This complaint is coming before us for hearing; in the presence of     Sri. M. Pulla Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri. A. Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist, having lands at Medidapalli Village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.  Having attracted to the vide publicity of opposite parties, purchased 7 packets (28 kgs) of LGG-460 C/S Green Gram seeds on 23-06-2015 from the opposite party No.2, produced by opposite party No.1.  And sowed the same in the month of June in his own lands in an extent of Ac.2.28 gts in Survey No.353/A1/1, Ac.2.05 gts out of Survey No.352/AA1/1 and Ac.1.35 gts out of Survey No.359/E1/1, situated at Medidapalli village, Thirumalayapalem Mandal of Khammam District. The complainant invested huge amounts for plowing, manure, engaging of coolies, pesticides and fertilizers by following all the procedures and precautions from time to time as per directions of A.O. concerned and the opposite parties.  However, there was no proper yielding.  After observing, approached the opposite party No.1 and the A.O. concerned.    The Agricultural Officer advised to meet the Seed Officer for inspection of crop.  After submission of representations, the Agriculture Officer and the seed officer inspected the field and opined that the loss of crop was due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties.  The complainant further submitted that he invested @ Rs.50,000/- towards plowing, plantation, fertilizers and pesticides, watering and engaging of coolies etc,.  Inspite of following all the procedures and precautions, sustained loss of yield @Rs.4,80,000/-.  On his grievance, approached this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,80,000/- towards crop loss and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and costs.

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Exhibits A-1 to A-8.

4.      On receipt of notice, the opposite parties filed counter by denying the averments of complaint.  In their counter the opposite parties no.1 & 2 have submitted that they sold green gram LGG-460 seeds to the complainant on subsidy.  Further they also submitted that the M.A.O. visited the field without giving prior information to her higher officials and the opposite parties.  In her report, she did not mention the agricultural practices, which were followed by the farmer at the time of sowing and rising of crop.  She did not tested the soil condition.  They also contended that the M.A.O. has no capacity to assess the loss.  Except this complaint, no complaints were raised against this product.  The said seeds were introduced into the market after thorough verification and scanning with respect of germination of seeds.  After certification of ISI department, the seeds have come into the market.  The complainant purchased huge quantity of seeds and sowed in large extent of land under commercial purpose on profit basis.  The facts and circumstances of complaint clearly indicates that the crops raised for the purpose of resale, not for domestic purpose.  Therefore, the complainant cannot be treated as consumer under section 2(1) (d) of consumer protection act.  The complaint was filed after completion of crop period i.e. in the month of November 2015.  The complainant failed to file any scientific report under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act.  The inspection report did not contain details regarding the inspection and defect, which is fake and fabricated and also not a scientific report, it has no government seal.  The causes for failure of crop is depends upon various reasons i.e. poor agricultural practices, infertility of soil, inadequate of rainfall, improper irrigation practices, usage of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides.  The seeds have no genetic disorder.  Opposite parties never informed prior to complaint nor requested to send their person for personal inspection, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 

5.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased LGG-460 C/S Green Gram Seeds from the opposite party No.2, produced and marketed by opposite party No.1.  The complainant had sowed the seeds in the month of June 2015 in his own lands by taking all precautions and adopting all the procedures from time to time.  However, he sustained huge loss because of non-yielding.  On which, he approached the M.A.O and the Seed Officer by submitting a complaint regarding non-yielding till the completion of crop period.  The Seed Officer, who visited the crop and submitted her findings to the District Manager (Seeds), Telangana State Seeds Corporation Limited on 25-08-2015 by stating that the crop has luxurious growth and flower drop.  Further she also mentioned that “the crop was pod initiation and pod filling stage, pest infestation to some extent, for which, farmer had sprayed 3 times with interval of 5 days”, evidenced under exhibit A-2.  The Mandal Agricultural Officer also given his opinion on crop situation, marked under exhibit A-3 by mentioning that “the crop has vegetative growth and performed flowering and pod formation but the grain filling was not occurred for which, the farmer was got heavy yield loss”.  As per the findings of Seed Inspector and the A.O. at the time of inspection, the crop was 60 days old and sufficiently grown, the Seed Inspector specifically mention that the crop has luxurious growth, it seems that the farmer has followed all required procedures for growing of crop and also sprayed insecticides for controlling pests, in support of his case, placed purchase bills of fertilizers and pesticides marked under exhibit A-8.  Usually the crop period in Green Gram is 60 to 65 days but it is the case of the complaint, he sustained huge loss due to non-yielding of crop till the completion of crop period.  The reports of M.A.O and Seed Inspector also speaks the same.  On the other hand the opposite parties denied the allegations of complaint by contending that the loss of crop was not due to seeds supplied by them, the Seed Inspector and M.A.O. are not proper persons to assess the loss without sending sample of seeds to the laboratory U/s. 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act,.  As per Seeds Act 1966 the Seed Officers and the M.A.O., who were obtained enough scientific knowledge in their field and also appointed as Seed Inspectors by the State Government through official gazette are the experts to assess the loss, so, the findings of concerned Officers cannot be discarded.   

As per findings of the M.A.O., Thirumalayapalem the farmer sustained heavy loss of yield inspite of following required procedures.  So, the findings of M.A.O. and the Seed Officer are sufficient to come to the conclusion for determining the crop loss.  As per findings of the M.A.O., the complainant cultivated the Green Gram in an extent of Ac.3.20 gts. and sustained heavy loss.  As per book, “Vyavasaya Panchangam – 2000 to 2001”, published by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriclutural University, yielding in Green Gram crop is at about 12 to 15 quintals per hectare.  1 hectare is equal to Ac. 2.20 gts.   In view of non-mentioning of specific loss in the reports of Seed Inspector and the M.A.O., we arrived to the conclusion basing on the principles of natural justice, the complainant sustained crop loss to an extent of 60% per acre, therefore, the complainant sustained total crop loss at 10.80 quintals.  As per official website  of Telananga State Government Agricultural Marketing Department, Khammam district,  the model price of Green Gram as on       07-09-2017 is @ Rs.7,000/- per quintal.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are held liable to pay compensation to the complainant towards crop loss. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.75,600/- to the complainant towards crop loss within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which,  the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till its realization.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the    22nd    day of March, 2017.

              Member                  FAC President             

  District Consumer Forum,

   Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

              Member                  FAC President             

    District Consumer Forum,

   Khammam.