BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.76 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.18 OF 2019, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KHAMMAM Between:

Chintakayala Veerabhadram, S/o.Sahadev, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kannegundla, H/o.Thodellagudem (V), Dornakal (M), Mahabubabad District.

.…Appellant/Complainant And

1. M/s.Rythu Mithra Trading Co., Rep. by its Proprietor, H.No.2-2-13, Laxmipathi Complex, Burmashal Road, Khammam. 2. M/s.Sri Srinivasa Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor, H.No.2-3-96/49/6, Gold Complex, Ganeshgunj, Khammam.

3. M/s.Little Hybrid Seeds & Co., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, # 6-20-76, 1st Floor, 11/1, Arundalpeta, Guntur.

4. M/s.Esha Agri Seeds Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, H.No.1-9-171, Dwarkapuram Road, 6A, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad – 500060.

…..Respondents/Opp.Parties 1 to 4 Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s.KRR Associates Mr.K.Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Opp.Party No.1: M/s.K.Mahesh Counsel for the Respondents 2&4/OPs2&4: M/s.K.Yadagiri Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.3/Opp.Party No.3: Notice served QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders of District Commission, Khammam passed in CC.No.18 of 2019 dated 29.01.2021 and pass such other order or orders as this Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in CC.No.18/2019.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant is a resident of Kannegundla, H/o.Thodellagudem (V), Dornakal (M), Mahabubabad District and is an agriculturist who is cultivating his lands to raise commercial crops like chillies, cotton etc. He intended to raise chilli crop to an extent of Ac.1.16 Gts in Survey No.8/A/1/1 & 528/B1/2. He approached Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and purchased –

(i) Bhanu Teja, Lot No.NCH-189, 5 packets x 10 grams x 230 which comes to Rs.1,150/- vide receipt No.2292 dated 29.06.2018.

(ii) Rana, Lot No.1923-30-A, 5 packets x 10 grams x 250/- which comes to Rs.1,250/- vide receipt No.985 dated 29.06.2018.

4. The said seeds were manufactured, produced, packed and marketed by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 respectively. The Complainant purchased the said seeds and raised the crop in the month of June and July,2018 by investing huge amounts for cultivation, manuring and precautionary measures for applying pesticides and fertilizers on the advice of the agricultural officer and Opposite Party No.1. It is his grievance that the said chilli plants were without flowering and he approached Opposite Party No.1 and agricultural officer and reported the same. On his complaint, the Assistant Director of Horticulture visited his fields and opined that the crop was damaged due to defective seeds. In spite of taking all the precautions and following due procedures, he could not get even 10% flowering in his field. He claims that he is a consumer of the Opposite Parties and has filed the complaint for the loss sustained and towards the agony suffered.

5. The Opposite Party No.1 is M/s. Rythu Mithra Trading Company. In their written version, they have submitted that the baseless allegations that the Complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.5,24,500/- is without an iota of proof. They submitted that the Complainant failed to apply for appointment of Commissioner for physical observation of crop with the help of any Agricultural Officer so as to come to positive conclusion for his alleged claim. Further, the boundaries of lands shown were not identified by the V