O.P. No. 26/2001<br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> 11. The Complainant is a banana cultivator for the past many years. In the land taken for lease, planted 5800 banana seeds. As usual the Complainant applied organic fertilizer at the<br /> time of planting the seeds purchased from the 1st Opposite Party manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party in total 225 bags of golden meals was purchased. Each bag contains 50 kg. The complainant had his friend one P. Abdulrahiman spent Rs.75,000/-for the purchase of' golden meal'. As the directions of the Opposite Party for each plant ½ kg golden meals was supplied at the time of planting. After 2 months when the seeds were not germinated the Complainant on examination realized that the seeds were decayed. The 150 banana seeds which were not given the “golden meals” as a basic fertilizer were not effected of any decay. The decay of the seeds were caused due to the application of the organic fertilizer at the time of planting. The sample of soil if sent for chemical analysis the actual cause of the decay and the chemical composition of the soil can be realized. The Complainant was attracted by the wrong advertisement given by the Opposite Parties as such that the golden meals is a highly effective biological fertilizer consists of born meal, leather meal and neem cake contents along NPK. The complainant believes that instead of organic potash the fertilizer produced is with chemical potash. The wrong and misleading advertisement done by the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practise. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs. 5,00,000/- along with other costs.<br /> <br /> The version of the Opposite Party is as as follows:<br /> <br /> 12. The 1st Opposite Party has no prior knowledge of the Complainant. The Complainant was not given any organic fertilizer by the 1st Opposite Party. The allegation of the complainant that he purchased along with his friend 225 bags of golden meals each containing 50 kg in weight purchased for a total sum of Rs.75,120/- are denied. The 1st Opposite Party has not aware of cultivation of 5200 plantain seeds in the lease land. The 1st Opposite Party had not sold the golden meals to the Complainant. Towards the price of it no amount was received. The complaint filed is in collusion with Complainants in OP 24/01 and OP 25/01 and more over it is motivated with vested interest to extract money from the 1st Opposite Party. If any decay in planted seeds effected it would have been due to excess or wrong applications of chemicals.<br /> Beyond that if the plantain seeds are not up to quality decay of the seeds are possible. The golden meals supplied by the 1st Opposite Party to the other farmers made no allegation about the quality of the fertilizer. The 1st Opposite Party is not responsible to compensate the complainant for any loss. The claim of the Complainant that he had estimated loss of Rs.4,20,000/- is absolutely baseless and the amount claimed is only experimental base.<br /> The 1st Opposite Party has no knowledge of composition of the golden meal. The relief claimed by the Complainant is not born out of reasons and 1st Opposite party is an unnecessary party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 1st Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> The gist of the version of the 2nd Opposite Party is as follows:<br /> <br /> 13. The Complainant has not purchased the biological fertilizer, the golden meals from the 2nd or the 1st Opposite Party. The complaint is filed with vested interest and also in collusion with other Complainants. The allegations in the complaint that the Complainant farmed plantain seeds in the lease land taken on rent and as such 5200 plantain seeds were cultivated are to be established by the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant that the biological fertilizer was purchased from the 1st Opposite party are contradictory and obscure. The complaint has not <br /> categorically stated that the extent of the land in which the cultivation was done and how much the rent on lease are not specifically stated. The cost of the plantain seeds are also incorrect. The claim of the Complainant that he spent Rs.17,680/- for the purchase of the golden meals is incorrect. As such the expenses of the Complainant for Rs.1,01,480/- for the planting expenses are also incorrect.<br /> <br /> 14. The allegation of the Complainant that the decay of the plantain seeds were due to the application of the organic manure is absolutely false and more over near about 150 plantain seeds which were not planted on the application of the organic manure showed healthy growth is nothing but an allegation on the part of the Complainant for the in purpose of the complaint alone.