This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 30-10-2007 in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the complainant and treated as no counter for the opposite party No-1 and in the presence of Sri. A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No-2. ;upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;
The complainant who is an agriculturist, having lands in Lachagudem(v), Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District, in Sy.No.212, and the complainant purchased Chilly Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 18-7-05 vide receipt No.74. The complainant purchased Tejaswini seeds
-2-
produced and marketed by opposite party No-2 from opposite party No-1,by paying Rs.2,850/- and after taking all precautions and by following directions planted the seedlings in his field to an extent of 1 Ac.20gts and the steams of the plants were raised well for 20 days and after that leaves of the plants fallen down causing stems dry and the chilies also yielded in different colours and as such the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and representatives of opposite party No-1 inspected the crop, and the opposite party promised the complainant to intimate opposite party No-2 about the damage caused, but there is no response from the opposite parties, and the complainant alleges that he suffered huge loss and further stated that he invested Rs.30,000/- per acre, and he sustained loss of yielding and claiming Rs.40,000/- towards damages and costs. The complainant alleged that due to the defective seeds he lost yielding of 60 quintals in all and as such he claimed the amount as above.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed some documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A5 subject to objection i.e., Ex A1 is the original bill dated 18-7-2005 for Rs.2,850/- Ex A2 is the Pouches of Mahyco Tejaswini Seeds(14 in Number) Ex A3: Xerox copy of pass book of the complainant.
4. After receipt of notice from this Forum the opposite party No-2 appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations leveled against them and the opposite party No-1 is called absent.
5. In the counter the opposite party No-2 mentioned that the complainant filed the complaint after the completion of the crop period and seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner after elapsing the crop period and further opposite party contended that the complainant did not filed any documentary proof for the purchase of Tejaswini Chilly Seeds on 18-9-05 and also denied regarding the cultivation from lost few years and further mentioned that after completion of
-3-
the crop period genetic purity of the seeds cannot be assessed and further mentioned that the complainant failed to file any scientific report to prove his claim and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint. In the counter the opposite party No-2 further mentioned that the complainant did not send samples of the seeds for analysis as per the procedure laid down u/s 13 (1) of C.P.Act and thus the opposite party No-2 questioned the very maintainability of the complaint and also stated that failure of crop is only due to poor agricultural practices followed by the complainant, and failure to take proper steps for irrigation and use of timely manure, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Along with the counter the opposite party No-2 filed xerox copies of (i) Germination analysis report dated 29-7-2004 (ii)Germination analysis report dated 17-7-2004(iii)Indian Institute of Horticulture report on Viral and Mycoplasmal Diseases of Vegetable Crop (page Nos.99 to110) & Deceases of Vegetable Crop (page Nos.133 to 145)(iv) copy of certificate of Ministry of Science and Technology dated 23-3-2004(v)xerox copy of certificate dated 20-7-2005 issued by I.S.T.A. and also filed rulings of higher Forums.
7. The complainant and the opposite party No-2 filed their Written Arguments and the complainant also filed third party affidavit of one Chinthala Venkateswarlu and according to third party affidavit, except complainant the surrounding farmers of the complainant land got yield of 30 quintals per acre. Along with the written arguments of the complainant the complainant also filed market rates of Red Chilies for the period of 1-4-2006 to 30-4-2006 which was marked as Ex A4, subject to objection and 4 photographs of the Chilly crop is marked as Ex A5, subject to objection.
8. Inview of the above submissions made by the both parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
-4-
9. From the averments of the complaint it is revealed that the complainant purchased Tejaswini variety of chilly seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 18-7-2005. The opposite party No-2 produced and marketed the said Tejaswini Chilly Seeds through opposite party No-1. Further it is the case of the complainant that he sowed chilly seeds in his 1.20gts of land in Sy.No.212 situated at Lachagudem(v), of Chinthakani(M) and it is the case of the complainant that due to the defect in Chilly seeds supplied by the opposite parties, he sustained huge loss, to prove his allegation the complainant did not choosed to sent the seed samples for scientific analysis and did not mentioned that the date of sowing of seeds in his fields, moreover the complainant who alleges that the crop loss was due to the defective seeds produced and marketed by the opposite party No-2 sold by the opposite party No-1, failed to take any steps to prove that the seeds were sown were of defective quality. On the other hand the opposite parties by denying even the purchase of seeds by the complainant on 18-7-2005, further denied that the loss was due to the Tejaswini Seeds, and also raised objections regarding the existing crop beyond 180days and the present case on hand we feel that the Commissioner/Advocate and A.O. visited the land after 180days and in the report of A.O. dated 17-7-2006 there is no observation of crop damage and genetic impurity and failed to explain regarding the method of assessment of loss, moreover the complainant did not filed any proof regarding the utilization of fertilizers, pesticides and crop management practices and failed to file any documentary evidence to that effect. As such in the absence of scientific analysis regarding the defective quality of seeds, this Forum cannot fasten any liability on the opposite parties for loss of crop sustained by the complainant and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant, by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
-5-
10. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by her, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 1st day of November, 2007.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Opposite parties
Nil
Ex A1: is the original bill dated 18-7-2005 for Rs.2,850/- (subject to objection).
Ex A2 is the Pouches of Mahyco Tejaswini Seeds(14 in Number)( subject to objection.)
Ex A3: Xerox copy of pass book of the complainant( subject to objection).
Ex A4: Particulars of rates of Red Chillies for the period of 1-4-2006 to 30-4-2006 (subject to objection)
Ex A5:4 photographs of the Chilly crop, (subject to objection.)
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
