DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.1088 of 2012
Sri Sudhir Kumar, aged about 30 yrs.,
S/o Sri Lavkush ,
R/o Gram-Paalpatan,
Pargana & Post & Tehsil- Fatehpur,
District- Barabanki.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Manager,
Biotech Park, Tedhi Puliya,
Sector-G, Jankipuram, Kursi Road,
Lucknow-226021.
2. Director,
Biotech Park, Tedhi Puliya,
Sector-G, Jankipuram, Kursi Road,
Lucknow-226021.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment investment amount of Rs.3,00,000.00, compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00, Conveyance of Rs.25,000.00, other expenses of Rs.50,000.00 totalling Rs.4,75,000.00 and cost of the litigation.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had purchased plants of banana (tissue culture) on 16.08.2011 for Rs.10,000.00 and on 20.08.2011 for Rs.10,000.00 and on 05.09.2011 for Rs.8,000.00 for planting them in his farm. The OPs had told the Complainant, at the time of purchase, that the tissue culture was of very good quality and will provide a very good yield and the plants will not be gaining height of more than 4 to 5 feet. The Complainant planted the tissue culture
-2-
plants in his farm and took proper care of them but because the quality of the plants was not good, hence the plants gained height of 10 to 12 feet. They bore small fruits and there was much less yield from them. The Complainant had invested about Rs.30,000.00 per bigha (Kacha Bigha). No recovery of the investment could be made out of the yield. The tissue culture plants ruined his crop of about 10 bighas. The Complainant, after 4 months, met the OPs but the OPs had said that the species of these plants were of excellent quality and there would be excellent yield. After one year, the plants started bearing small fruits whereas the plant’s height grew to about 10-11 feet. The Complainant made the OPs aware of the ruining of his crops and asked them to see that and to return the investment made by him but the OPs neither went up to the farm nor stated anything about the compensation, therefore the Complainant sent notices to the OPs but the OPs did not pay any heed. The OPs have cheated the Complainant by saying that the tissue culture plants were of high quality whereas the Complainant suffered because of that and since the OPs have not repaid the investment made by the Complainant, hence this complaint.
The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant purchased 2800 Grand Naine variety of tissue culture banana plants and paid Rs.28,000.00 and the 2000 banana plants were collected by the Complainant on 20.08.2011 and 800 banana plants on 05.09.2011. The Complainant has failed to furnish relevant supporting documents for delivery of 800 banana plants but a gate pass was issued by the OPs. The Complainant purchased 200 banana plants and delivery of the plants was taken on 30.09.2011. The Complainant claims that plant variety is defective which has resulted in excess growth of height and lower yields of banana in the plants. These allegations of the Complainant are false, baseless and without any technical evaluation by an expert. The Complainant has failed to provide
-3-
any expert report or laboratory report. No commitment was made as regards to specified quantity of yields by the OPs. No promise was made by the OPs to the Complainant that the height of the banana plants shall not be more than 5 feet to 6 feet. The heading Financial Gain in the pamphlet clearly specifies that height of the plants shall be in the range of 2.3 meters to 2.5 meters i.e. approx. between 7.8 feet to 8.4 feet and same information was also communicated to the Complainant during the briefing as well. The time for sowing the banana plants is from the month of June to the month of August as stated in the pamphlet. As evident from the gate passes, the Complainant had taken 2000 plants on 20.08.2011 i.e. at the fag-end of specified period of sowing and balance banana plants were taken in the month of September, 2011 i.e. after the expiry of specified period for sowing the plants. The excess height of plants and lower yield of fruits could be due to late plantation and other wrong agronomy followed by the Complainant. The photo annexed in the complaint shows that plants bore reasonably good banana bunch which would certainly have market value. Grand Naine variety of tissue culture banana plants is of good quality and free from viruses. On his complaint about excess height lower yield of the fruits in the plants, the horticulture supervisor Mr. R.P. Sharma and Project Manager Mr. Netra Pal visited the fields of Complainant and found that the Complainant, subsequent to the sowing of plants, has not taken proper care of the plants as described in the pamphlet and explained to him. During the financial year 2011-12 plants were supplied to other farmers and Horticulture Department but no complaints have been received. The legal notice of the Complainant for the claim has not been received by the OPs. The Complainant has no right to claim losses arising due to application of wrong agronomy by him. The OPs cannot be held liable for the losses arising due to the fault of the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled
-4-
to any relief against the OPs. The complaint is vexatious and based on frivolous facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit and 1 photograph and 27 papers. The OPs have filed 3 annexures with the WS. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.
