This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 01-05-2013 in the presence of Sri Tanneeru Ramu, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of Sri K. Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 & 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(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; The complainant is the owner and having possession over the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00gts out of Sy.No.176/24/A, situated at Ravikampadu (V), Chandrugonda (M) of Khammam District, intending to cultivate paddy in his land, purchased 30Kgs of M.T.V 1010 variety of paddy seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 23-6-2007 for Rs.330/- vide bill No.65. The opposite party No.1 assured that the seeds supplied by him, would yield more yielding than other seeds and the minimum rate of yielding is 60 bags/Acre and as per the directions of opposite party No.1, the complainant prepared seed bed by taking all precautions and sowed the seeds immediately after opening of seed pouches and after germination, the plants were transplanted by applying pesticides and fertilizers as per requirements. In spite of taking all precautions, there is no growth in the crop and most of the plants were abnormally grown due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties No.1 & 2, immediately the complainant approached the M.A.O., on 17-09-2007, the M.A.O. concerned, inspected the land and found that the crop was damaged due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant further submitted that in spite of spending more than Rs.20,000/- per Acre, he sustained loss of one year crop and a minimum yielding of 30quintals/Acre and as such the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards crop loss and damages, there is no response from the opposite party No.1. Due to which, prayed the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of crop and costs of the complaint.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exs.A1 & A2.
Ex.A1:- Bill dt.23-06-2007 for Rs.330/- issued by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2:- Pahani copy to an extent of Ac.2.00gts, belongs to the Complainant.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant also filed photograph of the crop without negative and also filed paper publishings in Eenadu & Andhrabhoomi.
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel, but failed to file their counter till the date of disposal, in the absence of their version, this Forum disposed the matter as per order dt.19.09.2008 by allowing the complaint, aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. After considering the matter, the Hon’ble State Commission remanded the matter for demoa enquiry. In view of the order of Hon’ble State Commission, re-opened the case by giving opportunity to file the counter of opposite parties No.1 &2. Then the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their counter, by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
5. In their counter, the opposite parties No.1 &2, denied the contents of entire complaint by submitting that there is no proof regarding the management of crop procedures as averred by the complainant and there is no proof regarding the damages and loss, caused due to defective seeds supplied by them. The complainant never filed any inspection report and the report of commissioner advocate, the warrant was also not executed and as such it clearly shows there is no loss caused to the complainant and without any proof, filed this complaint for wrongful gain and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
6. The Advocate/Commissioner who appointed to inspect the field in I.A. 745/2007, did not taken the warrant even after giving number of chances.
7. The opposite parties filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in their counter.
8. 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?
As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of MTV 1010 variety of Paddy Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 23-06-2007 and as per the complaint after growing the seed bed i.e. seedlings the plants were planted in the field of the complainant by taking all the precautions and procedures as prescribed. It is the case of the complainant after 45 days, he observed that there is no growth and appeared paddy flowers and most of the plants were abnormally grown, thus the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the field, opined that the loss was caused due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and as such the complainant seeks redressal and it is the case of the opposite parties that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the A.O., who inspected the field did not file any report and the Commissioner/Advocate did not taken the warrant in I.A. No.745 of 2007, filed for the purpose of assessment of damage and to obtain the samples from the existing crop for assessment of loss caused to the complainant. As such prayed to dismiss the complaint. In view of the above versions put forth by both the parties, it is clear that there is no proof regarding the defect in the seeds as alleged by the complainant and moreover the complainant who filed the complaint only basing on that allegation, did not choose to take any steps in this regard and the warrant was not taken by the Commissioner/Advocate despite giving number of adjournments and also failed to take proper steps in this regard even after remanding the matter for denoa enquiry. The A.O., who inspected the field, did not furnish the report and in the absence of any report regarding the quality of seeds, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion regarding the quality of seeds and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
10. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us in this Forum on this 14th day of May, 2013.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant and opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A1:- Bill dt.23-06-2007 for Rs.330/- issued by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A2:- Pahani copy to an extent of Ac.2.00gts, belongs to the Complainant
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil
FAC President Member District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
