Director, Regional Agrl.Research centre V/S P N Ashokan - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

03/2005OP

P N Ashokan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, Regional Agrl.Research centre - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2007

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 03/2005OP

P N Ashokan Karunakaran						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Director, Regional Agrl.Research centre						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Dated this the 14th day of November 2007. PRESENT:- Sri. K. Gheevarghese, M.A, L.L.B - President Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B - Member 1. P. N. Ashokan, S/o. Narayanan, : Poonjarankudiyil (House), : Bhoothanam Colony P.O, : Pulpally Amsom, : Sulthan Bathery Taluk. : : Complainant 2. Karunakaran, S/o. Tholan, : Kurichipatta Veedu, : Bhoothanam Colony, P.O. Pulpally, : Sulthan Bathery Taluk. : Director, : Regional Agricultural Research Centre : Ambalavayal, : Opposite party. Ambalavayal P.O, S.Bathery Taluk. : : Opposite party by : T.R. Balakrishnan, Advocate S. Bathery. ORDER By Sri.K. Gheevarghese, President: The Complaint filed under section as of the Consumer Protection Act. The sum up of the Complaint is as follows. The Complainants are the small farmers involved in cultivating vegetables and other short term crops. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party and purchased seeds of 300 gms bitter gourd, 150 gms cow pea, two packets ash card one packet Tomato and some other seeds. Towards the value of the seeds purchased Rs.431/- was given to the Opposite (Contd.....2) -2- Party. All the varieties of seeds were properly germinated and cultivated in the lease land taken by the Complainant. All the different type of seeds were germinated on sowing except the seeds of tomato. The other seeds were grown, properly maintained sufficient drainage was also given. The seeds of tomato, cow pea and snake gourd were not of good quality. Leaves of snake gourd turned pale and did not yield on growth. The entire cultivation of vegetables did not yield properly and sufficiently. Opposite Party is involved in the service of the supply of substandard quality and variety of seeds to the Complainant and it is the deficient service of the Opposite Party and the Complainant are to be compensated Rs.75,000/-. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party. However the purchase of the seeds by the Complainant covered under receipt No.41/35688 was admitted. The Complainant expressly informed the opposite party of the poor quality, of the seeds purchased on 22.12.2004. Upon receipt of the Complaint the Opposite Party directed a diagnostic team to inspect the cultivation of the Complainant. According to the report submitted by the diagnostic team the cultivation was done in an area with poor drainage facility. The crops were infected by pests and diseases the Complainants applied pesticides and other medicines and the applications of hormone were also done in the period. The poor growth and yielding of the vegetables were due to the improper management of the cultivation. According to the Opposite Party the pathogenic insects were not controlled applying proper pesticides or insecticide. Similarly the allegation of the Complaint that the seeds of bitter gourd cow pea etc. are of poor quality and of different variety are false and baseless. The Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant. If the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party or Krishibavan (Contd.........3) -3- immediately when the problems were noticed the difficulties sustained by the Complainant could have averted. The Complaint is not sustainable and is to be dismissed with costs to the Opposite Party. The points to considered are: 1.Is there any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party? 