This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 24-1-2008 in the presence of Sri. K.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1 & 2 ; 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(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having irrigation lands in the name of his wife to an extent of Ac.2-00gts in Sy.Nos.149,158 at Ramakrishnapuram Village of Chinthakani Mandal that the complainant had purchased Tejaswini Chilly Seeds on 13-6-2006 while receipt No.SEED/454, Tejasvini Lot No.TKD 200530. As per the assurance of the opposite party the seeds germination Min.60%, PP (Min)98%, G.P. (Min) 95% net weight 10gramsx14 packets, each packet costs of Rs.220/- total worth of Rs.3,080/- for 14 packets.
3. The complainant sown the said seed in his field by following all the precautions and the plant were raised greenish till 20 days thereafter started falling of leaves, causing stems dry and there is no further growth up, and there was no yielding of crop. The entire crop become white and yellow or orange colours instead of thin red chilly. Thereupon the opposite parties and some of the representatives came and inspected the crop of the complainant and other crops to different trademark.
4. The opposite party No-1 promised to inform the same fact to the opposite party No-2 for damages caused to the complainant but so far there was no progress. These facts defective seeds and non-qualitative seeds by the opposite party No-1 & 2 and the complainant invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Hence this complaint direct the opposite party to pay the damages of Rs.3,60,000/- for Ac1-30gts for the damage of Chilli crop and to award of damage of Rs.50,000/- towards mental, physical agony with the costs of the petition.
5. The complaint filed his affidavit along with the following documents;
(i) Original cash bill of opposite party No-1 for Rs.2,870/- ,dated 13-6-06.
(ii) Original Pahany copy, dated 9-8-04
(iii) 14 empty pouches of opposite parties.
6. Opposite party No-2 filed the following written statement.
The complainant is not produced any expert opinion to prove that the seed supplied to him was defective. The complainant did not produce any material evidence to show that the seed supplied by opposite party was defective. There is no genetic impurity has been noticed in the affected chilli crop.
7. That during September & October, 2006 there was a long dry spell for 2 months in the region which affected on the fruit flowering formation of chilli crop. Further due to long dry spell there was severe infestation of “Thrips” and “Sucking pest” on the Chilli crop. The said insect pest has spread other viruses on the Chill crop, which resulted into less fruit & flower formation on Chilli plants. The department of Agriculture, Khammam and accordingly they inspected the affected farmers fields in Khammam urban area. The team of scientist including Dr.Khalid Ahmed, Principal Scientist and Smt. T.Vijaya Lakshmi, Scientist of chilli section from Regional Agricultural Research station, LAM Guntur and other members visited the affected plots of the farmers and observed that the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of “Thrips” infestation. The findings of the team of scientist has been confirmed by Associate Director of Research, RARS, LAM, Guntur vide his communication dated 6-11-2006 addressed to the Director of Research, ANGRAU, Hyderabad. A copy of the said communication dated 13-6-06 along with report of team of Scientist already submitted.
It is false to say that the opposite parties had assured crop above 30 quintals per acre. It is also false to say that the market value of Chilli crop Rs.5,000/- per quintal. There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- for cultivation of chilli crop.
8. As per section 13 (1)(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is mandatory that “where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the samples of said lot be sent to the appropriate laboratory for analysis.” As per the judgment by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005 NC, page No.47 between Hindustan Insecticides Limited V/s. Kopoulu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Where in the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ It was for the complainant or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate steps as per the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, That was not done”
9. The complainant is not entitled any damages of Rs.3,60,000/- towards chilli crop and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service is negligence on the part of the opposite parties .
10. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
11. On behalf of opposite party No-1 counter is not filed. The counter of opposite party No-2 is adopted by opposite party No-2 as chief affidavit and written arguments.
12. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
13. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase receipt of Rs.2,870/- .
14. 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.
15. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.260/06 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damages. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report along with the Horticulture Officer report as per the Commissioner report and Horticulture Officer report the following observations were made;
(i)The crop is severally infested with upward curling.
(ii) The leaves are chlorotic mottling and mosaic symptoms .
(iii) Crop systems can compared with virus symptoms.
