This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 17-9-2008 in the presence of Sri. Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and of Sri.A.Sarath Chander, Advocate for the opposite party No- 1&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 intended to raise the Chilly crop over the said land measuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No. 67 of Koyachalaka Revenue Village, Khammam Urban 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 vide receipt No.8 of 18 packets for Rs.3,960/- on 2-6-06, which was manufactured produced, packed and marketed by the opposite party No-2.
3. The complainant after purchasing the seed have raised the said seed in the month of July-2006, by investing huge amounts and accordingly the crop has grown up, the complainant took all precautionary measures by applying pesticides and fertilizers on the advise of Agriculture Officer, Koyachalaka. The Agriculture officer came to the field and opined that the crop was damaged only due to defective seeds.
4. 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,comes to Rs.50,000-00 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.75,,000/- to the complainant (ii) to award damages @ 25,000/- to the complainant for pain, suffering and mental agony caused due to the inferior quality of seed supplied by the opposite parties.(iii) to award costs of the complainant.
6. That the complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:
(i)Xerox copy of bill, dated 2-6-06 for an amount of Rs.3,000/-
7. Opposite Party No- 2 filed the following counter and the same is adopted by the opposite party No-1.
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.
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.5,000/- per quintal. There is no proof that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- 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.75,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.
11. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
12. The opposite party No-1&2 filed a memo stating that the counter of opposite party No-2 may be treated as chief affidavits and written arguments of opposite party No-1&2. The complainant filed his affidavit along with complaint.
13. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
14. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing that the expenditure of Rs.50,000/- . Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts except the seed purchase receipt of Rs.3,000/- .
15. 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.
16. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.217/07 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. In the result the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Open Forum on this 23rd day of September, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Nil
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
