KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 154/2009
JUDGMENT DATED 10.2.2011
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Managing Director,
T. Stanes & Company Ltd.,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore, 641 018
(Rep. by Adv. Sri George Thomas Mevada)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1 C.T. Sebastian @ Saju,
Chemplayil House,
Pallikkadu Estate, Nedumkandam, P.O., Idukki District.
2. The Managing Director,
Southern Crop Science Private
Limited. Vandanmedu P.O., Idukki District.
3. Sunil Kumar,
Agricultural Officer, Agriculture Office,
Nedumkandam P.O
( R1 Rep. by Adv. Sri. Byju Kuriakose)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 29.11.2008 of CDRF, Idukki in C.C. 53/08 is being challenged in this appeal by the first opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order, the first and second opposite parties are directed to refund Ext. P1 bill amount of Rs. 92,040/- and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order failing which the amounts shall carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of default. However the complainant is also under direction to pay to the 3rd opposite party a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is an agriculturist having 24 acres of land at Nedumkunnam and 30 acres of land at Chemmannor and that he is cultivating cardamom and pepper in the properties and that he had purchased organic fertilizer named ‘Animeal’ from the second opposite party. It is his case that the representatives of the first and second opposite parties approached him and ensured that the product Animeal is fit for good production of cardamom and pepper and that the Animeal purchased by him was used in his plantation. It is his further case that after 2 to 3 weeks of the application of the fertilizer the roots of cardamom plants were decayed and destroyed and they were falling down and the pepper vines became dried and destroyed. The complainant alleged that it was because of the use of the fertilizer that his cultivation of cardamom and pepper suffered destruction and there was presence of chemical substances in the manure supplied by the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed praying as for directions to the first and second opposite parties to refund the price of the manure with compensation and costs.
The first opposite party filed version wherein it was admitted that a complaint from the complainant was received regarding damages to crops through a lawyer notice dated 5.10.2007. On receipt of notice the first opposite party visited the plantation and no damage of any sort, as alleged by the complainant, was detected to any pepper vine or cardamom plant. It is also submitted that the Animeal is an organic fertilizer and no chemical reaction is involved in its manufacture. The further case of the opposite party is that the brochure produced by the complainant was not the one given to him when he purchased the disputed Animeal bags and that the complainant has collected an old brochure to test whether he can make an unlawful gain against the opposite parties. It is contended that due to application of the Animeal supplied by the first opposite party no cardamom plant or pepper vine of the complainant was damaged as alleged. Arguing for the position that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complainant.
The third opposite party filed a version and stated that the complaint is not maintainable as against him as there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. It is also submitted by him that the 3rd opposite party is in no way connected with the transaction between the complainant and the first and second opposite parties. It is further submitted that he is only an agricultural officer and as per the direction of the Asst. Director, agricultural Office, Idukki he had inspected the estate of the complainant and he had submitted a report to the Asst. Director with the findings that he could see no loss of crop as alleged by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and Exts. P1 to P8 series in the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts. R1 and R2 were marked. The Forum below appointed an Advocate commissioner to file a report regarding the loss sustained, if any, by the complainant and same is marked as Ext. C1.
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and hence the same is liable to be set aside. It is his very case that at no stretch of imagination, if at all there is any damage to the plants like cardamom and pepper vines, it can not be projected as the reason for using the animeal supplied by the first and second opposite parties inviting our attention to the deposition of DW1 the scientist and Head ICRI Spices Board he canvassed for the position that the Animeal contained no harmful chemicals. It is also his case that the complainant has not produced any material to show that Animeal contained chemicals and it was on application of the said Animeal that the plants were destroyed. The learned counsel relied on the Commission report marked as Ext. C1 and argued before us that even in the C1 report there is no report as to the damage to the plants and the test report of the product at Indian Cardomom Research Station, Mailadumpara also shows that the product Animeal is a quality product , and in the said facts and circumstances, the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint rather than directing the opposite party to pay back the value of the Animeal and to pay compensation and costs.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is submitted by him that as per the brochure produced as Ex. P5, the combinational ratio of the Animeal there is presence of chemicals and it was due to the application of the said Animeal that the cardamom and pepper plants were destroyed which resulted in heavy loss to the complainant. It is further argued by him that even the Forum has come to the conclusion that some defect has caused to the plantation of the complainant though the actual number of plants decayed is not furnished. It is further submitted by him that though Rs. 19 lakhs was prayed for as compensation, the Forum below had awarded only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- along with a direction to refund the price of the fertilizer amounting to Rs. 92,040/- and he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with cost.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, first respondent and also on perusing the records we find that it is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the disputed product named Anemeal from the second opposite party for a sum of Rs. 92,040/- to be used as a cultivating manure in his property coming to 54 acres of land and that it is because of the chemical contents in the fertilizer that his cardamom and pepper vines were damaged. The appellant would argue that the fertilizer that was sold did not contain any such materials and to support his contention, he has relied on the report of the agricultural officer and Ext. C1 report. The Forum below has also found that Ext. C1 report or P7 report never proves any damage to the plantation. The Forum below has also found that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show the actual number of plants decayed. We find that Dw1 who is the scientist has also stated that no harmful element is present in the product named Animeal. It is seen that the complainant has relied on a brochure of the opposite parties which would say that the ratio of contents does not agree with the ratio of contents that has been reported by the Cardamom Research Institute Mailadumpara. On a perusal of Ext. P5, the prochure produced by the complainant, it does not bare any date of the brochure. The opposite parties had argued that, no definite percentage of contents or nutrients can be fixed for an organic fertilizer and the opposite parties never represented that the percentage of contents or nutrients of Animeal is 7:10:5. However Dw1 has definitely stated that no harmful element is presented in the product and as the Forum below had come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the correct picture of damage caused to the plantation and also that Ext. C1 report or P7 report never proves any damage to the plantation, we are unable to uphold the directions of Forum below. We find that the order directing to pay the bill amount with compensation and cost is liable to be set aside. We do so accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed the order dated 29.11.2008 in C.C. 53/2008 of CDRF, Idukki is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
ST