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant No.1 is examined as PW1. The Complainant No.2 is also involved in seasonal cultivation taking land on lease. The seeds purchased by the Complainants are seeds of pea, snake gourd, bitter gourd, ash gourd and tomato for Rs.431/- on 22.9.2004. The rent paid towards the lease of land is deposed as Rs.5,000/- ; the cultivation was done in the lease land. No seeds left with them to sent it for analytical test to ascertain the quality of the seeds which were purchased. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the bill. Ext.A2 series are the bill to show the purchase of the manure. Ext.A3 series five in numbers are the vouchers showing the sale of bitter gourd and snake gourd. It is deposed that the Complainant availed the expert opinion of Agriculture Officer in Poothadi Krishi Bhavan. Whether the seeds supplied to the ordinary farmer is of good quality. The Opposite Party is the research center established to promote the agriculture yielding and to impart the results of research to the farmers. The Associate Director of the Agriculture Research Center, Ambalavayal is examined as OPW1. Seeds of bitter gourd given to the Complainant as admittedly in bulk quantity. On receiving the complaint a team went to the site of cultivation to inspect and find (Contd......4) -4- out the reason of allegation. According to OPW1 in order to supply for the farmers two varieties of seeds were procured one Sarika another Malika. These two varieties of seeds are not procured in the Agriculture Research Centre at a present. Farmers are not asking for this variety Sarika because of the low yielding of that variety. Any how the pea seeds supplied to the Complainant is not high yielding variety. The tomato seeds which were sown were not germinated. It is admittedly seen that PW1 was supplied the seeds of Sarika variety which itself is not of high yielding variety. The pea seeds cultivated in an area of 7.5 cent. The Agriculture Officer, Poothadi is examined as OPW4. On examination, it is admitted that for the cultivation advice of the Agriculture Officer was availed by the Complainant. It is a fact that due to the non availablity of the uncultivated seeds. The seeds could not be sent for analytical report. In normal case an ordinary farmer will not anticipate of the defective quality of the seeds and a portion of seed which is not sworn will not be kept for further use. From the above inferences it is to be considered that pea seeds supplied to the Complainant was of low quality and not of good yielding variety. Point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party. Point No.2: Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the Bills of seeds purchased. The non germination or low yielding of other seeds apart from cow pea is not substantiated by any evidence. The expenses incurred on the cultivation of cow pea is not drawn out. Any how a nominal cost is to be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite party. The cultivation of cow pea amounts to 7.5 cents in extent. The reason for the low yielding or non germination of other seeds are not brought out substantiated . The Opposite Party is directed to give the complaint the compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the supply of seeds of low (Contd......5) -5- quality and the cost Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) also to be paid to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay the Complainant this amount within one month from the date of receiving this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of November 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1 Ashokan Complainant No.1 Witnesses for the Opposite parties OPW1 C. Iype Associate Director of Agricultural Research Centre, Ambalavayal. OPW2 George @ Thankachan Agriculturist OPW3 Vijayan Agriculturist OPW4 R.Vijayakumar Agricultural Officer, Poothadi Exhibits for the Complainant A1 Photo copy of the bill dt: 22.9.2004 A2 Series (4 in No.s) Vouchure A3 Series (5 in No.s) Vouchure Exhibits for the Opposite party Nil PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.

