BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 27th September 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 44 / 2013
V. Sambasiva Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy,
Hindu, 35 years, Agriculturist, resident of Gudipadu village,
Duvvur Mandal, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Nookala Subbarayudu Pesticides and Fertilizers,
D.No. 6/57, Duvvur, Duvvur mandal, YSR District,
C/o Annapurna Pesticides and Fertilizers,
D.No. 6/57, Duvvur, Duvvur Mandal, YSR District.
2. Mr. C.V. Bhaskar (Director), Bhaskar Fertilizers Ltd.,
18/1/343, Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur – 515005,
Andhra Pradesh, India. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 18-9-2014 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri N. Raja Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- it is submitted that the complainant is resident of Gudipadu Village of Duvvur Mandal. He is having land, an extent of Ac. 1.06 cents situated in S.Nos. 445/12-13 located in Gudipadu village apart from an extent of Ac. 8.80 cents situated in S.No. 446/1, 3 to 8 located in the field of Gudipadu village leased out by him from one V. Venkatrayulu Reddy. Besides this the wife of the complainant also own the land to an extent of Ac. 3.26 cents situated in S.No. 442/1, 442-2, 442-3 and 449 on different extent of land. The total extent of land is under cultivation of the complainant.
3. It is further submitted that the R1 is an authorized agent of the R2. The R2 is the manufacture / supplier of the fertilizers like potassium nitrate, Nitrogen, potash and urea. The R1 in the capacity of authorized agent of R2, establishing the shop under caption as “Nukala Subbarayudu Pesticides and Fertilizers” at Duvvuru town and used to sell the fertilizers of the R2 to the farmers of the villagers of Duvvuru Mandal.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant being an educated, is having good awareness in yielding more agricultural produce other than the villagers. Usually the complainant has been raising Groundnut and sunflower crops in his filed. As usual for the year 2012-2013, in Rabi season the complainant intending to sow the sunflower seeds in the land Ac. 8.80 cents situated in S.No. 446/1, 446/3 to 446/8 and Ac. 0-50 cents situated in S.No. 442, approached the R1 for purchase of fertilizer and asked him to provide good quality fertilizer. For which the R1, with his gullible words, offered the complainant to purchase the Bhaskar Fertilizers SSP Granules to get more income saying that it will be more effected than other fertilizers and suggested the complainant to apply 24 bags of SSP granules to the total extent of land i.e. Ac. 9-30 cents. Believing the words of the R1, the complainant had purchased 24 bags of SSP granules, manufactured by the R2, consisting of 1200 Kgs by paying Rs. 8,640/- to the R1 on 25-10-2012, hoping that he would get yielding more than others. Accordingly, the complainant applied the said SSP granules in his lands in S.No. 446/1, 446/3 to 446/8 to an extent of Ac. 8.80 cents and Ac. 0-50 cents situated in S.No. 442 and sowed the sun flower seed on 25-10-2012. The complainant took all the precautions steps and measures to germinate the sunflower seeds and to dissolve the SSP granules by giving two periodical irrigations apart from that the seasonal rains. The complainant used to follow the technical suggestions of the agricultural officers. So far the germination of sun flower crop was good but there was no growth in the sunflower crop though more than one month was completed.
5. The complainant on observation found the dissolved SSP granules here and there and also furrows in the soil. As the SSP Granules did not effected positively, the sun flower crop was very weak position than the crops of others. The complainant came to understand that the SSP granules manufactured by the R2 are inferior quality. Therefore, immediately after confirming the inferior quality of the Bhaskar Fertilizers SSP granules brought the matter to the notice of the R1 demanding him to pay the compensation. But there was no response from the R1. As such the complainant gave report to the Agricultural officer, Duvvur and the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur to visit his field and inspect the crop for scrutinisation of the dissolved SSP granules in his filed on 17-1-2012 in view of determination of inferior quality of the SSP Granules manufactured by the R2. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur inspected the field of the complainant on 20-12-2012 along with the Mandal Agricultural Officer of Duvvur and observed that the SSP granules manufactured by R2 are in the furrow inside the soil of the field of the complainant and also here and there on the top of the soil. Accordingly the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur in its report clearly mentioned that the granules are not dissolved in the soil even after 49 days even though two irrigations were given and rainfall was received. At that time the sunflower crop was at budding stage and forwarded the same to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa opining that the scientists are necessary for giving further clarification on 20-12-2012. Basing on the report of the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa YSR District through his letter dt. 24-12-2012, requested the coordinator, DAAT center, Utukur, Kadapa to depute one soil scientist to visit the field of the complainant and for giving suitable clarification.
