By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Case of the complainant:-
On 18/11/2020 complainant purchased 50 kg fertilizers 12:12:12 from opposite party, Malappuram District Rubber Growers Co-operating Marketing Society at Nilambur. When the manure was applied, complainant realised that too much quantity of sand had been used to make that manure. Complainant directly approached the opposite party to convince them about his complaint. But they did not listen to the complainant and they did not do anything. They convinced the complainant that the fertilizer in question is mixed and supplied by the Kerala Government Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Mixing Unit situated at Kozhikode after all quality checks. But complainant did not believe in that certificate issued by opposite party. Hence he approached the fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory situated at Pattambi and paid a fee of Rs. 450/- to check the quality of the fertilizer. Complainant alleges that in that report it is clearly stated that the fertilizer sent for quality inspection was of low quality and the two components used to make the fertilizer were found .24% and .17% lesser in quantity in the mixture .
2. Even after receiving the report from Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory situated at Pattambi, the opposite party have not taken any action to redress the grievance of complainant. Hence complainant approached the Commission to redress his grievance. The fertilisers received from opposite party were substandard quality and it was made by adding sand and other unnecessary things. Hence this complaint.
3. Prayer of the complainant is that he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony he had suffered and he is also entitled to get the price of the fertilizer and another Rs. 10,000/- for other expenses like travelling expenses ,he had made for getting a redressal for his grievance.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on them and they appeared through their counsel and filed vakkalath and version.
5. In their version opposite party denied all the allegations and averments mentioned in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted. They admitted that on 18/11/2020 complainant purchased fertilizers mix 12:12:12 from opposite party. They again stated that as per the Lab report, the fertilizers are good in quality and those reports are already marked as documents. The report given by Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited clearly stated that the fertilizers 12:12:12 contain all the elements in the prescribed weight in prescribed ratio. According to Lab report, all the components required for fertilizer 12:12:12 are in correct proportion and weight
6. They had provided the ratio of elements used in 50 kg rubber mixture fertilizer bag given to complainant. As per their version, the elements like Urea used was 13.05 kg, Potash 10.00 kg, Rock phosphate 21.50 kg, Filler 5.45 kg for a bag containing 50 kg fertilizer. They again stated that prescribed amount of sand or mud are used as filler. Rock phosphate and filler are not soluble in water. They again stated that sometimes the complainant may have misunderstood the fertilizer mixture by seeing the insoluble rock phosphate and filler which looks alike sand. They again stated that complainant was not reported before the opposite party mentioned about this issue. He directly approached the Commission and filed a complaint without approaching the opposite party.
7. Opposite party again stated that, they are the Co-operative Marketing Society for the welfare of farmers under Kerala State Co-operative Department. Moreover they had purchased the above fertilizer from the Co-operative Apex department promoted by Kerala Government. Regarding the quality of the fertilizer there is no chance to disbelieve the Co-operative Department of Kerala government. Hence there is no reason for opposite party to disbelieve the above Co-operative society.
Hence complaint may be dismissed.
8. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the original report from the office of the Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Pattambi) given by Deputy Director of Agriculture dated 31/03/2021, Ext.A2 is the original Analysis Report of Fertiliser sample given by Deputy Director of Agriculture Pattambi to the complainant, Ext.A3 is the original Acknowledgement for receipt of money dated 25/03/2021 given by Deputy Director Agriculture, Pattambi to complainant, Ext.A4 is the original Tax invoice given by opposite party to complainant. Thereafter opposite party filed affidavit and documents Ext. B1 to B7. Ext. B1 is the original letter regarding quality check up given by Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited to opposite party dated 5/01/2021, Ext.B2 is the original letter sent by opposite party to Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited dated 28/12/2020, Ext.B3 is the original Analysis Report of 12:12:12 rubber mixture Fertilizer sample given by Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited, Fertilizer mixing unit, Kozhikode, Ext.B4 is the copy of Lab Stock Register of Fertilizer in the year 2020 -21 given by Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited Fertilizer mixing unit , Kozhikode, Ext. B5 is the true copy of Ingredient Movement Sheet of Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited, Fertilizer mixing unit, Kozhikode, Ext.B6 is the original report submitted by opposite party based on the Analysis report regarding the mixing of different element, Ext. B7 is the copy of the cash bill given by opposite party to complainant.
9. Perused the complaint, version, affidavits and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
- If so, reliefs and cost.
10. Point No.1 & 2
Case of the complainant is that on 18/11/2020 he had purchased 50 kg fertilizers 12:12:12 from opposite party , Malappuram District Rubber Growers Co-operating Marketing society at Nilambur. While using the fertilizers, complainant realised that there is a huge quantity of sand is used to make that fertilizers. Complainant approached the opposite party directly to convince them about his complaint. But they did not do anything . Opposite party convinced the complainant that the fertilizer in question is mixed and supplied by the Kerala Government Co –operative Rubber Marketing Federation mixing unit situated at Kozhikode after all quality checks. Complainant did not believe in that certificate issued by them. Hence he approached the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory situated at Pattambi and paid a fee of Rs. 450/- to check the quality of the fertilizer. In their report it is clearly stated that the fertilisers sent for quality inspection was of low quality and two ingredients used to make manure were found in lesser quantity as .24% and .17% . After receiving the report from Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory situatedat Pattambi, the opposite party is not ready to redress the grievance of complainant.
11. Opposite party in their version and affidavit denied all the allegations of complainant in his complaint and they produced documents Ext.B1 to B7. Complainant produced documents Ext. A1 to A4. In Ext. A1 given by office of Deputy Director Agriculture, Pattambi clearly stated in the result portion that , the fertilizer 12:12:12 is having “standard ”. In Ext. A2 the Analysis report of fertilizer sample 12:12:12, specification as per FCO (%), Total N in 12 contains 11.76% and variation is -0.24% and the permissible tolerance limit is 0.5%. Specification as per FCO(%), Neutral Ammonium Citrate Soluble P2O5 in 12 contains 12.54% and variation is +0.54% and the permissible tolerance limit is 0.5%. Specification as per FCO(%), Water Soluble K2O in 12 contains 11.83% and variation is -0.17% and the permissible tolerance limit is 0.5%.
12. In Ext.B1 produced by opposite party , a letter from the Managing Director, The Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited clearly stated that the fertilizer N:12, P:11.9, K:12 contains the prescribed quantity and quality as suggested and mixed by the mixing unit at Calicut. The mixture contains fertilizers like Urea, MOP and Rock phosphate in the ratio of 12:12:12. But the Rock phosphate is not soluble in water. Hence the complainant mistakenly believes that the unsoluble contents as sand. In Ext.B3 a hand written report from the Lab Assistant, The Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Limited, Fertilizers Mixing Unit, Calicut clearly stated the specification, composition as per analysis, variation and the tolerance limit. Ext.B4, B5 and B6 are the detailed reports which gave a deep knowledge regarding the specification, composition etc of the fertilizer mentioned in the complaint. From the documents, opposite party clarified that the fertilizer given to complainant which contains the components in the suggested ratio.
13. Hence we are on the opinion that there is no evidence to prove the allegations raised by complainant against opposite party. Opposite party provided the fertilizer mixture to complainant in the prescribed ratio. Hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
