Date of Filing: 24.05.2013
Date of Disposal: 28.03.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 28th day of March, 2014
C.C.No.48/2013
Between:
P.Venkata Sivaiah @ Sivaiah,
S/o P.Narayanappa,
Cherlopalli Village,
Putlur Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. G.Sreenivasulu,
S/o Chalapathi Naidu,
D.No.11-1-340,
Employee and Marketing in charge of K.G.Biotech,
Aravinda Nagar,
Ananthapuramu.
2. K.F.Biotech Private Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
Theniyur Village,
Sulibete Hobli, Hosakota Taluk,
Bangalore Rural 562129. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Kesavaiah, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments complainant side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.37,800/- towards loss 3150 banana plants amount, Rs.3300/- towards labour charges to sowing of plants, Rs.1000/- towards transport charges from his house to field, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.3000/- towards costs of the complaint with future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing till realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: The complainant is the permanent resident of Cherlopalli Village, Putlur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and he is an agriculturist he purchased K.F.Biotech Banana Plants from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is the dealer and the 2nd opposite party is the company of Banana Plants. The complainant purchased Banana Plants 49 with stage of 50 MM quality 5000 with each plant Rs.12/- total of Rs.60,000/- and the opposite parties gave 150 plants to free of cost and the above said plants were send by the 2nd opposite party through the 1st opposite party in the truck to the complainant village, the complainant paid total sum of Rs.60,000/- to the 1st opposite party after receiving the plants on23.04.2013 but the same the 1st opposite party has given invoice No.5419 dt.22.04.2013. The complainant submits that the plants are put rest in cool place 5 to 7 days for improving the plants to normal condition after that he sowed the 5000 plants in to his fields in S.No.522B with 22 labours in 3.20 acres the labour charges were paid to each labour a sum of Rs.150/-. After 4-5 days the plants were improperly germinate among the 5000 plants 3150 plants were spoiled and remaining 1850 are growth in good condition. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and intimated the same, but the 1st opposite party not properly responded and the 1st opposite party never cared to the loss of the complainant due to the above said act, the complainant suffered financial loss. The complainant purchased the above said plants only on the instigation of the 1st opposite party the plants were low quality and defective one. Hence, the plants supplied by the opposite parties 1 & 2 are defective plants due to each. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.60,100/- with including mental agony and costs of the complaint. Hence, prayed this Forum to grant relief in the above complaint.
3. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed Vakalat but the opposite parties counsel not turn up to file counter this Forum forfeited to file counter. Hence heard on the complaint side Ex.A1 to A3 are marked.
4. Counsel argued that the complainant purchased 5000 Banana plants from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer. The complainant filed Ex.A1 document which contain the purchase of plants with quantity of 5000 at the rate of Rs.12/- each plant on 22.04.2013 at the instruction of the 1st opposite party the complainant kept the plants in cool place for 5 to 7 days. Later he sowed the same in his field by incurring expenses for the labour after 5 or 7 days. The complainant observed that all the plants were not properly growing there after some plants are spoiled due to inferior quality of plants supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant intimated the same to the 1st opposite party who is the dealer. But the opposite parties are not cared his words. Hence it is a clear case of defective plants supplied by the opposite parties and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant entitled the claim.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the plants supplied by the opposite parties is defective one?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled the claim made in the complaint?
6. Heard complainant side.
7. POINT: -On the observation of Ex.A1 there is no dispute with regard to purchase of banana plants from the 1st opposite party and the Ex.A2 & A3 filed by the complainants are not support his case because Ex.A2 is the paper Publication and Ex.A3 is the photos. These are to be weak piece of evidence because the photographs is not having any negatives and Ex.A2 paper publication is secondary evidence. The complainant simply stated that he sowed 5000 plants after 5 to 7 days, after rest in cool place. He observed in the filed after 4 or 5 days that 3150 plants are spoiled and remaining 1850 plants were good in condition for this there is no iota of evidence to show that how many plants are in good condition and how many plants were spoiled. The complainant approached this Forum before that he never tried to report about the defectiveness of plants supplied by the opposite parties to any agriculture officer near to his village or the opposite parties in written form. After one year he directly filed this complaint claiming compensation to decide about the defectiveness of plants. Generally we relied on the reports submitted by the Mandal Agriculture Officers, because they are the experts in the agriculture field. In this case the complainant not filed any document that he made any representation to the concerned Agriculture Officer. The Hon’ble national Commission held in 2011 (3) CPJ (NC) between Myco Seeds Limited V/s G.Vekatasubba Rayudu that that “the person (Agricultural Officer) who is expert in assessing the defects in the seeds not filed any report to show that the seeds supplied by the opposite parties are defective, no laboratory test was conducted to prove the defectiveness. The complainant also failed to file petition before this Forum to inspect his field or he never tried to sent the plants for laboratory examination (as per section 13 © of the Consumer Protection Act). Whether the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or suffer from any other defect and to report its finding thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum. The complainant simply started that plants were defective one. The opposite parties are not come forwarded to deny the allegations of complainant. It does not mean that the plants supplied by the opposite parties were inferior quality. When there is no reliable evidence to show that the plants were defective one supplied by the opposite parties. We are of the opinion that the plants supplied by the opposite parties are not defective one. The point answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
8. The counsel argued that the complainant filed the bill which shows he purchased the Banana plants by paying a sum of Rs.60,000/- and he sowed the same in his field in which most of the plants were not growing properly only some plants were grown in good condition. But there is no proof to show that how many plants were spoiled and how many plants were in good condition. The complainant failed to prove that now he is entitled the claim made in the complaint. As there is no expert opinion with regard to loss of plants which were calculated by the complainant as 3150. Hence this point is considered against the complainant.
9. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 28th day of March, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1.Original invoice dt.22.04.2013 Rs.60,000/- issued by the 2nd Opposite
Party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 Paper Publication dt.19.05.2013 inferior quality of Banana plants.
Ex.A3 Photo graphs relating to Banana Plants.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2
NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
