Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.2,800/- being the cost of brinjal seedlings; compensation of Rs.40,000/- incurred for growing the said   crop; Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards expenses.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are:

        The complainant had taken Ac.2.50 of dry land in his native village i.e., Kastala.  The complainant raised chilly in an extent of Ac.1.50.   In order to raise vegetables in the remaining extent of Ac.1.00, the complainant on 15-05-11 approached the opposite party and gave advance of Rs.1,000/- for purchase of brinjal seedlings.  The complainant on 12-06-11 took 4000 brinjal seedlings from the opposite party by paying the remaining amount of Rs.1,800/-.  The complainant raised ‘gulabi king of sinoni seeds of hybrid vanga’.  The complainant believed the words of the opposite party i.e., that the said seed will give large quantity of production and a fine quality having thick colour, long and slim.   To his astonishment the complainant found three different types of brinjals having thick violet colour, pale in color and round shape.  Mediators will accept the variety which was having demand. The complainant approached the opposite party and explained his grievance.   The opposite party promised to visit the field, examine the crop and settle the matter.  The opposite party did not keep his promise.   The complainant gave Rs.25,000/- towards lease and incurred Rs.40,000/- towards investment.   The complainant could have got Rs.1,00,000/- by selling product in the market if the yield was proper as promised.  The opposite party sold different varieties of seeds to the complainant which gave different types of brinjal.  The complainant on 01-10-11 got issued notice to the opposite party who in turn gave reply with false averments.   The opposite party thus committed deficiency of service.

3.  The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The complainant approached the opposite party on 15-05-11 for supply of 4000 seedlings of ‘Gulabi king variety’ and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance with a promise to take delivery of seedlings by the end of May, 2011.   The complainant again approached the opposite party on 12-06-11 for the reasons best known to him, paid the remaining amount and took delivery of 4000 seedlings belatedly.   The opposite party never sold different quality of seeds or seedlings to the complainant.   The complainant never informed the opposite party that the field produced three different types of brinjals and there by sustained huge loss.   The opposite party did not receive any complaint from any other farmer throughout the year 2011.  The complaint is bad for non joinder of M/s Seed Innovisions Private Limited who produced the seeds.  On account of untimely sowing of the seeds, weather conditions and improper management may lead to discoloration, short fall and poor yield.   The defects in the seed cannot be detected through visual inspection and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory.  The opposite party learnt that the crop raised by the complainant was infected with sucking pest virus and the complainant did not take proper care of the crop and neglected it as the market price was low.  The rain fall was also not sufficient and the temperature was high.  All these factors lead to discoloration, change in shape of brinjals.  The complainant did not take any steps to send the sample for testing.  The complainant did not file any report from agricultural officer of that area.   The complainant did not take any steps for testing the crop even after receipt of reply.   The complainant filed this case to have wrongful gain.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite party respectively.     

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a.   The complainant on 15-05-11 approached the opposite party               and gave advance of Rs.1,000/- for purchase of ‘gulabi                  king of sinoni seeds of hybrid vanga’ (Ex.A-2).

        b. The complainant on 12-06-11 (mistakenly written as                            12-06-10) took delivery of the said product by paying the                  remaining amount (Ex.A-1) i.e., 4000 seedlings.

        c.      Exchange of notices between the complainant and the                     opposite party (Exs.A-4 and A-5).

7.  POINT No.1:-  The deficiency of service coined by the complainant is that the brinjal seedlings purchased by him under Ex.A-1 were defective.   The complainant neither informed agricultural officer regarding his grievance nor get his land surveyed by agricultural officer of his Mandal.   To prove his contention the complainant relied on Ex.A-3 certificate dated 10-10-12 said to have been issued by Tahsildar, Atchampet Mandal.  The opposite party contended that the complainant filed Ex.A-3 at a belated stage after manipulation.                        

8.   For better appreciation the contents of Ex.A-3 are extracted below:   

          “

9.  The person who issued Ex.A-3 did not mention when he visited the complainant’s land and observed the crop.   It is not the case of the complainant that the Tahsildar, Atchampet Mandal visited his land on his complaint.   RC No.300/2012-B was referred to in Ex.A-3 as rightly contended by the complainant. Ex.A-3 was issued by Tahsildar, Atchampet Mandal and it was also addressed to the Tahsildar, Atchampet Mandal.   Therefore, the contention of the opposite party regarding genuineness of Ex.A-3 has to be accepted.  It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party issued three types of brinjal seedlings under Ex.A-1.  

10.   The opposite party filed IA 362 of 2012 to send the gulabi king variety of hybrid brinjal seed bag vide lot No.92KFR-8903 to the Principal Scientist, ADR, Lamfarm, Guntur for ascertaining the genetic physical purity of the seed. This Forum dismissed IA 362/12 on              25-10-12 as the validity of utility time (V.U.T.) on the truth label of the seed packet was mentioned as 05-06-11 among other reasons.  The orders in IA 362/12 became final.  

11.   In this case the complainant did not file report of either the agricultural officer or that of Tahsildar to know the condition of crop as contended by him.   It can therefore be said that there is no evidence to prove that the opposite party sold defective seeds/seedlings or different types of seedlings under Ex.A-1. 

12.   In Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited vs. DCD Dabasappa and others 2012 (3) CPR 203 the NCDRC held:

        “It is well settled through a catena of judgments including of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited vs. Sadhu & Another 2005 (2) CPJ 13 (SC) as well as in Mahyco Seeds Company Limited vs. Basappa Channappa Mooki and others Civil Appeal No.2428 of 2008) that variation in condition of crops need not necessarily be attributable to quality of seeds.  The Apex Court has also held that the onus to prove that there is a defect in the seeds is on the complainant.   In the instant case, as discussed above, no credible evidence including expert evidence has been filed by the Respondent to prove that the crops failed because of defective seeds.  Further, the onus to prove that there was a defect in the seeds was on the complainant who has failed to credible evidence in support of the same”. 

13.   Taking a clue from the above decisions and absence of any cogent evidence from the complainant to prove that the seeds were defective, we are of the opinion that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service by supplying defective seedlings.

14.  The opposite party contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of manufacturer/producer of subject seeds.   In this case the opposite party sold 4000 seedlings as revealed from Exs.A-1 and A2 and its version.   Under those circumstances, the said contention of the opposite party is devoid of merit.  We therefore, answer this point against the complainant.

15. POINT No.2:-    In view of findings on point No.1 we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages from the opposite party. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

16. POINT No.3:  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2012.

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                         DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

For Opposite Party: 

                                                                      PRESIDENT