BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.
FA No.805/2007 against CD.No.57/2006 District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam.
Between:
1.Kaspa Kameswara Rao,
S/o.Venkata Ramana Murthy,
Hindu, Aged 31 years,
Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Kaspa Street, Srikakulam
Town and District.
2.Kaspa Appanna Patnaik,
S/o.late kameswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 41 years,
Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Kaspa Street, Srikakulam
Town and District.
…Appellants/Complainants.
And
1.Kisan Plant Bio-Tech Ltd.
Rep. by its Chairman,
5th Floor, Padmavathi Complex, Near Apsara Theatre,
Governorpet, Vijayawada.
2.Kisan Plant Bio-Tech Ltd.
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Corporate Office: Kisan Plant Bio-Tech Ltd.
315, Annapurna Block, Aditya Enclave,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
3.Kisan Plant Bio-Tech Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office: Kisan Plant Bio-Tech Ltd. 47-11-2746,
2nd Floor, Arunodaya Complex, 1st Street,
Dwarakanagar,
Visakhapatnam – 16.
…Respondents/Opp.Parties.
For the Appellants : Party-in-person.
For the Respondents : Respondents served.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA,MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. None appears for the appellants despite the fact that the matter is posted under the caption of dismissal.
2. Since the appeal is preferred by the party-in-persons, the unsuccessful complainants, we have perused the record and find no merits to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainants in brief is that they purchased 320 teak plants for an amount of Rs.11,240/- on 10.09.2005 and 200 teak plants for an amount of Rs.8,900/- on 1509.2005 from opposite party No.3 under an agreement dt.16.09.2005. At the time of purchase, the opposite party agreed to provide one labour to look after the teak plants by way of irrigating them and also replacing defective plants or dead plants and visit on every forty days . However, the opposite parties did not choose to provide or to visit the teak plantation. There was heavy cyclone in the month of October. 2005 where most of the plants died. Despite their representation, there was no response from the opposite parties. Due to deficiency in service, they sustained loss. Therefore, they claimed Rs.20,140/- towards cost of teak plants, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, plantation, watering and labour, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
4. The first respondent filed counter resisting the matter. It was averred that the 1st respondent is an advocate practicing at Srikakulam and not an agriculturist. While admitting the entering into an agreement in regard to supply of teak plants, there was no clause wherein they have agreed to provide labour, irrigation and other facts alleged in the complaint. However, the complainants were entitled to avail their services, whenever they entertain any doubt regarding the maintenance of plants, etc. The complainants never availed any services nor they questioned as to the nature of growth, etc. When teak plants died due to natural calamities like cyclone, they could not be found fault with. On the notice dated 02.01.2006 they have responded, visited the field and supplied 240 plants free of cost and after satisfying with their services the complainants had kept quiet. There was no negligence nor deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The second and third respondents filed memo adopting the counter filed by the first respondent.
6. The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence of the 1st complainant and got Exs.A.1 to A.8 marked. Refuting their evidence, the respondents filed Exs.B.1 to B.4.
7. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainants had purchased teak plants as alleged by them by paying amounts evidenced under Ex.A.1 and A.2 receipts. In view of the fact that most of the teak plants died due to cyclone, which cannot be imputed to respondents, it cannot be held that they were negligent nor there was deficiency in service on their part. In fact Ex.B.3, the report of Agricultural Officer shows that the opposite parties had replaced 240 teak pants when they were found dead. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the respondents did not visit the teak plantation at any time. Till September/October 2005, half of the teak plants died due to heavy rains and cyclone. The respondents did not render any service by replacing defective/dead teak plants nor responded to Ex.A.5 notice, which amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside for mis-appreciation of facts?
10. It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had purchased 520 teak plants from the respondents and started raising them. It is also not in dispute that in the month of October, 2005 there was cyclone wherein 240 teak plants died. It is also not in dispute that one Mr.M.Shankar Rao, the agricultural officer of the opposite parties, visited the fields of the complainants and noticed that 240 teak plants died in cyclone. As per agreement, they have supplied 240 teak plants which were planted by the complainants in their fields. The complainants could not establish that the respondents did not render any service as agreed upon by them. When they informed about the death of the teak plants, the respondents had supplied 240 teak plants. Therefore, the complainants had failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. We do not see any mis-appreciation of facts in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances no costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt:05.06.2009.