Dated this the 14th day of November 2007. PRESENT:- Sri. K. Gheevarghese, M.A, L.L.B - President Smt. Saji Mathew, B.A, L.L.B - Member 1. P. N. Ashokan, S/o. Narayanan, : Poonjarankudiyil (House), : Bhoothanam Colony P.O, : Pulpally Amsom, : Sulthan Bathery Taluk. : : Complainant 2. Karunakaran, S/o. Tholan, : Kurichipatta Veedu, : Bhoothanam Colony, P.O. Pulpally, : Sulthan Bathery Taluk. : Director, : Regional Agricultural Research Centre : Ambalavayal, : Opposite party. Ambalavayal P.O, S.Bathery Taluk. : : Opposite party by : T.R. Balakrishnan, Advocate S. Bathery. ORDER By Sri.K. Gheevarghese, President: The Complaint filed under section as of the Consumer Protection Act. The sum up of the Complaint is as follows. The Complainants are the small farmers involved in cultivating vegetables and other short term crops. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party and purchased seeds of 300 gms bitter gourd, 150 gms cow pea, two packets ash card one packet Tomato and some other seeds. Towards the value of the seeds purchased Rs.431/- was given to the Opposite (Contd.....2) -2- Party. All the varieties of seeds were properly germinated and cultivated in the lease land taken by the Complainant. All the different type of seeds were germinated on sowing except the seeds of tomato. The other seeds were grown, properly maintained sufficient drainage was also given. The seeds of tomato, cow pea and snake gourd were not of good quality. Leaves of snake gourd turned pale and did not yield on growth. The entire cultivation of vegetables did not yield properly and sufficiently. Opposite Party is involved in the service of the supply of substandard quality and variety of seeds to the Complainant and it is the deficient service of the Opposite Party and the Complainant are to be compensated Rs.75,000/-. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The allegations of the Complainant are denied by the Opposite Party. However the purchase of the seeds by the Complainant covered under receipt No.41/35688 was admitted. The Complainant expressly informed the opposite party of the poor quality, of the seeds purchased on 22.12.2004. Upon receipt of the Complaint the Opposite Party directed a diagnostic team to inspect the cultivation of the Complainant. According to the report submitted by the diagnostic team the cultivation was done in an area with poor drainage facility. The crops were infected by pests and diseases the Complainants applied pesticides and other medicines and the applications of hormone were also done in the period. The poor growth and yielding of the vegetables were due to the improper management of the cultivation. According to the Opposite Party the pathogenic insects were not controlled applying proper pesticides or insecticide. Similarly the allegation of the Complaint that the seeds of bitter gourd cow pea etc. are of poor quality and of different variety are false and baseless. The Opposite Party is not liable to compensate the Complainant. If the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party or Krishibavan (Contd.........3) -3- immediately when the problems were noticed the difficulties sustained by the Complainant could have averted. The Complaint is not sustainable and is to be dismissed with costs to the Opposite Party. The points to considered are: 1.Is there any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party? 2.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant No.1 is examined as PW1. The Complainant No.2 is also involved in seasonal cultivation taking land on lease. The seeds purchased by the Complainants are seeds of pea, snake gourd, bitter gourd, ash gourd and tomato for Rs.431/- on 22.9.2004. The rent paid towards the lease of land is deposed as Rs.5,000/- ; the cultivation was done in the lease land. No seeds left with them to sent it for analytical test to ascertain the quality of the seeds which were purchased. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the bill. Ext.A2 series are the bill to show the purchase of the manure. Ext.A3 series five in numbers are the vouchers showing the sale of bitter gourd and snake gourd. It is deposed that the Complainant availed the expert opinion of Agriculture Officer in Poothadi Krishi Bhavan. Whether the seeds supplied to the ordinary farmer is of good quality. The Opposite Party is the research center established to promote the agriculture yielding and to impart the results of research to the farmers. The Associate Director of the Agriculture Research Center, Ambalavayal is examined as OPW1. Seeds of bitter gourd given to the Complainant as admittedly in bulk quantity. On receiving the complaint a team went to the site of cultivation to inspect and find (Contd......4) -4- out the reason of allegation. According to OPW1 in order to supply for the farmers two varieties of seeds were procured one Sarika another Malika. These two varieties of seeds are not procured in the Agriculture Research Centre at a present. Farmers are not asking for this variety Sarika because of the low yielding of that variety. Any how the pea seeds supplied to the Complainant is not high yielding variety. The tomato seeds which were sown were not germinated. It is admittedly seen that PW1 was supplied the seeds of Sarika variety which itself is not of high yielding variety. The pea seeds cultivated in an area of 7.5 cent. The Agriculture Officer, Poothadi is examined as OPW4. On examination, it is admitted that for the cultivation advice of the Agriculture Officer was availed by the Complainant. It is a fact that due to the non availablity of the uncultivated seeds. The seeds could not be sent for analytical report. In normal case an ordinary farmer will not anticipate of the defective quality of the seeds and a portion of seed which is not sworn will not be kept for further use. From the above inferences it is to be considered that pea seeds supplied to the Complainant was of low quality and not of good yielding variety. Point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party. Point No.2: Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the Bills of seeds purchased. The non germination or low yielding of other seeds apart from cow pea is not substantiated by any evidence. The expenses incurred on the cultivation of cow pea is not drawn out. Any how a nominal cost is to be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite party. The cultivation of cow pea amounts to 7.5 cents in extent. The reason for the low yielding or non germination of other seeds are not brought out substantiated . The Opposite Party is directed to give the complaint the compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the supply of seeds of low (Contd......5) -5- quality and the cost Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) also to be paid to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay the Complainant this amount within one month from the date of receiving this order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party the complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of November 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1 Ashokan Complainant No.1 Witnesses for the Opposite parties OPW1 C. Iype Associate Director of Agricultural Research Centre, Ambalavayal. OPW2 George @ Thankachan Agriculturist OPW3 Vijayan Agriculturist OPW4 R.Vijayakumar Agricultural Officer, Poothadi Exhibits for the Complainant A1 Photo copy of the bill dt: 22.9.2004 A2 Series (4 in No.s) Vouchure A3 Series (5 in No.s) Vouchure Exhibits for the Opposite party Nil PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE