BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., L.L.B., President,

And

                               Smt. C.Preethi,M.A.,L.L.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com.,LL.B.,Member

Thurs Day the 4^th day of Dec, 2003

C.D.No.125/2002

Between:

19. Banga Reddy,

S/o Pedda Veera Reddy,

Chabolu (V), Nandyal(M),

Kurnool District.             

                                      Complainants represented by his counsel Sri U.Satyapal Reddy.

VS

Sri Sai Priya Hybrid Seeds,

RTC Bustand Road,

Opp: Veternary Hospital,

Nandyal, Kurnool.      

                  Opposite parties represented by their counsel Sri N.Nagendranath Reddy.      

Order

1. The Consumer Disputes of the complainant is under sections 11 & 12 of the C.P.Act for a direction to the opposite party to pay him Rs.30,000/- towards loss of crop damage, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and legal expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case as per his invalid complaint which is warranting the due verification of its contents by the complainants are that he purchased 30kgs of paddy seed variety No.48684 from the opposite party and swoed the same in his land of AC.0.98 of Chabolu village as per the instructions given by the opposite party and invested Rs.10,000/- for application of fertilizers and pesticides and as per the advice  of the Agricultural officers and for cultivation and manures etc., As the climate was good and favorable the germination was as per specification and the crop was grown to the seed stage, the crop infected with blast and sheath blight so severally that drying of the leaves and the complainant suspected that the seed supplied was defective and was not genetically pure and complained about the same to the opposite party, but the opposite party never cared for the above facts and after words the agricultural officer, Nandyal was inspected the said land. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party advertised that the seed distributed by them was of high quality and would give a high yield and thus opposite party mislead by the said publicity. In furtherance of it the complainant purchased the seed and due to entire crop damage he sustained loss of Rs.30,000/- and it was due to defective supply of the seed and the complainant is constrained to resort this forum for redressed.
3. The complaint enclosed to the complainant an un-attested Xerox copy of the bill No.664 dt.20.10.2001 and true copy of the adangal of the chabolu village of Nandyal Mandal for the year 2001-2002 issued by VAO  of the said village as complainant filed any of the attested copy of the bill or any of the sworn affidavit of it in support of and proof of the above documents i.e., adangal and as the mere filling of the documents doesn’t dispense with its proof, the said documents are not marked as exhibits.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case from this forum the opposite party contested the case by filling the affidavit and written version in defense to the complaint averments. In the above given version of the opposite party questioned the justness and maintainability of the complainants case in law and facts requires the strict proof of the complaint allegations and in the averment of the said written version the opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased 1 packet of the 30 kg paddy of WGL 48684 variety on 20.10.2001. In turn the said packet was purchased by him from M\s Sri Lalitha Traders, Atmakur on 19.10.2001 and the relevant original bill No.299 dt.19.10.2001 was filed along with the written version which was marked as exhibits B1 he further submitted that the M\s Sri Lalitha Traders , Atmakur are the dealers who purchased the same from the producer/ manufacturer by this OP reveals that M/S Sri District, The enquiries by this OP reveals that M/S Sri Lalitha Traders purchased the above said WGL 48684 variety of paddy of the seed from M/S Mahalakshmi Seeds on 17.10.2001 under invoice No.104, an un-attested Xerox copy of the said bill was filed by the opposite party which was not marked exhibit. The opposite party further states that the same above packet was sold by him in the same conditions in which it was purchased by the opposite party from M/S Sri Lalitha Traders purchased the above said WGL 48684 variety of paddy of the seed ffrom M/S Mahalakshmi Seeds on 17.10.2001 under invoice No.104 an un-attested Xerox copy of the said bill was filed by the opposite party which was not marked exhibit. The opposite party further state that the same above packet WAS SOLD BY HIM IN THE SAME CONDSITIONs in which it was purchased by the opposite party from M/s Sri Lalitha Traders of Atmakur and he opposite party was not aware whether the complaint proper his land of Ac.0.98 and sworn the said complainant regarding sowing and application of the fertilizers and pesticides and was not aware of any advice given