IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.160/2009 (Filed on 01.12.2009)
Between:
K.M. Joseph,
Kuttivayalil,
Madathamon,
Naranammoozhy,
Pathanamthitta. …. Complainant
And:
1. Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner,
Rubber Board Regional Office,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Development Officer,
Regional Officer,
Pathanamthitta.
Addl. 3. The Secretary,
Rubber Board,
Subjail Road,
Kottayam – 2.
(By Adv. Jacob Varghese) …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is an agriculturist having 5 acres of land. The opposite parties are the officers of the Rubber Board. As per the advertisement in the Malayala Manorama and the class taken by the opposite parties to the members of the Rubber Producers Society with regard to the high yielding variety of Rubber trees like PB 235 and PB 260, complainant decided to plant the said variety. He enquired about the said trees and opposite parties advised to cut and remove the standing trees and to plant the high yielding trees variety of PB 235 and PB 260. Accordingly, complainant cut and removed the standing trees and purchased the rubber sapling from opposite parties and planted it. The complainant is the member of Rubber Production Society and was assisted by the officers of the Rubber Board for the healthy growth of the rubber tree. When the rubber plant grew big and was fit for tapping the complainant started tapping but there was very little latex from the rubber plant. The said matter was intimated to the opposite parties and a team of officers visited the spot and on tapping they found that there was very less latex from the rubber trees.
3. The complainant suffered a loss of ` 5 lakh due to the misleading of opposite parties in planting the PB 235 and PB 260. It is a clear deficiency of service on their part. Hence this complaint for getting ` 5 lakh as compensation and ` 1 lakh for pain and suffering with cost.
4. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, complaint is barred by limitation and none of the prayers are legal and allowable. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Rubber Board being a statutory authority and the legal entity is not made as a party to the proceedings.
5. According to them, PB 235 and PB 260 clones do not belong to the Rubber Research Institute of India. They are Malasian clones. Since 1980’s , the Rubber Board is promoting the clone RRII as the same is indigenously developed by the RRII and is a high yielding clone. All other allegations made in the complaint with regard to some advice about the clones are false and hence denied. Complainant produced the bill only for the purchase of 150 number of rubber budded stumps, of which 100 is of PB 260 and 50 is of PB 235. But not specific with regard to the extent and number of trees planted by the complainant.
6. The Rubber Board is constituted with the basic motive of promotion of rubber and its allied industries. It is true that advises are given to every one who seeks it. That does not make the Rubber Board for any kind of defect in the clone or its methodology in planting, maintenance etc. The complainant has to prove emphatically that it is due to any deficiency of service on the part of this opposite parties to claim any damages against them. The quantity of latex is not due to defect of the clone alone, but absence of adoption of scientific cultural practices such as planting in the correct time and method, proper upkeep, manuring, weeding plant protection measures, maintenance etc.
7. In the routine practice of the Rubber Board to attend the grievance of any rubber grower in general and suggest all possible help to get better yield. In this case also expert might have inspected the rubber plantation of the complainant. A mere visit and advice will not make Rubber Board or its officers in any way liable for any defect in planting etc. Moreover, this complaint is a much belated one and can be treated only as an abuse of the process of law with some ulterior motive to harass the opposite parties.
