F.A.No.613/2008   against  C.C.No.186/2006 ,  District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy  .

Between:

1.NETAFIM Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd.,

    Regional Office, H.No.16, Park Avenue Colony,

    Ameerpet, Hyderabad-16, represented by its

    Regional Manager.

2. NETAFIM Irrigation India Pvt Ltd.,

    having its Head Office at 268-270,

    GIDC, Manjusar, Savli, Vadodara-391 775,

    Gujarat State , represented  by its

    Managing Director                                                            .....Appellants/

                                                                                                       Opp.parties  1 & 2

                     And

Puligilla Janardhan Rao,

S/o. late P.Jagapathi Rao ,

Aged about 54 years, Occ:Agriculture,

R/o.Annaram Village, Papannapet mandal,

Medak District.                                                                        ....  Respondent                                                                                                 Complainant                                                                                                   

 Counsel for the appellants               :        Mr.M.V.Pratap Reddy   

Counsel for the respondent           :            Party in Person.  

CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT  

              SMT M.SHREESHA , HON’BLE MEMBER              

                   AND

                    SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                   FRIDAY, THE  TWENTY SEVENTH  DAY OF  JUNE,

      TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:  (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)

                                                            ***

     This is an appeal filed by the  appellants/opp.parties 1 AND 2  under Section 15 of the C.P.Act to set aside the order passed  by the District Forum, Medak , Sangareddy in C.C.No.186/2006 dt.14.3.2008 .

           The respondent herein  is the complainant  before District Forum .   He filed complaint  to direct the opp.parties 1 and  2  to  rectify the defect and replace with 16 m.m. lateral drip pipe line instead of 12 m.m. lateral pipes, to award compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the damages caused to the sugar cane crop due to the deficiency in service of the opp.parties and to award costs .

             The case  of the complainant is as follows:

 The complainant is a  farmer having five acres of land situated in Sy.no.351 at Annaram village in Papannapet  Mandal, Medak District  and has been cultivating the land by rising sugarcane crop  and supplying the same to the Nizam Deccan Sugar Factory  .  The opp.party no.3 advertised about the drip irrigation system  and introduced the opp.parties  1 & 2  to the complainant for installation   of such system  .The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- being the half of the estimated cost of the drip irrigation system  to the opp.parties 1 and 2 while the remaining cost  of Rs.50,000/-  was  paid   by the opp.party no.3 to the opp.parties 1 & 2   towards the subsidy offered by the Government of  Andhra Pradesh  . The opp.parties 1 & 2    installed the drip irrigation system with 12 mm.  lateral pipes and four numbers valves etc during the month of April 2005,    but the said drip irrigation system did not work  up to the requirement of the complainant .  The complainant approached the opp.parties to replace the 12 mm. lateral pipes by installing 16 mm. lateral pipes  for functioning of the system upto his needs, but the opp.parties  did not do so      Because of the deficiency in  installation of the system , the sugarcane field of the complainant could not be sufficiently irrigated due to which there was reduction of ten tones per acre in the yield of sugarcane as against the usual yield at 50 tones per acre.  Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.parties 1 & 2 to rectify the defect in the drip irrigation system by replacing the 12 mm lateral pipe with  that of 16 mm one and also  to pay  compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards the damages . 

     The opp.parties 1 and 2 filed counter denying allegations made in the complaint but admitting  to have supplied and installed  the  drip irrigation system in the sugarcane field of the complainant on receiving Rs.50,000/- from the  complainant besides receiving the subsidy amount of Rs.50,000/- from the opp.party no.3 towards the cost of the said system.  The opp.parties stated that  12 mm. lateral pipe is sufficient and that 16 mm. one as contended by the complainant is not necessary.   The reduced yield in the sugarcane crop of the complainant might be because of other factors i.e. climatic condition , water soil condition, pest management  and that the alleged reduction of yield cannot be attributed only to the failure of the drip irrigation system.  The opp.parties contended that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

     The opp.party no.3 filed counter contending that they have paid half of the estimated cost of Rs.50,000/-  to the opp.parties 1 & 2 for installation of the drip irrigation system in the sugarcane filed of the complainant as per their guidelines and approved specifications.    The opp.party contended that for non functioning of the drip irrigation  system they are not responsible   as they were not the manufacturers of the said equipment and being a government organisation established for the benefit of the agriculturists  is eschewed  from the tentacles of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opp.party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

    Exs.A1 to A15 documents are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B11 documents are marked on behalf of the opp.parties 1 & 2 .The District Forum  based on the evidence adduced and pleadings   allowed the complaint partly directing the opp.parties 1 & 2    to immediately replace the 12 mm diameter lateral pipe with that of 16 mm. one at the drip irrigation   system installed in the sugarcane field of the complainant    and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the  loss sustained by him and also pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint.   The complaint against opp.party no.3 is dismissed .

