This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 13-2-2008   in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of  Sri T.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for opposite party No-1 and of Sri. A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for  opposite party No-2, and of opposite party No-3 served and called absent;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)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.         The complainant, who is an agriculturist, having lands at Ramakrishnapuram(v), Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District, in Sy.No.124, and  the complainant purchased Chilly  Seeds from  the opposite party No-1 on  31-7-06 vide receipt Nos.80,   Tejaswini  Lot.No.201001 in the name of complainant and also purchased through his friend receipt No.169 in the  name  of  Devarapalli Gandhi Reddy, on 17-7-2006  vide net weight 10gramsx20 packets, each packet cost of Rs.200x20 packets, worth of Rs.4,000/- , and 50gramsx1 tin worth of Rs.975/- in total of Rs.4,975/-3.     The opposite party No-2 had assured that the seed germination Min.60%, GP (Min)95%, P.P.(Min) 98%.  which were produced and marketed by opposite party No-2 by paying  Rs.8,800/- and after taking all precautions and by following directions, planted the seedlings in his field to  an extent of Ac.2.20gts and the steams of the plants were raised  well for 20 days and after that leaves of the plants fallen down causing stems  dry and the chilies also yielded in different colours and as such the complainant approached the opposite parties and representatives of opposite parties inspected the crop, and the opposite party No-1 promised the complainant to intimate opposite party No-2 & 3 about the damage caused, but there was no response from the opposite parties, and the complainant alleges that he  suffered huge loss and further stated that he invested Rs.20,000/- per acre, and the complainant invested the amount of Rs.50,000/- on Ac2-20 of crop instead of production of chilli crop at least 90-100%, there was no yielding and caused total loss of crop to the complainant   and he sustained loss of yielding and claiming Rs.4,50,000/- towards damage of chilli crop  and also claimed  Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.  The complainant alleged that due to the defective seeds he lost yielding of 120 quintals in all and as such he claimed the amount as above.

3.     Along with the complaint the complainant filed  affidavit and also filed  (i) bill No. 80 dated 31-7-2006 for Rs.975/- issued by opposite party No-1(ii) Declaration certificate dated 12-11-2006 issued by Village Secretary ,Basvapuram, Chintakani Mandal.(iii) bill No.169, dated 17-7-2006 for Rs.4,000/- issued by opposite party No-3, (iv) Seed pouches (19 in number).   

4.         That the opposite party No-1 filed the following counter.

            It is true that the complainant had purchased seed from the opposite party No-1.  In fact there is no defective in the quality of the seed.  It is submitted that after sowing of the seed there was heavy rains and due to the heavy moisture in the soils,  there is every likely hood of effecting the rate of yielding.  As per the knowledge of this opposite party No-1 the seed was undergone so many tests either by the company or by the authorized labs, revealed that there was no defect in the quality of  the seed.  The report of agricultural officer  also  certified that the said seed is good quality and also  good germination.  However the complainant did not file any report regarding the quality of the seed.

5.         The cause for less yielding attributed  to so many  factors including  the managing practices This opposite party No-1 is the only  Dealer  and he purchased the lot from the Distributor of the said seed and  as such the distributor  also a necessary party.  The complainant did  not   file any  documentary evidence to show that he is having land to an extent of AC2-20gts and so also the complainant did not file any receipts regarding the expenditure.

6.         Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party No-1.

7.          Opposite Party No-2 filed following counter:

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.    

8.     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 6-1-06 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.6,000/- per quintal.  There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.20,000/-  for  cultivation of  chilli crop.

9.         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”

10.     The complainant is not entitled any damages of Rs.4,50,000/- towards chilli crop and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service is negligence on the part of the opposite parties .

11.      Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-

12.       The opposite party No-1 filed written arguments and the opposite party No-2 filed a memo stating that the written statement of opposite party No-2 may be treated  as chief affidavit and written arguments on behalf of opposite party No-2.  The opposite party   No-3 having received the notice did not appear before this Forum nor filed any counter.

13.       The opposite parties filed memos to treat their written statements are as their written arguments.  The complaint did not file any written arguments.  The complainant filed his chief-affidavit along with complaint.

14.     The point for consideration whether the complainant  is entitled as prayed for?

15.     The contention of the opposite parties  is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.20,000-00/-.  Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase  receipt of Rs.4,975/- .

16.       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.

17.     The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.238/06 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 was low yield and the soil was suitable for chilli crop having irrigation source. (ii) The crop was fully effected with thrips and mites.(iii) The plant growth is normal.(iv)The fruits were wrinkled.

            That the Horticulture Officer had sent the samples of standing crop plant specimen to the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agriculture Research Station (RARS) LAM FARM, Guntur.  However the Horticulture Officer sent the samples of standing crop to the Associate Director of Research LAM FARM, Guntur  but the said report is not filed.  The reports of Commissioner and Horticulture officer corraborate the contention of the opposite parties that the chilly crop was  affected with Thrips and Sucking Pest. 

 18.      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.

19.     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.

20.       In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  No costs.

 Typed to my dication, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Open  Forum on this 25th  day of   February, 2008.

                                                                            President         Member            Member

                                                                              District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

                                                                                                                                                                                              President              Member             Member                                                                           District Consumers Forum, Khammam