8. Opposite parties further submit that yield from the tree depend upon the scientific planting, upkeep, cultural operations carried out like manuring, weeding, maintenance, opening for tapping with trained tappers, scientific tapping, adaption of disease control measures etc. Moreover according to complainant, he purchased the saplings on 11.11.1999 for planting in his field. The planting season prescribed for rubber is from June to August, i.e. rainy season. The month of November and its following months are unfavourable period for rubber planting as it is a dry period. Planting during unfavourable period and conditions may cause heavy damages and chances of plants getting dried and replacement possibilities are very high. Considering these circumstances also, it cannot be in any way made sure that the budded stumps purchased by him on 11.11.1999 are the same as those now standing in the property of the complainant. Considering the above facts, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
9. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
10. Evidence of this complainant consists of the oral deposition of PW1, CW1 and CW2 and Exts.A1 to A5 and C1 to C3. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
11. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the receipt for ` 900 dated 11.11.1999 issued by the Rubber Board. Ext.A2 is the receipt of ` 10 as application fee issued by the Rubber Board on 14.11.2008. Ext.A2(a) is the letter under Right to Information Act issued by the Rubber Board to complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of application dated 04.11.2008 under Right to Information Act. Ext.A3(a) is the postal receipt of Ext.A3. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter dated 12.11.2008 to Rubber Board as per Right to Information Act. Ext.A4(a) is the receipt of ` 10 as fee for Ext.A4 information. Ext.A4(b) is the receipt from Federal Bank. Ext.A4(c) is the postal receipt of Ext.A4. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter sent to Chairman, Rubber Board, Kottayam by complainant. Expert Commissioner and Advocate Commissioner were also examined as CW1 and CW2 and their reports were marked as Exts.C1 to C3. Ext.C1 is the expert Commission Report. Ext.C2 is the Report on Molecular Analysis of the leaf samples collected from the rubber plantation belonging to complainant. Ext.C3 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
12. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite parties. But they have cross-examined PW1 and CW’s 1 and 2.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that opposite parties advised to cultivate PB 235 and PB 260 varieties, which are high yielding rubber trees. They also given advertisement in newspaper to that effect. Complainant purchased rubber saplings from opposite parties and planted it. The cultivation of the said saplings was under the supervision of opposite parties and other officials of Rubber Board. It grown and at the time of tapping, the yield from rubber trees were very low. Hence this complaint.
14. Opposite parties contention is that PB 235 and PB 260 clones do not belong to the Rubber Research Institute of India. They are Malaysian clones. According to them, Rubber Board promoting the clone RRII 105 which indigenously developed high yielding clone. Rubber Board is constituted with the motive promotion of rubber and its allied industries. Advises are given to every one who seek it. That does not mean that they are liable for any kind of defect in the clone or it methodology in planting, maintenance etc. The quality of latex is not due to the defect of the clone alone, but absence of adaption of scientific cultural practices such as planting in correct time and method, proper upkeep, manuring, weeding, plant protection measures, scientific tapping, adaption of disease control measures, maintenance etc. Complainant purchased saplings on 11.11.1999 for planting in his field. The planting season prescribed for rubber is from June to August, i.e. rainy season. Planting during unfavourable period may cause heavy damages. Therefore, opposite parties had not committed any deficiency as alleged by the complainant.
15. The only dispute is that latex from the grown rubber trees were very low. Opposite parties plea is that there is a serious omission on the part of complainant to implement the scientific cultivation and scientific tappings etc.
16. On a perusal of Ext.C1 and C2, it is revealed that expert commission identified that grown rubber trees were Malaysian clones of PB 235 and PB 260. For that molecular analysis of the leaf samples were also conducted. They also reported that the planting and tapping was done without following the recommended standard practice of the Rubber Board and also none of the disease control measures is being followed. From the above report it is crystal clear that complainant’s allegation low yielding of latex is due to the unscientific method followed by him and there is no fault or deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Complainant has not challenged Ext.C1 to C3 report also. In this circumstance, we are not inclined to allow this complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of November, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : K.M. Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Receipt dated 11.11.2009 for ` 900 issued by Rubber
Board in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Receipt dated 14.11.2008 for ` 10 as application fee issued
by the Rubber Board in the name of the complainant.
A2(a) : Letter under Right to Information Act issued by Rubber
Board to the complainant.
A3 : Copy of application dated 04.11.2008 sent by the
complainant to 1st opposite party under Right to
Information Act.
A3(a) : Postal receipt of Ext.A3.
A4 : Copy of letter dated 12.11.2008 sent by the complainant
to 1st opposite party to Rubber Board as per Right to
Information Act.
A4(a) : Receipt dated 12.11.2008 for ` 10 as fee for Ext.A4
information.
A4(b) : Receipt dated 12.11.2008 issued by Federal Bank.
A4(c) : Postal receipt of Ext.A4.
A5 : Photocopy of letter dated 31.03.2008 sent by the
complainant to 3rd opposite party
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil
Court Witness:
CW1 : Dr. C.P. Reghu
CW2 : Roshan Nair
Court Exhibits:
C1 : Commission Report.
C2 : Test Report
C3 : Commission Report.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) K.M. Joseph, Kuttivayalil, Madathamon,
Naranammoozhy, Pathanamthitta. (2) Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner,
Rubber Board Regional Office, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Development Officer, Regional Officer,
Pathanamthitta.
(4)The Secretary, Rubber Board, Subjail Road,
Kottayam – 2.
(5) The Stock File.