<br /> The Complainant has not categorically stated the extent of the land and the rent of the lease land. The labour charge avered in the complaint is based on mere assumptions. There is no reasonable and cogent evidence to show that the Complainant had a loss of Rs.4,20,000/-. The loss estimated by the Complainant is only a concocted story. The organic manure manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party is a standard one. The allegation of the Complainant that in the organic manure instead of organic potash the chemical potash and salt contented were found to be in excess and denied by the 2nd Opposite Party. There is no unfair trade practice in the dealing of the 2nd Opposite Party. If any decay of the plantain seeds effected immediately after cultivation it would have been due to the excessive application of chemicals or pesticides The healthy growth of the plant is related to some other factors as such sufficient drainage proper climate and so on. In this highly delayed period on examination of the soil the chemical composition of the soil cannot be realised. The soil if sent for chemical test which would not give adequate result. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 15. The Complainant filed in OP 24/01 IA No. 2/2001 for the joint trial of O.P. No. 24/2001, O.P. No. 25/2001 and O.P. No. 26/2001 and the petition is allowed and OP 24/01 is considered as the leading case. <br /> <br /> 16. The points in consideration of the OP No. 24/01.OP No. 25/01 and OP No. 26/01 are one and the same and they are:-<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?<br /> 2.Relief and cost. <br /> <br /> 17. Point No.1: The Complainant in OP. 24/2001 is examined as PW3. The Complainant in 25/2001 is examined as PW2 and the Complainant in OP. 26/2001 filed proof affidavit. In support of the evidence on the part of the Complainants Ext.A1 and A2 series are marked. The case of the Complainant is that plantain seeds farmed in the land on lease were decayed due to the application of organic fertilizer at the time of planting. The 1st Opposite Party is the distributer of the organic fertilizer the 2nd Opposite party is the manufacture. The chemical analytical report of the organic manure is marked as Ext.X1. The contention of the 1st Opposite Party is that the Complainants were not sold the organic manure as such alleged. According to the 2nd Opposite Party, the manufactures of the branded organic fertilizer “golden Meal” which keeps on its standard and quality. The organic manure produced by the 2nd Opposite Party was sold to the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party would have not sold the organic manure as alleged by the Complainants. The allegations of the Complainants are done in collusion with motivated interest. The organic manure sold by the Complainant has its own quality apart from the complaints of the Complainants no other allegation on the quality and standard of the organic manure is ever questioned.<br /> <br /> 18. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is examined as PW1 as an expert witness. Ext.X1 is the chemical analytical report of soil and the Fertilizer which had undergone test at the Central Coffee Research Institute Chickmangalore District, Karnataka. On examination, the expert deposed that as an organic manure golden meal is known to him which is also a government recommended organic manure. In the opinion of the expert the components of the organic manure is in the required proportion. The only difference is with regard to electric conductivity of the sample sent for chemical analysis. The electric conductivity is beyond the reasonable range. The other micro and macro nutrients are correct in proportions and satisfactory. The chemical analytical tests is also influenced by the manner in which the sample is taken. The sample of the soil was taken from the fields of the three complainants. In the soil analytical report the soils are acidic in nature. The analytical values of the organic manure in major micro nutrients are in sufficient quantity. According to the expert in agriculture the decay of the plantain seeds can be caused due to different reasons the quality of the seed, the pathological conditions the chemical including the fertilizer applied by the planting of the seeds can also cause decay of the planted seeds. In the soil analytical report the contend of nitrogen is not mentioned.<br /> <br /> C 19. The Complainant in OP 24/01 is examined as PW3, similarly in OP. 25/01, the Complainant is examined as PW2. The Complainant in OP. 26/01 filed chief affidavit swearing his allegations. On examination the Complainant in OP 24/01 deposed that the purchase of organic manure was done by him through the Complainant in OP 25/01. The organic manure was taken in to the farmyard of the Complainant in OP 24/01 was from the shed of the PW2. The samples of organic manure was taken from the shed were the manure was kept. All the three complainants purchased 225 bags in total of organic manure. The Complainant in OP 25/01 also admitted that the organic manure branded golden meal is known to him as an approved manure by the government. On cross