This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 17-12-2007 in the presence of  Sri. D.Krishnaiah, Advocate for Complainant , and of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the opposite party No-1,  and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party     No-  2 ; 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 brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having land to extent of  Ac.2-00gts in Sy.No.268/A, and also had taken lands on lease basis to an extent of Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.258/1 from one Kesara Jaganadha Reddy, situated at  Sathanigudem Village of Kamepalli Mandal.   Having  attracted with the advertisement of  opposite parties about the germination and yielding of Tejaswini Chilly Seed, the complainant approached the opposite party No-1 and purchased the “Tejaswini Chilly  Seed  Lot No.TKD 200578  in which 6 packets of 50 grams each packet cost is Rs.1,000/- total Rs.6,000/-, vide receipt No.185 on 7-7-06.  The opposite party No-2 had assured that the seed Germination  Min60%, GP (min) 95%, P.P.(Min)98%.

3.      The opposite parties assured that the complainant certainly get 30 quintals  of Chilly crop per acre.  The complainant raised the crop in an extent of Ac.2-00gts, and he will get an amount of Rs.75,000-00 approximately.  But the complainant could not get single pie due to damage of entire crop.

5.       Hence  it is prayed (i) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,40,000/- for the total Chilly crop damaged  due to supply of defective and non-quality seed, deficiency of service by the opposite parties.(ii) To pay damages of Rs.75,000/- towards  the deficiency of services and gross negligence on the part of opposite parties and to award costs of the complainant.

6.       That the complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:

(i)original receipt dated 7-7-06 for an amount of Rs.6,000/-

7.         The opposite party No-1 did not file any counter.

8.        Opposite Party No-2 filed the following counter:

      It is submitted that the complainant is not produced any expert opinion to prove that seeds supplied were defective.  Further there is no material evidence on record produced by the complainant which can prove that Tejaswini chilli seed supplied to the  complainant  were defective.  Further there is no genetic impurity  has been noticed in the affected  Chilli crop.

9.     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.5,000/- per quintal.  There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.25,000/-  for  cultivation of  chilli crop.

10.      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”

11.     The complainant is not entitled any damage of Rs.5,40,000/- towards crop loss for Ac.3-00 and Rs.75,000/- towards physical & mental agony caused to complaint.

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

13.      The opposite party No-2  filed a memo stating that the  counter of opposite party No-2 may be treated as chief affidavit & written arguments of opposite party No-2.  The complainant  & opposite party No-1 did not file their chief affidavits or written arguments along with  complaint.

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

15.     Another contention of the opposite parties  is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.25,000-00/-.  Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts expect the seed purchase  receipt Rs.6,000/-.

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.14/07  to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field  of the complainant to assess damages.  The advocate/commissioner did not file  report best reasons known to him.

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 dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 6th    day of   February, 2008.

                                                                                         President          Member                Member

                                                                         District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                                      Nil     -                                                                                    

                                                   President          Member             Member                                                                                     District Consumers Forum, Khammam