This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for Complainant; Notice of Opposite party No.1 served called absent; Sri.T.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Opposite party No.2; Sri.A.Sarath Chandra, 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) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the following averments;
The complainant, who is an agriculturist, resident of Ramakrishnapuram village Chinthakani Mandal, Khamamam District, and the complainant is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-20gts., in Sy.No.142 and the complainant purchased Chilly Seeds from the opposite party No-1 on 3-7-2006 vide receipt No.162, for Rs.420/-, and also purchased the chilli seeds through one Tumu Venkateswarlu on 1-6-2006 vide receipt No.67 from opposite party No.2, which was produced and marketed by opposite party No-3 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 party No-1 and representatives of opposite party No-1 inspected the crop, and the opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to intimate opposite party No-2 and 3 about the damage caused, but there is 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 towards ploughing fertilizers and pesticides and as such he spent Rs.50,000/- on Ac.2.20gts of land. The complainant alleged that due to the defective seeds he lost yielding of 75 quintals in all and claiming Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of crop and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit and also filed documents (i) Bill dated 3-7-2006 for Rs.420/- issued by opposite party No-1, ii) Xerox copy of bill dt.1-6-2006 for Rs.880/- iii) bill No.67 dt.1-6-2006 issued by opposite party No.2, iv) declaration certificate iii) empty seed pouches numbering 18.
3. After receipt of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying the allegations. The opposite party No.1 is called absent.
4. In the counter, the opposite party No-2 admitted the purchase of seeds from the opposite party No-2 and denied all the allegations, and contended that there is no defect in the quality of the seeds and mentioned that after sowing the seeds, there was heavy rains and the yielding was affected due to heavy moisture in the soil and also contended that the seeds were thoroughly tested by the company or by any authorized lab, as such there is no defect in the seeds. The opposite party No-2 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-2 also stated that the opposite party No-2 is the dealer to the opposite party No-3 as such the opposite party No-2 is neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the damage caused to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In the counter the opposite party No-3 mentioned that 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 file any document regarding the defect in the seeds further the opposite party No-3 contended 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-3 further mentioned that the complainant did not send samples of the seeds for analysis as per the procedure laid down u/s 13 (1) of C.P. Act and thus the opposite party No-3 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. Further the opposite party No-3 contended that as per the reports of scientists the crop has been affected due to Thrips’ infestation and as per the reports of Scientists of Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University the crop was affected due to infestation of Groundnut 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-3 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 as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The Advocate/Commissioner filed his report basing on the report furnished by the M.A.O. and as per the report of A.O., the crop affected with terminal bud necrosis and might be infested with virus and as a result the yielding reduced to 75%.
7. In view of the above submissions made by the both parties, now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
8. As seen from the above averments it is the case of the complainant that due to the defective seed supplied by the opposite parties the yielding was affected and claimed damages from the opposite parties. On the other hand it is the contention of the opposite parties that the loss of yielding was not due to defect in the seeds and the same was due to the attack of systemic mosaic virus and other reasons. The complainant who approached the Forum for damages by alleging the quality of seeds, did not file any proof to show that the seeds are inferior in quality and did not taken any steps to get analyze the seeds in a laboratory and in the absence of any such proof regarding the defect alleged, it is difficult to hold the liability of the opposite parties and, the report of the commissioner/advocate and M.A.O. also did not speaks any thing against the quality of the seeds and moreover as per the report of A.O. the crop affected with terminal bud necrosis and might be infested with virus and as a result the yielding reduced to 75% as such basing on the report of A.O., it cannot proper to hold that the loss of yielding was due to defect in the seeds. In view of the above discussion this Forum opined that the complainant failed to establish the allegation that the loss sustained by him was due to defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties and as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant by holding that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought.
9. 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 day of 12th March, 2009.
I/c. President/Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil
I/c.President/Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