6. Though the complainant made his best efforts in seeking the result from the scientists with in time the coordinator, DAAT center, Utukur, Kadapa did not send the scientist. Hence, the complainant again approached the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa for taking action to that effect the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa gain addressed a letter to the Associate Directorate of Research, R.A.R.S Tirupati requesting to depute one soil scientist to visit the field of complainant and give suitable clarification upon the issue of the inferior quality of SSP granules of the R2. Though the complainant made efforts with his level best, all his efforts were became futile. Therefore, the complainant ultimately on 9-01-2013 presented the complaint before the District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa to that effect on the same day one Sreenivasachari who is the scientist inspected the field of the complainant and secured the samples to send them for lab report. On that day along with the scientist, the representative of the R2 was also present and observed the filed. The scientist Sreenivasachari, A.D.A Mydukur confirmed that the SSP granules manufactured by the R2 are inferior quality. For which the R2’s company M.D Vijay Kumar gave promise that they would pay the compensation to the complainant. But the said M.D. Vijay Kumar did not take steps in payment of compensation; the complainant again approached the Dist. Collector, Kadapa for justice.
7. The complainant further submits that though he made his best efforts in getting the reports from the scientists to approach the Hon’ble forum to seek compensation from the respondents. Bu the R2 influenced all of them not to issue the reports and caused delay. In fact on 4-2-2013 the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur on the basis of the report dt. 20-12-2013, found fault on the part of the R1 in selling the dissolved SSP granules manufactured by the R2, has suspended the dealer license of fertilizer of the R1 for 10 days. Accordingly the fertilizer shop of the R1 has seized and suspended the license. As there was a clear evidence that R1 had sold away the inferior quality of SSP granules manufactured by the R2, the complainant demanded the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 3,42,000/- to him but there was no response from them. As such the complainant, on his complaint given to A.D.A Mydukur on 5-2-2013 cautioned that if the respondents would not come to pay the compensation, he will take steps for “Amarana Nirahara Deeksha”, before the office of ADA, Myudukur since all the officials were gain over by the R2. But the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur held mediation and decided to pay the compensation to the compensation by the R2. Though the R2 has agreed to pay the compensation, after influencing the Agricultural officials, evaded the payment of compensation. Therefore, the R2 along with the agricultural officials made the complainant to be believed the words of the R2 and caused to stop the endeavor of the complainant. Meanwhile the complainant obtained the report under RTI act from Mnadal Agricultural Officer, Singanamala, Ananthapur District on 18-2-2013 which reveals that the lot no. 39 was not taken samples for testing which is enclosing for perusal of the Hon’ble forum. Apart from that the complainant again sought the information with regard to the production, batch numbers and its lab reports along with the legal actions for the year 2012 from the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. As per the direction of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Hyderabad, the Mandal Agriculture officer, Singanamala gave report in relation to the production and its analysis along with the legal actions on 22-3-2013 which reveals that there is no lab testing for the batch numbers prior to the 18-10-2012. Hence, the R2 without testing the lot No. 39 referred the inferior quality of SSP granules to the R1 to sell away the same to farmers, with a view to getting wrongful gain. Due to the mischievous acts of the respondents the complainant, instead of getting income Rs. 32,000/- per acre (8 quintals X Rs. 4,000/- per quintal) totaling 9 acres 30 cents X 32,000/- = Rs. 2,96,000/- incurred expenditure nearly Rs. 1,50,000/- towards ploughing of the land, sun flower seeds, purchase of fertilizers, pesticides, weeding charges for labour, seeding charges and lease for Ac. 8.80 cents etc.,
8. The complainant further submits that he took all the steps on his part in yielding the sun flower crop, but due to the inferior quality of the fertilizers of the R2, sustained heavy loss. Apart from it, the R2 with his gullible words cheated the complainant for all these days stating that he would pay the compensation to the complainant. In this connection, though the complainant sought information with regard to the dated of production, quantity of production and on what date it was sent to the R1 along with the samples and its reports on 7-2-2013, till now there is no response from him on the other hand whenever the complainant asked him to comply his demand, cunning escaped on some pretext or the other. As the complainant was, believed the words of the respondents and routinely going around their offices for justice. Since no persons to look after the welfare of the sun flower crop and not given irrigations, the standing sun flower crop totally dried up. Besides the loss sustained by him, the complainant spend thousands of rupees towards charges apart from mental agony. Hence, the respondents also liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and for loss of his valuable time. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation under all heads severally or jointly. The requisite fee of rs. 200/- paid by the complainant by way of postal orders.
