This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 7-2-2008   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 Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for opposite party No-3 ;upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, 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.126, and  the complainant purchased Chilly  Seeds from  the opposite party No-1 on  1-6-06 vide receipt Nos.66, and  on the same day  the complainant also purchased  Tejaswini  seeds from the opposite party No-3  vide receipt No.69,  through his close relative by name Gade Venkata Ramaiah, 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.4.00gts 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.80,000/- on Ac4-00 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.7,20,000/- 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. 66 dated 1-6-2006 for Rs.6,600/- issued by opposite party No-1(ii) Declaration certificate dated 14-11-2006 issued by Village Secretary ,Basvapuram, Chintakani Mandal.(iii) bill No.69, dated 1-6-2006 for Rs.4,400/- issued by opposite party No-3, (iv) Seed pouches (39 in number).    

 4.     After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations leveled against them.

5.         In the counter, the opposite party No-1 admitted the purchase of seeds from the opposite party No-1 and denied all the allegations,  and contended that there is no defect in the quality of the seeds  and mentioned that  the yielding was affected due to heavy moisture in the soil  after  sowing of  seeds,  there was heavy rains,  and also contended that the seeds were thoroughly tested by the company or by any authorized lab, as such there was no defect in the seeds  and the A.O. report also reveals that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them.  The opposite party No-1 further stated that    proper growth of the  crop  and yielding must be depends upon the  crop management practices and  impact of nature, as such nothing could be attributed to the genuineness  of the seeds  and the opposite party No-1 also stated that the opposite party No-1 is the dealer to the opposite party No-2  as such the opposite party No-1 is neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the damage caused to the   complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.     In the counter the opposite party No-2 mentioned that the complainant filed the complaint  after the completion of 180 days from the date of purchase and seeks appointment of Advocate Commissioner  after elapsing the crop period and also denied regarding the cultivation from last  few years and further mentioned that after completion of the crop period  genetic purity of the seeds cannot be assessed and as per the complaint itself there is no negligence or deficiency on their part and further contended that the burden lies on the complainant to prove any deficiency, and the complainant failed to prove the same and moreover did not filed any document regarding the defect in the seeds.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that as per the reports of   scientists the crop has   been affected due to long dry spell which resulted in spread of Thripts infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University  the   crop was affected due to infestation of Peanut  Bud  Necrosis Virus and Cucumber Mosaic  Virus and the same shows that the problem is not due to the quality of seeds, the same was  due to infestation of pest and virus and for which they cannot be held responsible.  The opposite party No-2 by denying all the allegations made in the complaint contended that whenever there is an allegation regarding the defect, it cannot be determined without proper analysis as per section-13 (I)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the present case there is no such analysis to find the defect in the seeds.  Further the opposite party No-2 contended that after completion of harvesting season the Commissioner/advocate inspected the crop and it is not possible to assess the genetic purity of the crop.  The opposite party No-2 further contended that the Advocate/Commissioner and the M.A.O. did not disclose that the problem was due to defect in the seeds and further mentioned that the  complainant failed to file any scientific report to prove his claim and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.  In the counter the opposite party No-2 further questioned the very maintainability of the complaint and also stated that failure of crop is only due to poor agricultural practices followed by the complainant, and failure to take proper steps for irrigation and use of timely manure, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and sprayers, as such  prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.                     The opposite party No-3, 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 of defective quality and the damage if any was due to improper care and poor agronomical and intercultural operations and as such the opposite party No-3  is not liable to pay any damages and  prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.         The opposite parties 1to 3 are filed Written Arguments. 

9.         The complainant filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate/Commissioner for assessment of damage of the crop, as per the I.A.No.222/2006, this Forum appointed an Advocate/Commissioner for assessment of damages of the crop with the help of V.A.O. and A.O. concerned and also directed to collect the samples of the standing crop  and send the same  to the laboratory for analysis.  In the present case on hand the Commissioner/Advocate and M.A.O. filed their reports with the same findings and as per the  report of M.A.O. concerned the growth of the crop is stunted, root development is poor, the crop effected with terminal bud necrosis  and also reported that  all the symptoms resembles virus symptoms. 

10.       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?

11.     From the averments of the complaint it is revealed that the complainant purchased Tejaswini variety of chilly seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 1-6-2006 and on the same day the complainant also purchased the chilly seeds from the opposite party No-3 through his close relative by name Gade Venkata Ramaiah.    Further it is the case of the complainant that he sowed chilly seeds in his Ac.4.00gts of land in Sy.No.126 situated at Ramakrishnapuram village of Chinthakani mandal and it is the case of the complainant that due to the defect in Chilly seeds supplied by the opposite parties, he sustained huge loss, and it is the case of the opposite parties that there is no defect in the seeds supplied by them and the alleged damage was due to the affect

of Virus attack and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  The opposite party No-2 mentioned in their counter that 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 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  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. who collected the sample for analysis, did not furnish the scientific 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 moreover there is no observation  of crop damage and genetic impurity and failed to explain regarding the method of assessment of loss and  the complainant did not filed any proof regarding the utilization of fertilizers, pesticides and crop management practices and  failed to file any documentary evidence to that effect.  As such in the absence of scientific analysis regarding the defective quality of seeds, this Forum cannot fasten any liability on the  part of opposite parties for loss of crop, sustained by the complainant and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant, by holding that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.

11.     In the result the C.C. is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs. 

      Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 22nd    day of February, 2008.

                                                                   President  Member               Member

                                                                 District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Complainant                                                                                  Opposite parties

Nil                                                                                                        Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant                                                                                       Opposite parties

   Nil                                                                                                           Nil

                                                    President       Member                Member                                                                                      District Consumers Forum, Khammam