Karnataka

Kolar

CC/103/2016

Sri.K.M.Vasanth Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gupta Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sriyuth.K.N.Nagraja

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/12/2016

Date of Order: 24/10/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 103 OF 2016

Sri. K.M. Vasanth Kumar,

S/o. N.V. Krishnappa,

Aged About 51 Years,

R/at: Madivala Village,

Mothakapalli Post, Thayalur Hobli,

Mulbagal Taluk.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. D.S. Ramagopal, Advocate)           ….  COMPLAINANT.

 

- V/s -

1) Gupta Trading Company,

Bus Stand, Bethamangala,

Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth T.G. Byregowda, Advocate)

 

2) I & B Seeds Private Limited,

1/3 A Noji Bail/Nursery,

Ganakallu Uttarahalli,

Kengeri Road, Srinivaspura,

Bangalore-60.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth C.B.Jayarama, Advocate)       …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short, it is referred as “the Act”) seeking directions against the Ops to make payment of Rs.15,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is the contention of the complainant that, the complainant is an agriculturist, and he is owning land bearing Sy No.19, 50, 60, 17 measuring 30 guntas, 20 gunts, 22 guntas, 10 guntas, in total 2 acres at Madivala Village, Thayalur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk.  Further the complainant has submitted that, he approached Op No.1 on 25.02.2016 and purchased tomato Preetham seeds vide invoice bearing No.2777 for the sum of Rs.4,250/- weighting 30 grms of 05 units bearing Lot No. TM.151102 and the same was sowed in the above said 02 acres of land owned by the complainant. 

 

 

(b)    Further contention of the complainant is that, before sowing the said seeds the complainant spent Rs.2,80,946/- towards making the land level and towards natural manure, pesticides, threads, with great labour.  But because of the defect in the said tomato seeds the crop has not come out and the flowers had whaithered away and due to this complainant suffered huge loss. 

 

(b)    Further allegation of the complainant is that, the crop during the month of June-2016 one ton tomato cost was Rs.50,000/- and the complainant expected the yield of 04 tons of tomato in his land and Rs.20,00,000/- for the entire crop, but due to the defective seeds, he could not yield the same.  The complainant further submitted that, on account of the failure of crop, the complainant had intimated the agriculture scientist, and they visited the spot and given opinion that, the failure of the crop is due to defective seeds. 

 

(c)    Further complainant’s contention is that, the complainant had tried to convince OP No.2 to pay compensation, but OP No.2 did not replied properly.  Hence on 07.10.2016 complainant issued legal notice to both the Ops, but Ops failed to comply.  Hence this complaint.   

 

(d)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Invoice for buying Tomato seeds from OP No.1 dated: 25.02.2016.

(ii) Letter issued by the Office of the Senior Assistant Agricultural Director, Zilla Panchayath, Mulbagal, dated: 08.07.2016.

(iii) Letter issued by the Horticulture Science University, Tamaka, Kolar, dated: 20.06.2016.

(iv) Report submitted by the Zilla Panchayath, Mulbagal, dated: 08.07.2016.

(v) Report submitted by the Horticulture Science University, Tamaka, Kolar, dated: 17.06.2016.

(vi) Bills (15 in numbers)

(vii) Letter given by Agriculture produce Market Committee, Mulbagal, dated: 27.09.2016 along with list.

(viii) Copy of the photo of tomato garden.

(ix) RTC extract of Sy. No.38

(x) Copy of the label of tomato seeds

 

03.   In response to the notice issued with regard to the case on hand, OP No.2 has put in appearance through its learned counsel and submitted written version.  However OP No.1 has submitted a Memo stating that, it adopts the objections filed by the OP No.2.  The brief contentions raised in the version submitted by the OP No.2 is that,

(a)    The allegations made in the complaint with regard to spending of Rs.2,80,946/- in respect of manure, for making the land level, for pesticides, threads and natural manure, etc., are false and denied by this OP.  The complainant has not furnished any scientist report along with the notice. 

 

(b)    It is true that, the complainant has issued legal notice dated: 07.10.2016 to this OP No.2 and the same was suitably replied.  There is no cause of action for the complaint.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  The complainant never spent Rs.2,80,946/- in respect of manure, threads, for making the land level, etc.,.  The said crop was failed on account of weather and atmosphere and not on account of defect in the seeds.  The complainant has not maintained water properly to the said crop and even though the complainant has very good crop and also obtained good income he had filed this false complaint to extract unlawfully.  The officials of the OP No.2 have visited the land from time to time and gave instructions to the complainant to maintain the crop, but complainant has not cared the words of the OP’s officials.  So contending, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   On 25.04.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted affidavit evidence of complainant.

 

05.   On 19.06.2017 one Sri. Avinash Hiralal Shah, S/o. Late Shri Hiralal Nathuram Shah, Vice President - Marketing of OP No.2 has submitted affidavit evidence.  On 17.07.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 has submitted a Memo seeking adoption of evidence adduced by OP No.2.

