This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 13-8-2008   in the presence of A.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the complainant, and of opposite party No-1 served and called absent, and of   Sri. A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for  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)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.         The brief facts of the complaint are as under;

               The  complainant is an agriculturist, resident of  Tanikella(v) of Khammam  District ,by attracting the  wide publicity of the opposite parties  about the germination and yielding,   intends to cultivate chilli crop  in his land in Sy.Nos.260/Vu/A, in an extent of  Ac2-20gts and purchased Tejaswini  Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 7-6-2006 vide receipt No.264  for Rs. 5,500/- and raised the nursery in he month of July,2006 by investing large amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides  and fertilizers as per the advises given by the opposite party No-1 and A.O. , and the crop was not grown  properly  and there is no yielding and after noticing the same the complainant approached  the opposite party No-1 and A.O. concerned and the above who came to the field, opined that the crop was damaged due to the defective seed and the complainant further stated that by taking all the precautions and by following the procedure prescribed by the opposite parties he sustained entire crop loss of Rs.3,25,000/- and as such he approached the Forum for redressal.  The complainant mentioned that he spent an amount of Rs.1,00,500/- for purchasing   of seeds,  ploughing  and for manure  and fertilizers and as such the complainant claimed damages of Rs.3,25,000/- for the damage of chilli crop and also prayed to award damages to a tune of  Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.     Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original cash bill, dated 7-6-2006 for Rs.5,500/- issued by the opposite party No-1

4.     After receipt of notice, the opposite party No-2 appeared through its counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party No-1 called absent. 

5.         The opposite party No-2 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 filed any document regarding the defect in the seeds.  Further the opposite party No-2 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-2 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-2 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-2 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. 2 filed a memo to adopt the contents of counter of opposite party No-2 as written arguments.

7.         The complainant filed a petition for appointment of an advocate/commissioner.  Accordingly this Forum appointed  an advocate/Commissioner as per I.A.No.556/07  to assess the  damages of the crop with the help of V.A.O. concerned and also directed to send the seed samples to the laboratory for analysis with the help of V.A.O. concerned but in this case the advocate/commissioner or V.A.O. did not filed their reports to that effect.         

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.

9.      As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of Tejaswini  Chilli Seeds from the opposite party No-1  on 7-6-2006  and as per the complaint, after growing the nursery bed i.e, seedlings the plants were planted in the field of complainant after taking all the  precautions and by following all the procedures.  It is the case of the complainant that the crop was  not grown  properly and as there is no yielding, he approached the opposite party No-1 and the A.O. concerned and further alleged that the A.O., who inspected the field, opined that due to defect in the seeds,  the flowering was not found and as  such the  complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties and it is the case of the opposite party No-2 that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the alleged damage was due to the affect of Virus attack and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  The opposite party No-2 mentioned in their counter that to find a defect, it is necessary to sent the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and section-13(I) (C)  of C.P.Act 1986 also speaks the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/-.  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 that regard and this Forum appointed an advocate/Commissioner to assess the damage of the crop and sent the sample of seeds with the help of concerned A.O. to an appropriate laboratory for scientific analysis but  the Commissioner/advocate did not choose to file his report and did not return the  warrant and in the absence of scientific analysis 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 28th   day of   August, 2008.

                                                                                     President   Member                    Member

                                                                                           District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                                        Nil

                                                                             President         Member             Member                                                                                                District Consumers Forum, Khammam