examination of the Complainant in OP 25/01 the Complainant admitted that he has not taken any steps to avoid the decaying of the seeds planted This complainant is unaware of the reasons why the seeds of plantain were decayed. The Complainants are of the opinions that instead of organic potash quantity of chemical potash is used and as a result the seeds became decayed. The Complainant in OP 26/01 is also in the same opinion. The manager of the 1st Opposite Party is examined as OPW3. Ext.B4, Ext.B5 and Ext B6 are the invoice showing the purchase of organic manure from the 2nd Opposite Party. The total number of bags of golden meal purchased by the 1st Opposite Party is 192. The Complainants produce the bills in which 172 bags of golden meals. The bill dated 20.9.2001 shows that the Complainant in OP 25/01 purchased 72 bags. The contention of the Opposite Party is that Ext.A2 series showing the purchase of 72 bags of the golden meal is a false concocted document. Ext.X2 and X3 are the bill books of the 1st Opposite Party. In the carbon copy of the Ext.2 series the bill No.669 is not with any date. In the carbon copy of the bill No.668 the date is 3.11.2000. Ext.A2 showing the purchase of 72 bags of golden meals is provided with the date 05.9.2000. The succeeding carbon copy of the bill No.670 is dated 4.11.2000. It is deposed that the bills are written in the succeeding date. Ext.X2 (a) is the carbon copy of the bill No.240, the original of this bill is Ext.A2 in Ext.A2 (a) also there is no date whereas in the bill produced by the Complainant Ext.A2 date is 20.9.2000. The carbon copy of the bill No.639 is marked as Ext.X2(c) the date mentioned there in is 21.9.2000. It also shows that the bill No. 640 is written first afterwards the bill No.639 is written. At the onset Ext.A2 is to be considered as a concocted documents. The case of the Complainants are that in total they have purchased 225 bags of golden meals, as per the document which are produced even if those are related on the purchase was only 172 bags.<br /> <br /> 20. The case of the Complainants are that the samples of the manure were collected from the shed in the farming field. The three samples of manure for chemical analytical tests were collected from the shed of PW2, the complainant in OP No.25/2001. But according to the complainant in OP No. 26/01 samples of organic fertilizer were collected from the respective fields. The complainants are not certain about from where the samples of organic fertilizer collected. <br /> <br /> 21. The Complainants are not in a position to establish that the organic manure in the quantity as they alleged are purchased from the Opposite party. More over the test which was done to analyse components of soil and organic manure was not done from an appropriate laboratory. In the light of the above inferences, we are in the opinion that the Opposite Parties have not done any deficiency in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly. <br /> <br /> 22. Point No.2:- The Opposite Parties appeared to be found not done any deficiency in service . In this juncture detail discussion of point No.2 is not needed.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order upon costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER- I: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True copy/ MEMBER-II: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> COMMON APPENDIX:OP No. 24,25,26 of 2001<br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 Zubair K. Asst. Director of agriculture<br /> PW2 Abdul Rahiman Complainant in OP 25/01<br /> PW3 Sunny Complainant in OP 24/01<br /> PW4 Pradeep Complainant in OP26/01<br /> PW5 Dr. Seethalanathan<br /> Witness examined for opposite parties:<br /> OPW1 K.N. Kesavan Nair Managing Director.<br /> OPW2 Krishnan Agriculturist.<br /> OPW 3 Muraleedharan K.B. <br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Advertisement<br /> A2 series Cash Bills<br /> X1 Copy of Soil Analisis Report.<br /> X2 (a) 640th page of Bill Book <br /> X2 (b) 669th page of bill book<br /> X2 © 639th page of bill book<br /> X2 (d) 668th page of bill book<br /> X3 (a) 380th page of Bill Book<br /> X3 (b) 392th page of bill book<br /> X3 © 304th page of bill book<br /> X4 641th page of Bill Book<br /> X5 Commission report Dt. 21.5.2001<br /> X6 Commission report<br /> X7 Commissioner report<br /> Contd...14)<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> Ext. B1 Marked in the proof affidavit of OP No.2 (Original of leaflet) <br /> Ext. B2 Analatical report<br /> Ext B3 Credit memorandum<br /> Ext. B4 Invoice No. 337<br /> Ext. B5 Invoice No.188<br /> Ext. B6 Despatch advice cum invoice No. 2164<br /> Ext. B7 (a) Copy of certificate Dt. 26.5.97<br /> Ext. B7 (b) Copy of certificate 1998<br /> Ext. B7 © Copy of certificate Dt. 10.10.2001<br /> Ext. B7 (d) Copy of certificate Dt. 30.9.2004<br /> Ext. B7 (e) Copy of certificate Dt. 30.9.04<br /> Ext. B7 (f ) Copy of certificate Dt. 26.10.2007 <br /> <br />