by the Agricultural cultivation, manuries fertilizers etc.,  by the complainant. The opposite party further denied that the allegations in the complaint that the climate was good and favorable and very fact of the admission by the complainant that the crop was infected with blast and sheath blight severely shows that the growth was not connected in any way the nature of the seed but it was solely suitable to the climatic conditions and other external factors. The un-attested Xerox copy of MOU of members of the Kurnool District who visited in paddy fields of this variety of the WGL 48684 of the farmers of Chabolu, Baba Nagar and other villages on which the opposite party reliefs as it cannot acquit the status of evidence and there by not remaining worthy of marking as exhibits for its appreciation especially when no supporting sworn affidavit of the said members of MOU
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
6. The complaint itself is a invalid one for want of the verification of its contents by the complainant and hence the very complaint is not remaining a valid complaint for entertaining. Further the said invalid complaint of the complainant expect alleging the defective seed was supplied to him by the opposite party ensued the loss of the crop did not substantiate them by any co-gent accessible evidence except filling some un-attested Xerox documents which are not supported with any sworn affidavit of the persons acquainted with said facts nor the complainant paid any diligent interest in prosecuting the matters as he remained  absent to the proceedings continuously  since the matter for hearing. As the opposite party denied the allegations of the complaint in its duly verified written version filed requiring there strict proof of the complainant. The complainant is obligate to prove its contentions strictly by cogent means and material. As the complainant never care for that and made any such Endeavour to discharge the said obligations by adducing any co-gent material in support of his claim such as any report of the Agricultural officer or the affidavit of the said officer as to the observation of the field of the complainant suggesting any consequences of defectiveness in the seed the complaint remains not proved or not proved of its. Contentions as to warrant them to any of the reliefs prayed especially when the duly verified written version of the opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant and placed Ex B1 for reliance against the complainant
7. Further when the complainant alleges the defect in the seed supplied has to resort the procedure laid down in 13(1) (C) of the CP Act 1986 by sending through the forum sample of the said seed for analysis report to an appropriate laboratory as the forums are bound to determine the facts of the defectiveness in goods on the basis of the clear evidence by way of expert opinion as per the decision of the national commission in Sabina cycle emporium chenna Khada V/s Thajis Ravi M.R.Pannevella vedor Exkhone reported in 1992 CPJ 1997. But no such endeavour appears to have been made by the complainant and hence there appears ever reasonable doubt as to the alleged defect in the said seeds.
8. When all the seed so purchased even if was up and there is nothing available from the farmer which could be send to analyst as per the discussion made in maharastra hybrid seeds company Lt., V/s Annapureddy Vijender Reddy and another reported in III (2002) CPJ 283. Such farmer to lodge a complaint under Sec.23 seeds Act, 1968 in writing that the failure of the crop is due to defective quality of seed of the notified kind or variety supplied to them, the seed inspector shall take into his possession to them, seeds and shall investigate the cause of the failure of the said crop by sending sample of the lot to the seed analyst for the detailed analysis at the state seed testing laboratory and submits his report as to finding as soon as possible to the competent authority and in case the seed inspector comes to the conclusion that the failure of the crop was due to the quality of the seeds supplied to the farmers being less than minimum standards notified by the central government he shall launch the proceedings against  the supplier for contravention of the provisions of the Act and its rules. But as no such Endeavour every bonafide doubt on the alleged defectiveness in the said seed purchased by the complainant.
9. Hence in the set of circumstance the complainant is remaining utterly failed in establishing by any co-gent means and material as to the any defect in the seed in question and of the incurred expenditure if any of his by any co-gent material or that could be awarded under section 14 of the CP. Act.
10. Consequently the case of the complainant as is remaining devoid of merits and force is dismissed and in the circumstance of the case each of the case each of the party to bear their own costs