Date of Filing: 01.10.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.202/2011
C.Venkata Reddy,
S/o. Chowda Reddy,
Aged About 43 years,
Agriculturist, Sadenahalli
Village, Manchenahalli Hobli,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chickballapur District.
(Rep. by M.Ramalinge Gowda, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) The Manager,
M/s. Nusun Genetic Research Limited,
501, Subhan Srisama da Complex,
Plot No.6-3-1090/1/1,
Raj Bhavan road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad-500 082.
(Rep. by Sri.L.Srinivasa, Advocate)
(2) The Assistant Director
For Agriculture, Gowribidanur,
Chickballapur District.
(Rep. by Sri.L.Srinivasa, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, are necessary :-
Intending to grow Maize Crop in his land the complainant purchased Maize Seeds of 20 Kgs from the opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.1,800/- at a discount of Rs.600/- on 17.06.2011 and also Layjind 10 Kgs for a sum of Rs.1,150/- on a discount of Rs.300/- with a fond hope that he will get a good yield and good income from those seeds and sowed the same in his land. Subsequently he noticed the said Maize crops were attacked with “White Disease”. To control the said disease he invested further amount on insecticides and medicines, but all efforts went in vain. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The purchase of the seeds are admitted, through Raitha Samparka Kendra. The complainant had also sown the legend hybrid seeds on 20.06.2011 and thereafter on 11.07.2011 the sales representative of the opposite party Sri.Revanna Sidappa and Sri.Mukunda inspected the area and observed the said hybrid Maize crop was raising in good condition. They also visited the land on 08.08.2011 wherein there was 40 to 45 days good maize crop in the land was found. Thereafter the white disease of maize crop was shown that type of white disease on the maize crop came from the environmental fluctuations. For this white disease the seed supplier are not responsible. It is the duty of the complainant or formers to control such type of disease by sprinkling the medicines and insecticides, that has not been done. These opposite parties are in no way concerned with the loss if any to the complainant. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the opposite party has filed a Memo stating that the version and the documents may be read as their evidence. The complainant did not turn up at all. Hence perused and heard the arguments of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased certain seeds for growing maize in his land from the opposite parties and he had sown it. It is also established that the crops had come up well. It is also established after some days the crops were infected with white disease and because of that some loss was caused to the complainant in the year. In this regard the complainant made a complaint to the concerned authorities, the university of agricultural science have inspected and have given the following report:-
This clearly goes to show that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by the opposite parties. If the white disease occurs it was incumbent on the part of the complainant to spray pesticides and insecticides and get it cleared. This white disease will occur because of many factors such as the climate change, the water, the land, earth, etc.,. That cannot be attributed to the manufacturers of the seeds.
7. The complainant has not produced any material to show what insecticides he purchased? What pesticides he has purchased? When he has sprayed or put etc.,. Except the bald allegation of the complainant that he has incurred expenditure in purchasing pesticides and insecticides there is no material for it. Hence under these circumstances there is no deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
