This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 25-09-2007 in the presence of Sri. M. Appa Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and Smt. P. Padmavathi, Advocate for opposite party No.1, and Sri. A. Sarath Chander, Advocate for opposite party 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri. P.V Subrahmanyam, President )

1.                 This Complainant is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the two opposite parties with the following averments:-

2.                 On 29-06-2005 the complainant purchased 24 bags of Tejaswini variety chilly seeds containing 10 grams each at the rate of Rs.190/- per bag for a total amount of Rs.4,560/-. At the time of purchase opposite party No.1 made the complainant understand that the said seeds would yield more. The complainant followed the instructions of opposite party No.1 and Mandal Agricultural Officer for sowing the seeds on 20-07-2005 and for transplantation of the seedlings on 30-08-2005 in the scheduled land belonging to him. He has invested Rs.30,000/- towards application of fertilizers and pesticides and Rs.10,000/- for labour and for using water once in 10 days. In spite of it, to the surprise of the complainant the plants started dying day by day. When the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and apprised him of the situation he did not reply. On his request Mandal Agricultural Officer visited his land and advised to use hormones and pesticides. Accordingly they were used, but in vain. When the complainant again approached opposite party No.1 he did not give any proper advise and finally the Mandal Agricultural Officer again visited the land of the complainant during January 2006 and opined that the seeds were of low quality.

3.                 Had the crop grown well, the complainant would have realized more than 30 quintals per acre i.e. Rs.2,000/- per quintal. Because of the inferior quality of the chilly seeds supplied by the opposite parties the complainant suffered 60 quintals of crop worth Rs.1,68,000/-. The land is of black soil having more fertility with open well including bore inside the well with 3HP electric motor. The complainant is an expert agriculturist from his childhood. Due to inferior quality of the seed he lost his entire chilly crop as all the plants died. As the seeds were produced and supplied by the opposite parties 1 & 2, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-.  Hence the complaint.

4.                 The complaint is resisted by opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 by filing counters separately. The counter of opposite party No.1 in brief is as follows:-

The complainant's version that he has two acres of land and he purchased chilly seed from the opposite party No.1 may be true but the expenditure stated by the complainant is utterly false and baseless. The further allegation that in spite of the complainant using hormones and pesticides the plants died etc., are all false and baseless. The allegation that the seed was of the inferior quality therefore the crop was totally damaged and so the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,68,000/- etc., are all false.

Opposite party No.2 is a reputed company having good image of its products as to the sustainability and after undergoing various tests the products would be released to the market under the observation of scientific experts of the company. For failure of crop there are numerous factors such as soil fertility, improper and untimely management of the soil and crop, seasonal conditions, pest and crop diseases and irrigation etc. No plant protections were followed.  The seed provided by the opposite parties was of good quality with confirming standards. There is substantial demand for the said seed from the farmers of Khammam. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 as he has taken the seed from opposite party No.2. The complaint may therefore be dismissed against opposite party No.1.

5.                 The counter (written statement) filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 runs to 17 printed pages. The gist of it is as follows:-

The complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable. This Forum has appointed an advocate / commissioner to visit the land of the complainant. There is no defect in the seed. The complainant has not proved any negligence of the opposite parties or defect in the seed or deficiency of service. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.                 No oral evidence adduced on either side. Written arguments of both sides filed. No oral arguments advanced.

7.                 The point for consideration is whether the seed produced by opposite party No.2 and purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 was defective and thereby the complainant sustained loss due to failure of crop and whether he is entitled for damages for the same?

Point:-

8.                 According to the complainant on 29-06-2005 he purchased Tejaswini variety of chilly seed from opposite party No.1 which was produced by opposite party No.2 and when he raised seedlings in his filed and transplanted as per the advise of opposite party No.1 and Mandal Agricultural Officer, the plants started dying in spite of using regular water, fertilizers, pesticides etc., and the Mandal Agricultural Officer after visiting the field of the complainant opined that the failure of the crop and dying of the plants was because the seed was defective.

9.                 At the outset I would like to state that the complaint allegations are not proved by filing affidavit of the complainant in lieu of  his examination in chief as required under section 13(4)(iii) of the Consumer Protection  Act,1986.  On 5-6-2007 the learned counsel of the complainant prayed this Forum to pass order on merits after going through the record.  As the complaint allegations are not proved as required under law there cannot be any other order except dismiss of the complaint. 

10.               It is to be noted here that the complainant got an advocate / commissioner appointed by filing IA.No.42/2006 for inspection of chilly crop in his land with the help of horticulture officer.  Accordingly an advocate / commissioner was appointed who secured the services of horticulture officer of the area and visited the chilly crop of the complainant on 13-03-2006 in the presence of the parties and village secretary and filed his report together with the report of the horticulture officer.  The horticulture officer’s report shows as follows:- The field of the complainant was  full of weeds without any intercultural operations. There was only 10-15 percent population, which are also dried up in   1¾ acre.  In ¼ acre only the crop was in good condition, for which the farmer said the he left the field without any intercultural operations from December 2005 ending.  The farmer further stated that till December 2005 the field was in good condition and he harvested 10 quintals of green chilly.

11.               The report further shows that the dried up plant population is full of ripen chilly which were not harvested and the plants in the neighbouring chilly field are also exhibiting wilting symptoms.  Finally the horticulture officer stated at the end of his report that as per field observations and farmers’ versions the chilly fields in that area were affected with wilt disease during heavy rains in November and December.  The advocate / commissioner has stated in his report that he has seized sample crop and handed over to the horticulture officer.  Even at that stage the complainant has not taken steps to send the sample crop to any appropriate laboratory for analysis and report to find out whether the failure of crop was due to defective seed as stated by the complainant or due to wilt disease as stated by the horticulture officer or for any other reason.  This inaction of the complainant goes to show that he knew that if the sample is sent to any appropriate laboratory the report would not be in support of his contentions, therefore he did not take such steps. 

12.               In the absence of any acceptable evidence, this Forum cannot give any finding as desired by the complainant. It is therefore held that the complainant has failed to prove that the seed purchased by him from the opposite party No.1 was defective and that he is entitled to compensation for the loss stated to have  sustained by him due to the death of plants in his land. The point is answered against the complainant.

13.               In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in this Open Forum on Tuesday, the 9^th day of October, 2007.

President            Member          Member

 District Consumers Forum, Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

                                           President             Member          Member

  District Consumers Forum, Khammam.