This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 12-9-2008 in the presence of Sri. Y.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the opposite party No-1, and of opposite party No-1 served and called absent, and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 3, ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;
The complainant having land to an extent of Ac.4-13 of land in two bits, the said land situated at Gollapadu village of Khammam Rural mandal. The complainant purchased 25 packets of Mahyco Hybrid Tejaswini seeds from opposite party No.1 on 15-7-2006 at the rate of Rs.200/-, total for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and obtained bill from the opposite party No.1 on his name and also put his signature on the said bill and also purchased 2 tins each 50 grams on 19-7-2006 for Rs.1,950/- from the opposite party No-2 and also purchased another two tins on 22-8-2006 for Rs.1,950/- from the shop opposite party No-2 . The opposite party No.1 assured that the above seed will get yielding of 20 quintals of chilli per acre.
As per the instructions of the opposite party No.1, the complainant prepared the land and sowed the seeds. The seedlings were transplanted after 30 days in the above land. The complainant took all precautions like using fertilizers and pesticides and also gave sufficient water to the above mirchi crop. But, inspite of it the 90% of the pants grown abnormally unlike Tejaswini plants and the remaining 10% of the plants were normal appearing as Tejaswini plants. The 10% of the Tejaswini plants observed normal budding and yielding, but the 90% of the plants were abnormal and very low budding and the pods were deformed shape and wrinkled. This fact was intimated to Mandal Agriculture Officer and also to the opposite party no.1. But, they did not turn up to inspect the crop. This non yielding of crop purely due to unqualitative, inferior quality and defective seed supplied by opposite party No.1 and produced by opposite party No.2. The complainant estimated damages of Rs.4,00,000/- on Ac.4-13 of land. The present market value of the mirchi crop is Rs.5,000/- per quintal. Hence, this complaint.
To direct the opposite parties of Rs.4,20,000/- towards compensation for the loss of the crop due to un quality seeds and to award costs or to grant any other relief.
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed a counter with the following allegations:
This opposite party No.1 is not aware that the complainant is having land to an extent of Ac.4-13 in S.No.47/AA under two bits of Gollapadu village.
It is true that the complainant had purchased Mahyco seeds from this opposite party No.1. It is specifically denied that the complainant followed the methods explained by the opposite party No.1, that the other allegations in the complaint are false and baseless.
The opposite party No.2 is a reputed company, having good image after undergoing various tests, the product was released. The opposite party No.1 supplied good quality seeds and for yielding numerous factors affecting the yielding and this is beyond the control of opposite party No.1. The crop will depend upon proper and timely management to the seasonal conditions, pests and crop diseases and plant protection methods and irrigation sources, etc. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
5. The opposite party No-3 who filed the counter and submitted that as per the complaint itself there is no negligence or deficiency on their part and further contended that the burden lies on the complainant to prove any deficiency and the complainant failed to prove the same and moreover did not file any document regarding the defect in the seeds. Further the opposite party No-3 contended that as per the reports of scientists the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thrips infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University the crop was affected due to infestation of Peanut Bud Necrosis Virus and Cucumber Mosaic Virus and the same shows that the problem is not due to the quality of seeds, the same was due to infestation of pest and virus and for which they cannot be held responsible. The opposite party No-3 by denying all the allegations made in the complaint contended that whenever there is an allegation regarding the defect, it cannot be determined without proper analysis as per section-13 (I)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the present case there is no such analysis to find the defect in the seeds. Further the opposite party No-3 contended that after completion of harvesting season the Commissioner/advocate inspected the crop and it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the crop. The opposite party No-3 further contended that the Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. did not disclose that the problem was due to defect in the seeds and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The opposite party No-1 filed memo and stating that, to treat the contents of the counter of opposite party No-1 as written arguments. The opposite party No-2 &3 and complainant did not file written arguements.
7. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.
8. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/-. Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipt.
9. The main contention of the opposite parties is that to prove the defective seeds, it is mandatory u/s. 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the defective seed must send to the appropriate laboratory for testing analysis.
10. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.352/07 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damages. The Advocate Commissioner did not file his report best reasons known to him.
11. It is also the contention of the opposite parties is that a team of scientists visited the fields of some farmers and gave their opinion that due to long dry spells of 2 months, Chili crop was severe infestation of Thrifts and sucking pest. Due to this sucking pest the chilli crop resulted into flower loss and fruit formation. To prove their contention the opposite parties have submitted the report of scientists of chilli crop in Khammam District.
12. Hence, we are of the opinion that to prove the defective seed the complainant must send a sample of the seed to agricultural laboratory and basing on the report of laboratory test we can come to the conclusion that due to defective seed the crop was failed or for some other reasons. The complainant did not take any steps to send the seed for laboratory test. Hence, he failed to prove that the seed is defective. Hence the complaint is liable for dismissal. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed. The point is answered against the complainant.
13. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 17th day of September, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil -
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