 

06.   On 22.08.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted written arguments.  However in spite of sufficient time granted, Ops have failed to address their arguments.   Hence case is posted for orders.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(B)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)  What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Affirmative

 

POINT (C):    As per final order for

                             the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

09.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased Preetham Tomato Seeds for Rs.4,250/- from Op No.1 bearing lot No.TM.151102   through invoice bearing No.2777.  The complainant raised tomato crop in his 02 acres  of land situated at Madivala Village, Thayalur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District.  As complainant had sustained loss of entire crop he approached Zilla Panchayath Office at Mulbagal and intimated the same.  Thereafter a team of scientists from Horticultural University, Tamaka, Kolar, had visited the spot and observed that, the crop loss is due to defective seeds supplied by the OP No.1.  Hence complainant approached the Ops, but the Ops had not come forward to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant and they denied the allegation of supplying of defective seeds.  To substantiate the contention of the complainant, the complainant has produced letter correspondence dated: 08.07.2016 issued by the Senior Assistant Agricultural Director, Zilla Panchayath, Mulbagal, letter dated: 20.06.2016 issued by the Agriculture University, Tamaka, Kolar and the reports dated: 08.07.2016 and 17.06.2016 issued by the Senior Assistant Agricultural Director, Zilla Panchayath, Mulbagal. 

 

10.   Per contra, in the version the OP No.1 took a stand that, the failure of tomato crop was due to change in the weather and atmosphere and not on account of defective seeds which were supplied by these OPs.  The Ops in their version have further submitted that, the complainant has not maintained the water properly to the said crop and even though complainant had a very good crop and though he had obtained very good income from it, he filed this false complaint only to extract unlawful gain from the Ops. 

 

11.   On perusal of the report issued by the Senior Assistant Agricultural Director, (ZP) Mulbagal, dated: 08.07.2016 which reads thus:-

“ªÀÄļÀ¨ÁV®Ä vÁ®ÆèQ£À°è PÉ®ªÀÅ gÉÊvÀgÀÄ K¦æ¯ï ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è EAqÀ¸ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ mÉƪÀiÁmÉÆà ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄ ¦æÃvÀªÀiï vÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨É¼É¢zÀÄÝ, £Án ªÀiÁr JgÀqÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ¼É¢zÀÝgÉÆ E£ÀÆß ºÀƪÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¬Ä PÀaÑgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÀÄÝ.  F §UÉÎ ¥Àj²°¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ªÀiÁºÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄ, lªÀÄPÀ, E°è£À «eÁÕ¤UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw: J¸ï.²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁj, »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ.f.J.ªÀÄAd£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ gÉÊvÀgÀ vÉÆÃlUÀ½UÉ ©üÃn ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ.  «eÁÕ¤UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ mÉÆêÀiÁmÉÆà ¨É¼É ºÀÆ«£À ºÀAvÀªÀÅ Cw ºÉZÀÄÑ GµÁÚA±ÀPÉÌ (K¦æ¯ï ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è 38.7 rVæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄà ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è 27 rVæ ¸É°ìAiÀĸï) ¹®ÄQ ºÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ GzÀÄj ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ dÆ£ï ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è GvÀÛªÀÄ ªÀļÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ vÁPÀÄUÀ¼À°è ºÀƪÀÅ ©lÄÖ PÁ¬Ä PÀaÑgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

 

ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ EAqÀ¸ï ¹Ãqïì PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¦æÃvÀªÀiï mÉƪÀiÁmÉÆà vÀ½ ªÀÄÄAUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AUÁgÀÄ IÄvÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ©ÃdzÀ aîzÀ ªÉÄð£À ªÀiÁ»w¬ÄAzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.  DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj vÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ: UÀÄ¥ÀÛ mÉæÃrAUï PÀA¥À¤, ¨ÉÃvÀªÀÄAUÀ®, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁ«ÄUÉ CAzÀgÉ ¥sɧæªÀj-ªÀiÁZïð ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è ©ÃdUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.  gÉÊvÀgÀÄ K¦æ¯ï ªÀiÁºÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Án ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.  MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV EAqÀ¸ï ¹Ãqïì PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¦æÃvÀªÀiï mÉƪÀiÁmÉÆà vÀ½AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AUÁgÀÄ IÄvÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVzÀÄÝ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁ«Ä£À°è ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÉ.”

 

From the above report it is seen that, the problem was diagnosed as the seeds supplied by the OP No.1 were mean to be cultivated in the kharif and Rabi season only, but the Ops have sold the tomato seeds in the summer season.  Therefore when the Ops ought to have sold the seeds in the rainy season, but they have sold the said seeds in the summer season.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

12.   The complainant has prayed Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation.  As per the contention of the complainant, the complainant is about to get 40 tons per acre and the tomato fruits will be sold in boxes of 15 KG each and normal yield could be 2800 boxes per acre.  At the time of raising the crop the cost of 01 box of tomato was sold at Rs.800 to 2000 rupees.  To substantiate this contention the complainant has produced the market value details for the month of June and July 2016.  On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, there is no direct evidence regarding the quantity of yield obtained by the complainant, wherein which, it has to be arrived by concealing the version of the Ops and the evidence submitted by the complainant.  The average yield per acre is 800 boxes and each box of tomato would be sold at Rs.200/-.  In the above case the complainant has grown tomato for 02 acres so for an average he may got 1600 boxes of tomatos.  So he would have got Rs.3,20,000/-.  But as per the report the complainant must have get less amount of yield.  By taking in to consideration the complainant may lost 50% of the yield.  Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- from the OPs along with interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of filing of this complaint till realization along with costs of Rs.5,000/-.  And accordingly we hold point (A) & (B) in the affirmative.

 

POINT (C):

13.   In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is hereby allowed-in-part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the Ops.

02.   The Ops both jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- towards compensation to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization to the complainant.

 

02.   The Ops are hereby directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order and shall also submit the compliance report to this Forum.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 24^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                             PRESIDENT