Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/138/2017

Yogeshwarappa S/o Channbasappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalash Seeds Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Shwetha

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:12/12/2017

DISPOSED      ON:24/08/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:138/2017

 

DATED: 24^th AUGUST 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH        : PRESIDENT                                  B.A., LL.B.,

SMT.JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI        : MEMBER

                        BSc., MBA., DHA.,

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. C. Yogeshwarappa, S/o Channabasappa, Aged about  years, Kodihalli Village, Kogunde Post, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga TQ and District.   (Reptd. By Smt. Swetha. K.S, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. Kallash Seeds Pvt Limited, Manth Road, Jalana Pin-431203.   2. Vishwa Seeds Center, V.V. Malige, Madu Hotel, Harapanahalli Taluk-583131, Davanagere District.   (Reptd.By Sri.R.K. Govindraju, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards defective seeds, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of time, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he is an agriculturist having land bearing Sy.No.7/4P2 measuring 3-acre 01-gunta situated at Kodihalli village, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.  The complainant has purchased the brinzal seeds from the OP No.1 and sown in his land in an area of 3-acres by spending an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.  After sowing the said seeds, the complainant has done all the precautionary measures in a proper manner.  The growth of the brinzal plants were good and the complainant has given pesticides and removed the weed from time to time by spending an amount of Rs.50,000/-.  In spite of best efforts by the complainant, there were no fruits from the said plants.  Thereafter, the complainant has written letters to the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga and Assistant Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga about the failure of brinzal crop in his land and they inspected the land of complainant and opined that, the seeds were defective.  Thereafter, on 03.10.2017, the complainant has complained to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga and Deputy Director of Horticulture, Chitradurga stating that, he has incurred loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for the defective seeds sold by OPs.  The Deputy Commissioner told that, they will take proper action but, it went in vain.  The OP No.1 and 2 have sold the defective DARSHAN (BSS430) F1 Hybrid Seeds to cause fraud and loss to the complainant.  For the said act of the Ops, the complainant has suffered loss, which is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for allow his complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. R.K. Govindraju, Advocate and filed version.  According to the version filed by the OPs, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The averments made in para 2 to 5 of the complaint are all false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments made in para 6 and 7 are false and it is true that the experts committee visited the lands and submitted the report on 09.11.2017.  The complainant has failed to prove the defects found in the brinzal seeds and the OPs are not liable to pay damages to the complainant.  Further it is submitted that, the OPs have supplied good/quality brinzal seeds to the complainant and also to all customers.  The complainant has not followed the proper instructions given by the OPs and other experts and the complainant has not maintained the fields namely supply of water, fertilizers, pesticides as and when required and further the complainant is has not followed the guidelines of agricultural department.  The plant protection chemical and other chemicals used by the farmers was not proper and not used as per Scientists report.  It is further submitted that, to increase crop yield, this complainant sprayed in-discriminated growth regulator, hormones, steroids, soil conditioner, antibiotics and other chemicals on crop.  Plant protection chemicals were mixed with other chemicals and sprayed on the crops.  Flowers were dropped due to more vegetative growth of plants, this resulted the failure of crop.  Flowers were dropped due to severe attack of brinzal shoot and fruit borer since the crop was not maintained properly and the complainant used high dose of nitrogen, not done tillage and management practices as per the scientist report, the complainant has not mentioned the individual lot number, which one was used by individual farmer, the complainant has not submitted field panchanama and any other specific individual farmer report, The Principal Scientist visited the lands along with Agricultural and Horticultural Department Officials and gave report, which shows there is no fault on the part of OPs, it is a negligence of the complainant for failure of brinjal crop.  The OP No.1 company is a well reputed company in India and supplying brinjal seeds and other seeds to more than 8 states including Karnataka.  The OP No.1 is taking very much care while manufacturing the brinjal seeds as well as on packing and released only after the report obtain from seed testing laboratory and signed by the quality control department.  The experts visited from the IIHR, Bangalore visited the field of complainant and gave report that, the complainant was not maintained the brinjal crop properly, which resulted in failure of brinjal crop and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed his side.  On behalf of OP, one Sri. Obalesh. H, Sales Executive has examined as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to B-5 documents have been got marked and closed their side.   

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have supplied the defective Brinjal seeds to him and accordingly, the complainant has sustained loss and entitled for the relief as prayed for?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

 

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-It is not in dispute that, the complainant is having land bearing sy.No.7/4P2 measuring 3-acre 1-gunta situated at Kodihalli village, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.  The complainant has purchased the brinjal seeds from the OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 and sown the same in his land.  But the complainant has not got brinjal fruits from the plants because of defective seeds sold by the OPs.  Accordingly, the complainant has intimated the same to the Deputy Director of Horticulture and also to the Agriculture Department.  Both the Officers have visited the lands and prepared reports. As per the report dated 10.10.2017 submitted by the officers, i.e., as per Ex.B-4, it is stated that, it is not possible to identify whether the OPs have supplied defective brinjal seeds or the complainant has not properly maintained because, they stated to have get the report from the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research Centre, Hesargatta road, Bangalore.  As per the report submitted by the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research Centre, Hesargatta road, Bangalore dated 09.11.2017 as per Ex.B-5, the Committee stated that, it cannot ascertain the real cause for not giving good yield as expected by the farmer due to lack of quality.  But the OPs have says in their version that, the complainant has not properly maintained the brinjal crop and not able to get the good yield from the brinjal seeds.  As per the report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture and Agriculture Department and Scientists of Indian Institute of Horticulture Research Centre, Hesargatta road, Bangalore, they have clearly stated that, at this stage, we cannot assess whether the complainant has not properly maintained the brinjal crop.  But the complainant submitted that, as per the instructions of the OPs, he has done all the work. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents and exhibits filed by the complainant and OPs.  There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased the brinjal seeds from the OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 and he sown the same in his land.  But the main contention of the complainant that, they have not get the good yield.  As per Ex.A-4 and A-5, it shows that, the officers have visited the spot and they have not assessed the proper reason as to why the brinzal seeds sold by the OPs have not given good yield.  But the complainant has produced Ex.A-1 to A-6 those documents clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased the brinjal seeds from the OPs.  Accordingly, the OPs have not supplied the good brinjal seeds to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the compensation for selling the defective seeds to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of purchasing the brinjal seeds i.e., on 10.05.2017 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs areshereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 24/08/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  ComplainantNo.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri.H. Obalesh, Sales Executive by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Cash Bill dated 10.05.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Used Seeds Pocket
03	Ex-A-3:-	Request letter to DC dated 03.10.2017
04	Ex.A-4:	Udayavani News Paper dated 04.10.2017
05	Ex.A-5:-	2 Photos
06	Ex.A-6:-	RTC dated 15.10.2017

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Germination Test Report
02	Ex-B-2:-	Lot wise dispatch report
03	Ex.B-3:-	Bill of supply
04	Ex.B-4:-	Field Inspection report
05	Ex.B-5:-	IIHR Bangalore report

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**