KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.927/01 JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Mannuthy. 2. U.Jayakumar, -- APPELLANTS Associateand Head of the Department, AgriculturalResearch Station Officer, Agricultural University, Mannuthy. ( By Adv.Venganoor K.Chandrasekharan Nair) Vs. Jacob S/o Chalissery Ouseph, -- RESPONDENT Kaipamangalam, Kodungallur. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in the file of OP.No.730/99 dated 14.2.01. The appellants are the Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University Vellanikkara, Mannuthy and U.Jayakumar , Associate and Head of the Department, Agricultural Research Station Officer, Agricultural University, Mannuthy. The complainant is the respondent. The appellants prefers this order passed by the CDRF. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant purchased 250 kgs. of Kanchana paddy seed on 26.11.88 from the Agricultural Research Station, Mannuthy, of the Kerala Agricultural University. The allegation in the complaint is that the second appellant has given an impression that ‘Kanchana’ seeds would become ripe within 110 days of cultivation and as per the direction of the second appellant, the respondent sowa the paddy seeds on 9th, 10th and 13th December 1998 in his 7 acre and 58 cents of paddy fields at Madaikonam Village in Mukundapuram Taluk. Ordering to the expectation of the respondent, 2/3rd of the seeds flowered at the 45th day of sowing and this fact was brought to the notice of the 2nd appellant on 54th day. The second appellant along with the Associate Prof.V.V.Ramakrishnan and Asst. Prof. C.A. Rosamma went to the site and examined the flowering and concluded that it is not Kanchana variety. The balance seeds in the possession of the respondent was examined and opined that it is of ‘Hraswa’ variety on 11.2.99. The second appellant again came to the paddy field and admitted the complaint from the first respondent. 2/3rd of the plants were ready for harvesting where as 1/3rd of the plant was flowering only. It happened because the 2nd appellant sold paddy seeds Kanchana and Hraswa which were mixed together which were of long and short duration variety. The second appellant advised the respondent not to harvest the 2/3 majority which was already ready for harvesting but to remain till the remaining 1/3 also ready for harvesting which is of Kanchana variety of harvesting there was only 67 ½ qtls. Of paddy were available, and in normal case if there was no mixing of different varieties he could have got 150 qtls. Therefore, the respondent has suffered a loss of Rs.61,050. On hiring the laborers the respondent was forced to spend as wages Rs.32275/- as excess. This loss is caused because of negligence and deficient service on the part of the appellant by mixing two different variety of paddy seeds. A lawyer’s notice was sent to the Agricultural University Research Station and 2nd appellant claiming compensation. The 2nd appellant advised the respondent to approach the Consume Disputes Redressal Forum claiming Rs.93,325/- for the loss of yield and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. 3. The appellants filed an objection admitting the purchase of 250 kgs. of Kanchana Paddy seeds, but denied the allegations against the 2nd appellant that he has given the impression that the “Kanchana” seed will ripe for harvesting within 110 days of cultivation. The sowing was not done in the presence of either the 2nd appellant or any of the officers of the Agricultural University. The respondent/ complainant has not observed the recommendations prescribed by the University. 4. The contention of the appellants is that seed sale by a hiring vehicle. The seed was not sown in the presence of the officer of the Agricultural University. Therefore no blame can be placed by the appellants. It is not clear such an excessive amount is claimed in the petition. The appellants also contended that they were doing their official duty and seeds were not sold for profit. It is a service done and is not commercial purpose and it is part of an Agricultural extension programmer of the University. Therefore, it cannot come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant praying that the complaint may be dismissed. 5. For the part of the petitioner PW1 and PW2 were examined and the Agricultural Officer for the side of the respondent examined as DW1 was also examined. Documents totally P13 documents were marked for the complainant and Ext.R1 and R2 were marked for the respondents. 6. The Forum below raised 4 points for consideration in this dispute and rightly and correctly answered all the points. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.93,325/- for the loss of yield and wages, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and hardships and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 7. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the appellant/respondents are represented and complainant is absent. The counsel for the appellant vehemently agued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not according to the provisions of law and evidence. The counsel submitted that this is not a dispute coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission heard in detailed and perused the entire records and evidence from the case bundle. It is seeing that Ext.R1 and R2 and Ext.P4, P5 and P6 are the important documents issued by the officers of the opposite parties and Agricultural Officer from the Government of Kerala. This Commission is seeing that there is any hesitation to accept the report of these competent and expert authorities regards to the crops found in the complainants field. Ext.P4 report of the Agricultural Officer who is a Government official and independent a competent expert person given in the correct position cannot be discarded. She personally visited in the field and the inspection details are noted in Ext.P4 report. This report is a very crucial evidence in this case. We appreciated the dedication of this Agricultural Officer to promote and assist an Agriculturist. Especially, the State of Kerala is having very difficulty to protect the interest of the Agriculturist. At the same time, the opposite parties are also established by the State for the welfare and promotion of the agriculturists in our State. But their attitude towards a poor agriculturist is in this manner is not encourageble. There is no hope for the survival of any agriculturist in our state. Nobody will expect such an attitude from an established reputed organization. The complainant who purchased the Highbrid quality of paddy seed on payment of money. It is not supplied by the appellants to the complainant on free of costs. We do not know how the appellants raised such a contention that this dispute is not coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The situation was arised by a way and attitude of the Agricultural University and other authorities had taken. At the present stage agriculture is nothing but a subject matter of discussion in five star hotels. No doubt that it is nothing but deficiency in service but also a contempt to the poor agriculturist in our State. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable and according to the provisions of the law and evidence. It is no way a credit to the agricultural University but only a discredit. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. We think that the absence of the respondent/complainant is not intentionally we can understand very well about the conditions of a poor agriculturist and his life is a miserable condition in this day. These points are answered accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER s/L | 
