This C.C. came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Complainant; Sri.B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties; 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 an agriculturist, having agricultural experience since last 15 years, intends to cultivate cotton crop in his land situated at Ravinuthala village of Bonakal mandal, Khammam District in an extent of Ac.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.91 and approached the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the best quality of the cotton seeds and by believing the words of the opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased two packets of RCH- 2 B.T. cotton seeds from the opposite party No-1 for Rs.1500/- and sowed the seeds in the month of September, 2007 by investing amounts for cultivation, manure and applied pesticides and fertilizers, but the cotton crop has grown without flowers and the complainant waited for three months and approached the opposite party No.1 and explained about the non flowering of the crop. The opposite party No.1 advised to approach opposite party No.2, accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 also, but there is no response from them. As such the complainant approached the forum along with the prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% P.A.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed (i) original receipt, dated 9-7-2007 for Rs.1,500/- issued by the opposite party No-1.
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The opposite parties in their counter denied the allegation that the crop was totally damaged due to the defective quality of seeds supplied by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the damages and further mentioned that the germination was good and as such it cannot be said that the seeds were defective and the yield of the crop depends various factors like fertility of the soil, sowing time, climatic conditions, usage of fertilizers and micro nutrients and plant protection measures etc.,. The opposite parties further submitted that the recommended sowing period of the cotton crop is between 25-5-2007 to 21-6-2007. But the complainant sowed the said seeds in the month of September, 2007, it shows that the complainant sowed the seeds at belated stage and also submitted that there is no representation from the complainant to the officers of Agricultural department or Seed Inspector and there is no proof regarding the defective seeds. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Along with the counter, the opposite parties filed (i) Dealership Licence to carry on business for selling the seeds, (ii) bill receipts vide Nos.101 to 104, (iii) Agriculture Panchangam 2007-2008.
6. The Advocate/Commissioner who appointed to inspect the field and assess the damages of the crop with the help of A.O. concerned, but he failed to file any report.
7. 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.
8. As seen from the above averments there is no dispute regarding the purchase of two packets of RCH- 2 B.T. cotton seeds from the opposite party No-1 and as per the complaint after sowing the seeds, 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 flowered, he approached the opposite party No-1 and further alleged 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 parties that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the growth of the crop is depends on fertility of the soil, sowing time, climatic conditions, plant protection measures, usage of fertilizers and micro nutrients and 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 that regard and the Commissioner/advocate or the A.O. or H.O., did not furnish the analysis report 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 to find a defect, it is necessary to send the seed samples to an appropriate laboratory for analysis and section-13(I) (C) of C.P.Act 1986 also speaks the same. 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 9th day of July, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum Khammam
