This consumer Dispute case of the complainant and five others is under Sec. 11 is under sec.11 and 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay them each Rs.30,000/- towards loss of crop damage, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses.

The brief facts of the complainants case as per their invalid complaint which is warranting the due verification affix contents by the complainants are that they purchased paddy seed variety No.46684 from the opposite party No.1 of the Kaveri seeds company i.e, opposite party No.2 and sowed the same in their lands  of Chabolu Village as per the instructions given by the opposite parties by investing Rs.10,000/- each for application of Fertilizers pesticides and towards cultivation and manures etc., as per the advice of the Agriculture officer. As the climate was good and favorable. The germination was as per the specifications and when the crop was gone to the seed stage the crop was infected with blast and sheath blight so severely that drying of the leaves. They suspected that the seeds supplied was defective and was not genetically pure and complained about the same to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties never cared for the above said facts and after wards the mandal agriculture officer. Nandyal was inspected the said lands. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties advertised that the seed distributed by them was of high quality and would give a high yield and thus the opposite parties mis-led by the said publicity. In furtherness of it they purchased the seed and due to entire crop damage they sustained loss of Rs.30,000/- each and it was due to defective supply of the seed and the complainants are constrained to resort this forum for redressal.

The complainant enclosed to the complainant as un attested Xerox copy of the adangal pertaining of Sri P.Daveed S/o Surappa was one of the complainant of the C.D. and not filed any bills or any of the sworn affidavits of it in support of and in proof of the above Xerox copy of the document has no relevance in what so ever to their case and mere filling of such document does not dispense with their proof and the said document is not marked exhibits

In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case from this forum the opposite parties contested the case by filling the affidavits and written versions in defense to the complaint the affidavits and written versions in defense to the complaint averments. In the above given versions of the opposite parties questioned the justness and maintainability of the complainants case in law and facts require the strict proof of the complainants and allegations and in the averments of the written version the opposite parties admitted that the complainants purchased the paddy seed of WGL 48684 variety on 20.10.2001. But the said packet was purchased by him from M/S Sri Lalitha Traders of Atmakur on 19.10.2001 and the relevant attested that M/S Sri Lalitha Traders Atmakur are delaers who purchased the same from the producer manufacturer by name M/S Mahalakshmi Seeds, Jammikunta Road, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. The enquiries by this opposite part reveals that the M/S Sri Lalitha Traders Purchased the above said WGL 48684 variety of paddy seed from M/S Mahalakshmi Seeds on 17.10.2001 under invoice No.104. The opposite party further states that the same above was sold by him in the same conditional in which it was purchased by the opposite party from M/S Sri Lalitha Traders of Atmakur. The opposite party further states that he was not aware whether the complainant prepared his land and sworn the said in his land and he never gave any instructions to the complainant regarding sowin and the application of fertilizers and pesticides and was not aware of any advise given by the Mandal Agricultural officer and also Not aware about the investment of Rs.10,000/- towards cultivation, manurs, Fertilizers, etc., by the complainant. The opposite party further denied that the allegation in the complaint, climate was good and favourable and very fact of the admission by the complainant that the crop was infected with the blast and sheeth blight severely shows that the growth was not connected in any way with the nature of the seed but it was solely attributable to the climatic conditions and other external factors. The un-attested Xerox copy of MOU of members of the Kurnool District. Who visited the paddy fields of this variety of WGL-8684 of the farmers of the chabolu and Babanagar and other billages on which the opposite part relies it cannot acquire the status of the evidence and there by not remaining worthy as exhibit for its appreciation, especially when supporting sworn affidavits of the said members of the M.O.U.

5.  Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant and five others are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

6.The complaint itself in an invalid one for want of verification its contents by the complainants and hence the very complaint is not remaining a valid complaint for entertaining further the said invalid complaint of the complainants except alleging the defective seed was supplied to them by the opposite parties ensued the loss of the crop did not substantiate them by any co-gent accessible evidence except filling an un-attested Xerox document which is not supported with any sworn affidavit of persons acquainted with the said facts nor the complainants paid any deligent interest in prosecuting the matter as they remained absent to the proceedings continuously since the matter as they remained absent to the proceedings continuously since the matter ripen for hearing. As the opposite parties denied the allegation of the complaint in their duly verified sworn affidavits and written versions filed requiring their strict proof of the complainants. The complainants are obligated to prove their contentions strictly by co-gent means and material. As the complainants never care for that and made such Endeavour to discharge the said obligation by adducing any cogent material in support of their claim such as any report of the mandal Agricultural officer or the affidavit of the said officer as to the observation of the fields of the complainants suggesting any consequences of the defectiveness in the seed the complainants remains not proved or not proved of its contentions as to warrant them to any of the reliefs prayed. Especially when the duly verified sworn affidavits and written versions of the opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainants and placed Ex B1 for reliance against the complainants.

7. Further when the complainants alleges the defects in the seeds supplied have to resort to the procedure laid down in 13(1) (C) of the C.P.Act, 1986 by sending through the forum the samples of the said seeds for analysis report to an appropriate laboratory as the forums are bound to determined the facts of the defectiveness in goods on the basis of clear evidence by way of expert opinion as per the decisions of the National Commission is Sabind Cycle Emporium chenna khada V/S Thaji Rafi M.R.Panchvella vedor Ezhone reported in 1992 (1) C.P.J. 1997. But no such endeavour appears to have been made by the complainants and hence there appears every reasonable doubt as to the alleged defect in the said seeds.

8.  When all the seeds so purchased even if was used up and there nothing available from the farmers which could be sent to the analysis as per the discussion made in Maharastra Hybrid seeds Co. Ltd., V/s Annapureddy Vijendra Reddy and another reported in III (2002) CPJ 283. Such farmers to lodge a complaint under Sec.23 seeds Act, 1968 in writing that the failure of the crop is due to defective quality of the seeds of any notified kind of variety supplied to them, the seed Inspector shall take into his possession marks or lables the seeds containers and sample of the un-used seeds to the extent possible from the complainants for establishing the source of the supply of the seeds and shall investigate the cause of the failure of the said crop by sending samples of the lot to the said analysis for the detailed analysis at state seed testing laboratory and submits his report as to the findings as soon as possible to the competent authority and in case seed inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop was due to the quality of the seed supplied to the farmers being less than minimum standards notified by the Central Government, he shall launch the proceedings against the supplier for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and its rules. But as no such Endeavour even appears on the side of the complainants, hence their appears every bonafides doubt on the alleged defectiveness to the seed purchased by the complainants.

9. Hence in the set of circumstance the complainants are remaining utterly failed in establishing by any cogent means and material as to the alleged defect in the seeds in question and of the incurred expenditure if any of them by any co-gent material or affirmation and there by not made themselves entitled to the reliefs that could be awarded under Sec.14 of the C.P.Act, 1986

10.  Consequently the case of the complainants as is remaining of devoid of merits and force is dismissed, and in the circumstance of the case each of the practices to bear their own costs.