Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/161/2014

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. SOUNDARARAJAN - Opp.Party(s)

T. RAVI KUMAR

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

 

                               F.A.161/2014

[Against the Order in  C.C No. 58/2011 dated  3.2.2014  on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam]

 

Dated this the  5^th   day of FEBRuary, 2015

 

1. The District Collector

District Collector’s Office

Nagapattinam 611 003 

 

2. The Joint Director of Agriculture

Joint Director of Agricultural Office

Nagapattinam 611 001                              .. Appellants/opposite parties

 

                                               Vs

G.Sundararajan

S/o Gopal

South Street

Athamangalam Village

Kovilkannapoor post

Thirukuvalai Taluk

Nagapattinam District                               ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties  : M/s T.Ravikumar

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant      : Mr. V.Sukumar

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 4.12.2014  and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam  in C.C.No 58/2011 dated 3.2.2014 partly allowing the complaint.

 

2.        The case of the complainant is that he purchased  paddy seeds for Rs. 1146/- from the Agricultural Department Godown at Aanthakudi and cultivated the paddy in his land and it was found that the paddy seedlings were of uneven height and it was found that if the paddy seeds mixed with other paddy seeds like Ponni were supplied to him. Hence the total yield was very much affected due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in selling the mixed paddy seeds to the complainant and that the complainant had incurred loss of Rs. 9000/- per acre.

 

3.       According to the 2^nd opposite party, they supplied paddy seeds of good quality certified by the National Seed Corporation and that the complainant had cultivated Papatla 5204 paddy in his land in the previous year and some of the seeds lying in the field would have also germinated along with the other seeds supplied by the 2^nd opposite party and that could be the reason for mixed germination of two varieties of seeds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and partly allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in supplying mixed varieties of paddy seeds to the complainant and passing an order directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 2.11.2011 till realization and to pay costs of Rs.2500/-.

 

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

 

6.       It is pertinent to note that the complainant/respondent had purchased the paddy seeds from the Godown of the 2^nd opposite party and the crops were of uneven height and the yield was very poor.

 

 

7.     The contention of the Appellants/opposite parties would be that in the previous year, the complainant was cultivating the land sowing different kind of seeds and those seeds had been lying on the ground, and in the present year, he has sown the seeds purchased from the 2^nd opposite party’s godown and different seedlings have different properties and the yield would not be uniform. The contention of the opposite parties remains un-substantiated. There is no evidence on record and there are no materials to establish the above contention of the appellants/opposite parties

 

8.      The further contention of the Appellants/opposite parties would be that the District Forum erred in fixing the price of the paddy.   On considering the entire materials on record, we find nothing wrong in fixing the price by the District Forum.

9.         The District Forum has partly allowing the complaint directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.17,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 2.11.2011 from the date of presentation of the complaint till date of payment and Rs.2500/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the said sum of Rs.2500/- shall carry with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till date of payment.

 

10.       Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award interest on Rs. 17,600/- and so the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly.

 

          In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the interest awarded by the District Forum on Rs.17,600/- and confirming the rest of the order.

           No order as to costs in the appeal

 

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                            J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

        MEMBER                               JUDICIAL MEMBER                    PRESIDENT