| Complaint Case No. CC/52/2013 |
| | | | 1. K.Satyanarayana | | S/o Narasaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Farmer, R/o Sanagapadu Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradeshf State |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri Rajya Lakshmi Seeds and General Marchant, Rep, by its Proprietor | | Sri Rajaya Lakshmi Seeds and General Merchant, Rep., by is Proprietor, O/o Near Sri Maha Lakshmamma Ammavri Gudi, Old Bus stand, Nandigama, Krishna District. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | Date of filing:28.3.2013. Date of dispsal:10.7.2013. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II: VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER. SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER WEDNESDAY, THE 10 C.C.No.52 of 2013 th DAY OF JULY, 2013Between: Konangi Satyanarayana, S/o Narasaiah, Hindu, 40 years, Farmer, R/o Sanagapadu Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State. . … Complainant. AND 1. Sri Rajya Lakshmi Seeds and General Merchant, Rep., by its Proprietor, O/o Near Sri Maha Lakshmamma Ammavri Gudi, Old Bus Stand, Nandigama, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State. . 2. The Managing Director, Super Agri Seeds Pvt., Ltd., Plot No.144, 5
th Floor, Akash(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram) This is a complaint filed by complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the bill amount of Rs.5,350/- and pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant towards loss due to quality less seeds supplied by opposite parties, for costs and other reliefs. 1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows: That the complainant is a farmer and cultivating different crops in his residence and he purchased Hybrid Maize seeds from the 15 bags each bag contains 4 Kgs for Rs.3,750/- under bill No.78 and again he purchased two bags each bag contains 4 Kgs for Rs.1600/- from the 1 2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 1 st opposite party remained absent. The 2nd opposite party filed version denying the st opposite party under bill No.82 and that the 1st opposite party informed that the seeds supplied by 2nd opposite party are famous seeds and it will produce large quantity of crop and believing the words of 1st opposite party, the complainant purchased the seeds. But the seeds did not germinate and immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for replacement of seeds, but of no use and that the complainant invested Rs.20,000/- for each acre and in total invested Rs.40,000/- and that the 1st opposite party promised that 50 bags will be produced after cultivation and that if the seeds are germinated, the complainant will get Rs.1,30,000/- and due to non-quality of seeds, the complainant lost Rs.1,30,000/- and incurred Rs.40,000/- towards expenses and that the complainant got issued legal notice dt.26.2.2013 to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the same, but kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.material allegations of the complaint. It is contended that the 2 3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. The Senior Manager- operation of 2 filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B5. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. The complainant filed written arguments. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the quality less seeds to complainant? ii) If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? nd opposite party is not aware whether the complainant immediately approached the 1st opposite party for replacement of seeds. It is further contended that their products are famous in India and will give good yield depending upon various factors and natural calamities and denied the allegations made in compliant para wise and finally contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 2nd opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.POINT NO.1 : 6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to purchasing of seeds by complainant from 1 two occasions under Ex.A1 and A2 cash bills. Ex.A3 seed cover also discloses the said fact. It is also not in dispute that the said seeds were manufactured by 2 7. Further when the complainant is alleging that said seed is poor quality seed, it is his bounden duty to get the seed in question analysed from any approved Laboratory as provided under Sec.13(I)(c) of Consumer Protection Act. Without the report of analysis, it cannot be determined whether the said seed supplied by the 2 of inferior quality. Further the 2 nd opposite party has filed Ex.B5 to the effect that the seed in question under Lot No.30201 is having 98% germination capacity. A perusal of record also discloses that the complainant has not made any complaint to the local agricultural officer about the low germination of seeds or to inspect the lands. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of complainant, it cannot be said that the seeds purchased by him are of inferior quality. Admittedly the germination of seeds based upon the climatic conditions and various other facts. Though the complainant filed photo graphs to show that the seeds did not germinate, they are in no way helpful to the complainant case since the complainant has not proved that the land shown in the photographs is belongs to him and he cultivated the said land with the seeds purchased from 1st opposite party. Mere filing of photographs is not sufficient to prove that the seeds purchased by complainant are inferior quality. 8. The complainant relied upon the following citations. 1. Diverse Agro Vs. Gurmeet Singh & Anr. 2012(3) CPR 541 (NC) 2. Syngenta India Ltd., Vs. Goggilla Sreenivasulu Reddy and Anr 2012(1) CPR 55. The above citations are not applicable to the present case. In Bantaram Vs. Jai Bharat Beej Company R.P.No.506 of 2013 decided on 17.5.2013 by the National Commission, the claim was negative when the claimant failed to prove that the seeds supplied by the opposite party were of inferior quality. 9. As the 2 d opposite party by way of letter addressed by a farmer has proved to some extent that the seeds supplied by them are good in quality. On the other hand the complainant has failed to prove that the seeds purchased by him are inferior in quality. In these circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. nd opposite party. The main grievance of the complainant is that, after investing huge amounts, he sowed the land with the seeds purchased from 1st opposite party, but the said seeds did not germinate as represented by the 1st opposite party. On the other hand, the contention of 2nd opposite party is that the seeds supplied by them are famous in India and are giving good yield. Further it is the contention of 2nd opposite party by way of evidence affidavit that the complainant has not preferred any complaint before concerned agricultural officer for inspection of the said seeds. Further the 2nd opposite party, in support of its contention that the seed brand namely “Super Platina” are giving good yield, has filed Ex.B4 i.e. letter issued by one Kopuri Siva Koteswara Rao of Kanchikacherla village. But the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence in the shape of complaints from other farmers regarding the low germination of seed.POINT No.2:- 10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10 PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For the complainant: For the opposite parties:- P.W.1 K.Satyanarayana D.W.1 Harinath Jakulla Complainant Sr., DGM Operations & Admin (by affidavit) of 2 nd opposite party (by affidavit)DOCUMENTS MARKED On behalf of the complainant: Ex.A.1 28.12.2012 Receipt for Rs.3,750/- issued by the 1 Ex.A.2 19.01.2013 Receipt for Rs.1,600/- issued by the 1 Ex.A.3 . . Empty seeds bag. Ex.A.4 04.03.2013 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.5 . . Postal acknowledgement and postal receipt. Ex.A.6 . . Two photos. st opposite party.st opposite party.For the opposite parties: Ex.B.1 25.03.2013 Reply notice. Ex.B.2 . . Postal acknowledgement. Ex.B.3 25.05.2013 Authorization letter issued by the 2 Ex.B.4 16.11.2012 Photocopy of Cash bill for Rs.3,750/- issued by Kisan Seeds and General merchants on the name of Kopuri SivaKoteswara Rao. Ex.B.5 . . Germination & GOT report of Maize – Super Platina. nd opposite party. PRESIDENT This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.6.2013 in the presence of Sri B.Devadas, Counsel for complainant and of opposite party No.1 remained absent and Sri M.Jitender Reddy, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following: | |
