This is a discussion on Ushasri Pesticides within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; Cherukuri Kondala Rao, S/o.Narsaiah, age: 40 years, occu: Agrl., r/o.Koyachiluka, Khammam urban mandal, Khammam District. ...Complainant 1. Ushasri Pesticides & ...
Cherukuri Kondala Rao, S/o.Narsaiah, age: 40 years, occu: Agrl.,
r/o.Koyachiluka, Khammam urban mandal, Khammam District.
1. Ushasri Pesticides & Seeds, rep. by its Proprietor, Gandhi Chowk,
2. Mahyco Vegetable Seeds Limited, Resham Bhavan, 78 Veer Nariman
2. The complainant is an agriculturist and he used to raise commercial crops like chillies, cotton, maize and redgram etc. In the year, 2006 he intends to raise chilli crop in his land, approached the opposite party No.1 on 5-7-2006 and purchased 12 packets of Tejaswini Chilli Seeds for Rs.2,400/- vide bill No.142. After purchase of the seed, by investing huge amounts he sowed the seed in his land and the nursery was transplanted. As per the instructions of opposite parties, he has taken all precautionary measures from time to time by applying pesticides and fertilizers. Inspite of this, the said crop was not at all grown as per the advertisement of the opposite parites. Even after taking much care, the said crop was not flowered and there is no yielding. Immediately, the same was intimated to the Agriculture Officer, Khammam urban mandal, Khammam District. The agriculture officer informed that the crop was affected with virus due to the defective seeds supplied by the opposite parties.
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.1-20gts., by investing an amount of Rs.75,000/-towards ploughing, manures, transplantation, etc. Due to inferior quality of seed supplied by the opposite parties, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards damages, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony caused due to the inferior quality of seed supplied, and to award costs.
5. That the complainant filed his affidavit along with the complaint and filed a purchase bill dt.5-7-2006 for Rs.2,400/-.
6. After receipt of notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed counter, denying all the allegations made in the complaint and contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and he is the dealer for opposite party No.2, hence the opposite party No.2 is only responsible for the quality of seeds. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.
7. Opposite Party No-2 filed its written statement with the following averments and submitted that the complainant has 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 was 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 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.75,000/- for cultivation of chilli crop. 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”. The complainant is not entitled to any damages of Rs.75,000/- towards crop loss and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs
9. The complaint and opposite parties did not file written arguments. The complainant filed his affidavit along with complaint.
10. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?
11. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not file any receipts showing the expenditure of Rs.75,000/- . Admittedly the complainant did not file any receipts except the seed purchase receipt of Rs.2,450/- .
12. 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 sent to the appropriate laboratory for testing analysis.
13. The complainant filed the petition I.A.No.545/2007 to appoint an Advocate/Commissioner to inspect the field of the complainant to assess damages. The advocate/commissioner did not file report for reasons best known to him.
14. It is also the contention of the opposite parties 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.
15. 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.