9. In the above circumstances, the complainant prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass award for Rs. 2,96,000/- towards compensation, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant under heads of ploughing of the land, sun flower seeds, purchased of fertilizers, weeding charges for labour, seeding charges and lease for Ac. 8.80 cents etc., Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and for loss of his valuable time, totaling Rs. 4,96,000/- in favour of the complainant and against the respondents 1 & 2 with interest @ 12% p.a till the date of realization jointly and severally as the Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper.
10. The counter filed by R2 that the allegations in para 1 of the complainant regarding extent, ownership and location of lands situated at Gudipadu village personally not known to this respondents. The relationship between the R1 and R2 are manufacturer and dealer relationship only. The R1 died on 6-11-2013 due to ill health. The allegations in para 2 of the complainant is partly correct and partly denied by this respondents.
11. The allegations in para – 3 of the complainant must be proved by the complainant regarding groundnut, sunflower in his field must prove by way of documentary evidence from the Revenue Authority prior to the sunflower crop by documentary proof.
12. The ingredients of complaint not come under the purview of Consumer forum. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against this respondent regarding the standard of manufacturing process. The granules which used by the complainant are not prohibited for manufacture by the concerned authority. There is no fault on the granules used by the complainant there was a mistake on the quality of seeds and rain fall and nature of soil. The land which cultivated by the complainant is a rain fed land further there is no rain fall after sowing the seeds along with granules more than 30 days. The soil is not tested by the complainant by the concern authority for suitable to sow sunflower seeds.
13. The allegations in para 4 of the complainant are all false and denied by this respondent but the complainant invented only for the purpose of this case. Except the complainant allegation there was no complaints from any Ryots either in this Dist. Or from any other District about the manufacturing standard. Due to non-rain fall or not sufficient wet in the atmosphere in the soil the granules may not merge in soil. There is no soil testing report about the lands whether it is fit for sowing sunflower seeds. The Agriculture Department people are competent to say about the soil seed and deceases only but not about grow thing defect arise with the using of fertilizers. Except purchasing of fertilizer shop bill there are no other documents to support his case about the sub-standard in the manufacturing of granules. The bill which filed along with complaint purely not belonging to the SS Granules.
14. The allegations in para 5 of the complaint are all false and denied by this respondent and those officials are no way concerned to determine the standard of the fertilizers production only. With a view to black mail this respondents the present case is filed. In fact the complainant given a letter to the Agriculture Officer, Mydukur on 9-2-2013 about his withdrawal of complaint against the respondents after satisfying the information given by the officials about the opinion regarding fertilizers.
15. This respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. There was no manufacturing except in the fertilizers used by the complainant. The complainant allegations are baseless and no cause of action. The documents which filed along with complaint are no way concerned to the facts of the case. Due to quality of seed and rain fall and soil nature the sun flower not yielded but not with the S.S Granules.
16. R1 died on 06-11-2013 the same was intimated by way of memo filed by the counsel of R1.
17. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
18. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A16 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 & B2 were marked.
19. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is true that the complainant and his wife are having lands at Gudipadu village under Ex. A3. The complainant purchased fertilizers under Ex. A1 from R1 shop, who is the dealer of R2. As per Ex. A4 the complainant has sown sunflower crop in an extent of Ac. 8.80 cents at Gudipadu Village, Duvvur Mandal. As the sunflower crop was not upto growth and the complainant has given complaint to the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur under Ex. A2 on 17-12-2012. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur had given report to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa on 20-12-2012, which shows that the SSP granules has not dissolved in the soil even after a period of 49 days of irrigation. As the SSP Granules has not shown any positive effect on the crop. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa requested the Associate Directorate of Research, R.A.R.S Tirupati, dt. 3-01-2013 to depute one soil scientist to visit the field and give suitable clarification on the quality of the SSP Granules, purchased by the complainant, which was used in sunflower filed of the complainant. The complainant had given the complaint to the Dist. Collector under Ex. A8 demanding action on duplicate fertilizers. Under Ex. A9 the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur had suspended the dealer license i.e. R1 shop license for 10 days on the doubt of quality of the fertilizers. It clearly proves that there is low quality in the fertilizers, otherwise there will not be any suspension on the license of the dealer. So it proves the low quality of the fertilizers. Under Ex. A11 the complainant applied for the report of lab test SSP granules produced by the Bhaskara Fertilizers i.e. R2 company, under RTI Act. Under analysis report of fertilizers sample there are definitely variations in mixing of the chemicals in producing the fertilizers. All the reports shown variations of the mixing of chemicals. Under Ex. A14 the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Singnamalla requested the Joint Director of Anantapur to take administrative action / legal action on Bhaskar Fertilizers Ltd., under FCO 1985 from the date of its establishment. From all the above documentary evidence, it is very clear that the R2 Company produced duplicate fertilizers / low quality fertilizers and got unlawful gain by selling the same. So the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him. As the R1 died on 06-11-2013 and the memo filed by the counsel of R1 & R2. So the burden lies on R2, who was manufacturer of fertilizers. It clearly proves unfair trade practice on the part of R2. The documentary evidence filed by R2 did not support their case.
20. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent No. 2, to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand only) to the complainant towards loss of crop, pay Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) towards expenses for ploughing the land, purchase of seeds, fertilizers and etc., pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards mental agony to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th September 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 copy of cash receipt issued by the authorized agent of Nukala Subbarayhudu Pesticides and Fertilizers, Duvvur dt. 25-10-2012.
Ex. A2 Copy of complaint given to the A.D.A. Mydukur by the complainant dt. 17-12-2012.
Ex. A3 Copies of pass books of the complainant and his wife V. Lakshmi Devi.
Ex. A4 Crop and area sown confirmation certificate issued by the V.R.O, Gudipadu Village of Duvvur Mandal.
Ex. A5 Copy of report issued by the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Mydukur given to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa dt. 20-12-2012.
Ex. A6 Copy of request letter issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa given to the coordinator, DAATI, Utukur, Kadapa dt. 24-12-2012.
Ex. A7 Copy of request letter issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa given to the Associate Directorate of Research, RARS, Tirupati, dt. 3-1-2013.
Ex. A8 Complaint given to the Dist. Collector, Kadapa dt. 24-12-2012.
Ex. A9 Memo order of suspension of license of the R1 issued by the Asst. Director of Agriculture dt. 4-2-2013.
Ex. A10 Complaint given to the A.D.A Mydukur by the complainant dt. 5-2-2013.
Ex. A11 RTI application of the complainant dt. 7-2-2013 and answer sheets issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Singanamalla Mandal, Anantapur District.
Ex. A12 Copies of paper publications 5 in number.
Ex. A13 Two photos showing the standing crop of sun flower.
Ex. A14 Copy of application dt. 7-2-2013 to Mandal Agriculture officer, Duvvur and its answer sheet issued by Mandal Agriculture officer, Duvvur under RTI Act dt. 26-2-2013.
Ex. A15 RTI Act application addressed to Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and its reply issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Singanamalla.
Ex. A16 RTI Act application issued in the name of the R2, dt. 6-2-2013.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 Rain fall particulars of Duvvur Mandal during 20120-2013.
Ex. B2 Sample granulated single super phosphate batch No. 39, test certificate dt. 11-2-2013.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri N. Raja Reddy, Advocate for respondents.
B.V.P.