Heard Counsel for the parties and peruse the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the OPs sold out banana plantlets (tissue culture) of poor quality to the Complainant whereby the crop of the Complainant was ruined and he had to suffer financially a lot and hence the OPs committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service or OPs supplied the Complainant good quality of plantlets (tissue culture) but because of the improper care of the plants the crop did not yield desired results and that the OPs did not commit any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
The contention of the Complainant is that OPs promised that the banana plantlets tissue culture were of very good quality and that they would yield good fruits but as the plants were of poor quality, hence they did not bear good fruits and the crop was ruined and he could not even recover the investment made by him. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the OPs in this regard is that the Complainant did not take proper care of the plants and that is why there was no good crop and for that the OPs are not responsible. Another argument of OPs is that the Complainant had taken the plantlets in the month of August and in September 2011 i.e. at the fag-end of the specified period of sowing and therefore the yield of the plants was not good. Now, here the question arises as to why the plants were sold to the Complainant at the fag-end of the specified period of sowing once the OPs knew that the period of sowing is normally over. It is the duty of the seller to tell the consumer
-5-
that even if he buys seeds/plants at the end of the sowing period then they would not bear good yield and therefore the consumer should not buy them. Therefore, there is the negligence on the part of the OPs in selling the plants in the month of August and September at the end of the specified period of sowing when they knew fully well that the plants could not be bearing good results. Besides, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the OPs that the Complainant did not take proper care of the plants and therefore there was much less yield is also not proved by any evidence produced by the OPs whereby it could be discerned that the Complainant did not take proper care as per the norms of the plants in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Complainant did not take proper care of the plants especially when he himself has stated that the proper care of the plants was taken. Besides, there is no reason why a person who is investing money in the growth of the plants will not be taking proper care of the plants in question, knowing fully well that any improper care will ruin the crop. The OPs have admitted that the Complainant had made complaint about the excess height and lower yield of fruits in the plants and horticulture supervisor Mr. R.P. Sharma and Project Manager Mr. Netra Pal visited the fields of the Complainant and found that the proper care was not taken by the Complainant but it is not specified in the WS as to what defaults were committed by the Complainant in not taking care of the plants. On the contrary, it is borne out from the aforesaid averments made in the WS in para 27 that the complaint regarding excess height and less yield was found to be correct. As stated above, there is no evidence to show as to what defaults were made by the Complainant in taking proper care of the plants and therefore simply saying that the Complainant did not take proper care of the plants will not absolve the OPs from their responsibility of
-6-
providing justification for not having a good crop of the Complainant with regard to the banana plantlets supplied by the OPs. Another arguments advanced by the OPs is that the OPs did not receive any complaint from any other quarter regarding the banana plants to be of poor quality but firstly it cannot be ascertained as to whether any other farmer had made a complaint about the plants being of poor quality or not to the OPs as the matter pertains to the OPs only. Besides, it is not of much importance as the question here is of the plants supplied to the Complainant which did not yield good crop. The Complainant has also filed photograph of some of the plants which were ruined. This photograph has been filed alongwith an affidavit and the photograph also shows bearing good fruit but there is no doubt that some of the plants ostensibly appear to have been ruined and there does not appear to be any reason as to why particular plants were ruined and other plants at that site bear proper fruits unless the plantlets of the ruined plants were of bad quality. One of the plants is shown in the photograph to be having proper yield but from the averments made by the Complainant and the evidence of the OPs that their Horticulture Supervisor and Project Manager visited the site and found the crop ruined, it is clear that on the whole there was huge loss of the crop to the Complainant. So far as the plants which did not bear good fruit, if it had been a case of improper care of the plants then all the plants would not have yielded any fruit but some of the plants appear to be giving proper yield, shows that some of the plants were of not good quality and that is why there was the loss of yield to the Complainant. This amply proves the fact that most of the plantlets supplied, were of bad quality whereby most of his crop was ruined. Therefore, the OPs have committed unfair trade practice in supplying bad quality banana plantlets to the Complainant whereby the crop of the Complainant was ruined. The Complainant therefore is entitled to get back the price of the plants supplied by the OPs to the Complainant.
-7-
Now, the question arises as what the amount Complainant is entitled as compensation. The Complainant has claimed Rs.4,25,000.00 as the amount of investment with compensation but he is entitled only the amount of cost of the banana plantlets. As he has also been harassed in this regard, hence he is also entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the cost of the plants of Rs.28,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Only) to the complainant.
The OPs are also directed to Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance of the order is not made within a month then the OPs shall pay 10% interest on the entire amount due.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 29 April, 2015
