    day of March, 2013.

                                                                          FAC President                   Member

             District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for complainant: None

Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.A1:-   Original bill dated 20-07-2009 for Rs.3120/-.

Ex.A2:-   Photocopy of ROR Title Deed, issued by M.R.O., Khammam Rural Mandal.

Ex.A3:- Empty seed pouches (Nos.12).

Exhibits marked for opposite parties:

- Nil -

FAC President                          Member

                   District Consumer Forum, Khammam