By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief in OP. No. 24/2001 is as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant is a plantain farmer for the many years in past. The Complainant cultivated 5000 plantain seeds in lease land of Dr. Seethalanathan. At the time of planting the seeds the Complainant applied golden meal the organic fertilizer as the basic manure in the initial stage. Each plantain seed was given near about ½ kg of “golden meal”. <br /> <br /> 2. The plantain seeds were not germinated even after two months. On verification it was known to the Complainant that the seeds planted were decayed and it was due to the application of the organic manure issued by the 1st Opposite Party and manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant had a total loss of Rs.92,000/- including the rent on lease. The cost of the seed and the price given as the value of “golden meal'. The Complainant estimates that if an average yield obtained the Complainant would have received Rs. 4,00,000/- and it was lost on the application of the basic fertilizer produced and supplied by the Opposite Parties. <br /> <br /> 3. The 2nd Opposite Party claimed that the organic fertilizer named “golden meal” produced by them is a mixture of bone meal, leather meal, neem feed etc and it also consist of NPK in the ration of 7:10:5. The claim of the opposite party is incorrect instead of organic potash the fertilizer consist of chemical potash and salt contents. The excessive contents of chemical potash and salt caused the decay of the plantain seeds. The Complainant had a heavy loss due to the purchase of substandard organic fertilizer. The erroneous and deceitful advertisement of the Opposite Party led the Complainant to purchase the organic fertilizer it is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite party. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to give the Complainant Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loss and agony along with cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> 3. The 1st Opposite Party filed version appearing on notice. The gist of the version filed by the 1st Opposite Party is as follows. The complaint filed is illegal and it is based upon consulting with the other Complainant's to harras the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party has not issued the golden meal manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party has not sold the organic fertilizer to the Complainant and regarding the usage of organic fertilizer the 1st Opposite Party has no knowledge of it. More over the Complainant was not given any advice by the 1st Opposite Party on the application of the organic fertilizer to the plantain seeds. The allegation of the Complainant that the organic fertilizer supplied by the 1st Opposite Party caused decay of the plantain seeds is incorrect. If any decay of the plantain seeds effected it would have been due to many other reasons beyond the application of the organic fertilizer. The application of chemicals for any pesticides beyonds the actual dosage would have resulted the decay of the seeds. Moister content of the soil also governs healthy germination of the seeds. If the Complainant farmed the seeds improperly without having any acknowledge of cultivation the seeds would have been a decayed and if anything such evented the 1st Opposite Party is not responsible for it. If the Complainant is found to be deserving for compensation the 2nd Opposite Party is responsible for meeting cost and compensation. Since the 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacture of the organic meal supplied.<br /> <br /> 5. 2nd Opposite Party filed version. According to them the Complainant had not purchased the “golden meal” from the 1st Opposite Party. Since no purchase effected, under the preview of the Consumer Protection Act, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complaint is to be dismissed in the limine. The averment in the complaint that the Complainant cultivated Rs.6,000/- plantain seeds in the land on lease of a doctor Seethalanathan is also denied. The complaint envisages that the Complainant's friend one T.P. Abdu Rehimam purchased the “golden meal” from the Opposite party. The Complainant purchased 225 bags of the “golden meal” for the price of Rs.75,120/- is absolutely false. The Complainant has not produce any document along with complaint to establish this case. <br /> <br /> 6. The application of the organic fertilizer produced by this Opposite Party caused decay of the plantain seeds and non germination etc. are denied. The further averment in the complaint that near about 150 plantain seeds cultivated in the adjustment land without applying this organic fertilizer has shown healthy growth is only a false allegation. Towards the land on lease Rs.20,000/- given by the Complainant is not established by evidence. The extensity of the land cultivated and the rate at which the land was taken for rent is not specifically stated in the complaint . Similarly the the labour charges including the cost of plantain, the seeds was given Rs.8/- per each are supported by any documents. The amount assessed on loan is not reasonable and more over based on speculations quandifying an amount.<br /> <br /> 7. The “golden meal”, is the organic fertilizer manufactured by this Opposite Party which is of good quality. The allegation of the Complainant that the consumer is trapped in publicity and has given false information is denied by the Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party has not supplied any fertilizer of substandard quality. All the allegation are based on false and groundless assessment. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of this Opposite Party. The plantain seeds cultivated by the Complainant if caused to any decay it may be due to unskilled and improper cultivation. The 2nd Opposite Party is not responsible for it. The 2nd Opposite party cannot assess upon reason for decay of the seeds. The quantity of fertilizer applied whether it is in accordance with the stipulations are not known to the 2nd Opposite Party. The complaint is not maintainable it is to be dismissed with cost to the 2nd Opposite Party.<br />