This complaint is coming before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Beesha Ramesh, Advocate for complainant and of Sri. K. Jagan Mohan Rao, 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 an agriculturist, intended to raise paddy in his own land in an extent of Ac.2.10gts in Survey No.205/AA, situated at Machinnapeta village, Julurpahad Mandal of Khammam District, purchased MTU-1010 paddy seeds for Rs.710/- on 08-07-2015 from the opposite party No.1, produced by opposite party No.2.  After germination, transplanted the seedlings by investing huge amounts for plowing, manure and for engaging of coolies.  Thereafter applied pesticides and fertilizers by following all the procedures and precautions from time to time as per the directions of A.O. concerned.  However, there was no proper growth in the plants comparatively other varieties against the assurances of opposite parties.  After observing the non-shooting, rooting and bunching as small plants and failure of striplings, approached the opposite party No.1 and the A.O. concerned.    The A.O. who visited the field and opined that the crop   was damaged due to non-raising of shoots due to defective seeds.  The complainant further submitted that he invested @ Rs.50,710/- towards plowing, purchase of seeds, plantation, fertilizers and pesticides, watering and engaging of coolies etc,. Inspite of following all the procedures and precautions, sustained loss of 40 bags per acre, which comes 90 bags in total, approximately, the cost of one bag is @ Rs.1,500/-, in total, he sustained loss of Rs.1,35,000/- apart from investment of amounts @ Rs.50,710/-. In total he sustained loss of Rs.1,85,710/-.  On his grievance, approached this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,85,710/- towards crop loss and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony.

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Exhibits A-1 to A-4.

4.      On receipt of notice, the opposite parties filed counter by denying all the averments of complaint and by submitting that the present complaint is false and baseless and invented only for the purpose of wrongful gain.  Further submitted that the complainant did not follow the guidelines of A.O. concerned in providing water etc,. No complaints were arisen from the farmers, who were sowed the seeds pertaining to lot No.704 of MTU-1010.  The opposite parties also submitted that there were no objections made by any Agriculture Officer on the quality of said product.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

5.      In view of 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 admitted fact that the complainant had purchased MTU-1010 paddy seeds from the opposite party No.1, produced and marketed by opposite party No.2.  The complainant had sowed the seeds in the month of July 2015 and after 20 days, transplanted the seedlings in his own field in an extent of Ac. 2-10 gts by taking all precautions and by following all the procedures as required from time to time.  Despite that, there was no proper growth in the crop, the plants have no sufficient roots and it did not raise bunch of stems, due to which, the complainant lost entire crop and sustained loss of Rs.1,85,710/- towards loss of yielding and cost of investment.  Upon which, approached the opposite party No.1 and the A.O. concerned.  The A.O. who received the complaint from the farmer, inspected the crop and opined that the loss was due to the seeds, supplied by the opposite parties.  Thereupon, he addressed a letter to the Asst. Agricultural Director, Kothagudem by recommending to take action against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and to take steps for payment of compensation to the complainant towards crop loss from  the opposite parties, evidenced under exhibit A-4.  Finally, filed the present complaint as there was no response from the opposite parties. On the other hand the opposite parties denied the entire averments of complaint.  Having perused the letter addressed by the A.O. concerned, marked under exhibit A-4 clearly stated that within 56 days from the date of sowing of seeds, the crop developed the grain without seeds (Thaalu Kanki) and there is no proper growth of stems (Pilakalu) and roots in the plants.  After observing the crop situation, the M.A.O. recommended to take action against the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and payment of compensation towards crop loss sustained by the farmer due to supply of defective seeds.  The opposite parties did not produce any evidence to disprove the same, therefore, there is no reason to reject the opinion, given by the M.A.O. as the Seeds Act clearly speaks that the agriculture officers are the technical persons and experts in their field, so, the opinion of M.A.O. cannot be discarded.  Accordingly, we feel that the farmer did suffer a loss as a result of supply of defective seeds by the opposite parties and as such it can be safely presumed that the complainant had sufficiently discharged the onus to prove that the seeds in question were of defective quality on the opposite parties, the same view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Raghavamma & Anr. Vs. A. Chennamma & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 136.  Having considered the above facts and circumstances, we have opined that the loss of crop was caused due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties.

Thus, as per findings of M.A.O. it is clear that the complainant was suffered total loss on account of defective seeds sold by the opposite parties. In general the average expected yielding in paddy crop is at about 30 bags per acre i.e. 22.50 quintals per acre.  To determine the monitory loss of crop and due to non-furnishing of market price at the time of yeilding, we have collected the data from the website.  As per the official website  of Telananga State Government Agricultural Marketing Department, Charla of Khammam district the moderate price of MTU-1010 paddy crop as on 30-01-2017 @ Rs.1,510/- per quintal (the rate of other market committee in Khammam district were not available in the website on 30-01-2017 pertaining to MTU – 1010 varieity).  Accordingly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are held liable to pay compensation of Rs.76,443/- to the complainant towards crop loss for 50.625 quintals to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.76,443/- to the complainant towards crop loss 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 directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of January, 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:-   

              Member                  FAC President             

    District Consumer Forum,

   Khammam.