The reports of Commissioner and Horticulture officer corraborate the contention of the opposite parties that the chilly crop was affected Virus symptoms.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 1st day of February, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil -
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 24-1-2008 in the presence of Sri. K.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1 & 2 ; 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(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having irrigation lands in the name of his wife to an extent of Ac.2-00gts in Sy.Nos.149,158 at Ramakrishnapuram Village of Chinthakani Mandal that the complainant had purchased Tejaswini Chilly Seeds on 13-6-2006 while receipt No.SEED/454, Tejasvini Lot No.TKD 200530. As per the assurance of the opposite party the seeds germination Min.60%, PP (Min)98%, G.P. (Min) 95% net weight 10gramsx14 packets, each packet costs of Rs.220/- total worth of Rs.3,080/- for 14 packets.
3. The complainant sown the said seed in his field by following all the precautions and the plant were raised greenish till 20 days thereafter started falling of leaves, causing stems dry and there is no further growth up, and there was no yielding of crop. The entire crop become white and yellow or orange colours instead of thin red chilly. Thereupon the opposite parties and some of the representatives came and inspected the crop of the complainant and other crops to different trademark.
4. The opposite party No-1 promised to inform the same fact to the opposite party No-2 for damages caused to the complainant but so far there was no progress. These facts defective seeds and non-qualitative seeds by the opposite party No-1 & 2 and the complainant invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Hence this complaint direct the opposite party to pay the damages of Rs.3,60,000/- for Ac1-30gts for the damage of Chilli crop and to award of damage of Rs.50,000/- towards mental, physical agony with the costs of the petition.
5. The complaint filed his affidavit along with the following documents;
(i) Original cash bill of opposite party No-1 for Rs.2,870/- ,dated 13-6-06.
(ii) Original Pahany copy, dated 9-8-04
(iii) 14 empty pouches of opposite parties.
6. Opposite party No-2 filed the following written statement.
The complainant is not produced any expert opinion to prove that the seed supplied to him was defective. The complainant did not produce any material evidence to show that the seed supplied by opposite party was defective. There is no genetic impurity has been noticed in the affected chilli crop.
7. That during September & October, 2006 there was a long dry spell for 2 months in the region which affected on the fruit flowering formation of chilli crop. Further due to long dry spell there was severe infestation of “Thrips” and “Sucking pest” on the Chilli crop. The said insect pest has spread other viruses on the Chill crop, which resulted into less fruit & flower formation on Chilli plants. The department of Agriculture, Khammam and accordingly they inspected the affected farmers fields in Khammam urban area. The team of scientist including Dr.Khalid Ahmed, Principal Scientist and Smt. T.Vijaya Lakshmi, Scientist of chilli section from Regional Agricultural Research station, LAM Guntur and other members visited the affected plots of the farmers and observed that the crop has been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of “Thrips” infestation. The findings of the team of scientist has been confirmed by Associate Director of Research, RARS, LAM, Guntur vide his communication dated 6-11-2006 addressed to the Director of Research, ANGRAU, Hyderabad. A copy of the said communication dated 13-6-06 along with report of team of Scientist already submitted.
It is false to say that the opposite parties had assured crop above 30 quintals per acre. It is also false to say that the market value of Chilli crop Rs.5,000/- per quintal. There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.20,000/- for cultivation of chilli crop.
8. As per section 13 (1)(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is mandatory that “where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, then the samples of said lot be sent to the appropriate laboratory for analysis.” As per the judgment by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2005 NC, page No.47 between Hindustan Insecticides Limited V/s. Kopoulu Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Where in the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ It was for the complainant or their Advocates or for the District Forum to take appropriate steps as per the provisions of section 13 (1) (c) of the Act, That was not done”
9. The complainant is not entitled any damages of Rs.3,60,000/- towards chilli crop and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service is negligence on the part of the opposite parties .
10. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
11. On behalf of opposite party No-1 counter is not filed. The counter of opposite party No-2 is adopted by opposite party No-2 as chief affidavit and written arguments.
12. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
13. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase receipt of Rs.2,870/- .
14. 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.
15. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.260/06 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damages. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report along with the Horticulture Officer report as per the Commissioner report and Horticulture Officer report the following observations were made;
(i)The crop is severally infested with upward curling.
(ii) The leaves are chlorotic mottling and mosaic symptoms .
(iii) Crop systems can compared with virus symptoms.
The reports of Commissioner and Horticulture officer corraborate the contention of the opposite parties that the chilly crop was affected Virus symptoms.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 1st day of February, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil -
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