     Aggrieved by the  said order the opp.parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.                         

    The  point for determination in this appeal  is whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable?

     The appellants submit that they have  produced documentary evidence  to show that   for the sugarcane crop, 16 mm lateral pipe or 12 mm. lateral pipe can be installed  the Dist.Forum failed to understand the same and ignored it completely,  the complainant was not ready to pay the extra cost since the govt was giving 50% subsidy of the total cost of the  project or a maximum sum of Rs.50,000/-  which ever is less ,  the complainant availed maximum subsidy from the Government by paying remaining balance of Rs.50,000/-  through the Project Director A.P.,M.I.P. Sangareddy , Medak . there is no fault with the drip irrigation system  installed by them  in the fields  of the complainant  and there is no evidence to show that due to the   fault in drip  irrigations system in the fields of   the complainant  he has got reduced  yield  of sugarcane in his field , order passed by the District Forum may  be set aside.  The respondent resisted the plea that   on account of the drip irrigation system  installed by the    opp.parties  he sustained crop loss , order passed by the District Forum  may be  confirmed. 

      There is no dispute that the  opp.parties 1 and 2 installed drip irrigation system   with 12 mm lateral pipes  in the  sugarcane field of the complainant to an extent of 5 acres situated in Sy.No.351 at Annaram village in Papannapet. Mandal Medak Dist. .    It is also an admitted fact that the  drip irrigations system  was installed  with a subsidy of Rs.50,000/-  given by the Government.   After installation of the drip irrigation system  the complainant made  a representation to the Project Director , Dist. Water Management Agency  dt.4.1.2006 stating that  the  drip irrigation  installed in his field is not working properly  and the discharge of the water through outlets is insufficient for wetting of the crop  which is due to the installation of 12 mm. lateral pipes and requesting to arrange for installation of `16 mm. lateral pipes in his sugarcane field  and copy of the said letter was addressed to the NETAFIM company .   The appellants  contended that as per  Ex.B1  manual instructions   and guidelines of Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation  Project 12 mm. lateral pipes  can be installed for   drip irrigation system .  After installation of the drip irrigation  system  in the field of the complainant  , it was inspected by the Project director  and other authorities and they have   certified  about the working of the system satisfactorily . Ex.B9 is the  certificate issued by OSD (Technical) AP Micro Irrigation  Project  stating that “In drip irrigation systems water is carried through large network of tubing and  delivered to the plant at its base through emitters/drippers . Generally LDPE pipes  of 12 mm and 16 mm size are used as lateral pipes to carry water from the sub-main to emitters.   While designing the drip irrigation system the size of the subunit is  fixed by considering the hydraulics   of flow.  Generally  the pressure variation in the subunit  is limited to 20% ,hence the discharge variation with in the subunit is limited to 10%. The pressure head and type of the emitter govern the emitter flow and not the lateral size.  By considering the above design criteria the following conclusion can be drawn.  1. In both 12 mm and 16 mm lateral sizes the pressure variation should not exceed 20%  this will limit the discharge variation to 10%.   2.The permissible length of 12 mm is lesser than 16 mm., hence  the no. of blocks/subunits will be more in 12 mm compared to 16 mm.  3. Emitter discharge is the function of pressure head and not the lateral size. Hence , at given operating pressure in both 12 mm. and 16 mm. lateral sizes , the emitter will give the same discharge. “

  The grievance of the complainant is that on account of 12 mm lateral pipes  insufficient water was supplied to his fields  which affected his sugarcane crop.   Ex.B8 is the statement showing the maximum permissible length of drip lines.    At the time of installation of drip irrigation system in his   fields  the complainant   did not object for the  installation of 12 mm lateral pipes.  The District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence filed by the opp.parties .  The  opp.parties  were ready to install 16 mm lateral pipes  if the complainant paid extra amount but the complainant has not paid extra amount .  The complainant   has signed  annexure 8a  (d)  Soil Health Card   stating that the works of drip irrigation system completed to his satisfaction.     Thereafter the complainant  has complained  that  the drip system is not  working properly    and the opp.parties 1 & 2  along with  others inspected  the land and also rectified the defects of working system .        is the letter  addressed by the  opp.parties 1 and 2 to the opp.party no.3   As per the said letter it is stated  that  “ a team of officials consisting of  DGM –NDSL Medak , CDO – Sugar Dept. ML Specialist DWMA Medak , company DCO & Technical staff visited the  field along with the  farmer and studied  the case in detail & concluded that the laterals are to be placed for every single  row & separate  sub main line should be given for increased flow. Accordingly the rectification was done at company’s cost (Rs.10,000)  After this the farmer was  satisfied and also said that whatever area covered under single row is OK ( i.e. from 2.24 Ha to 0.70  Ha). Now one  month  after the rectification is done, the farmer has published this article and says that Drip system is not useful.”  The District Forum  has not considered the said letter Ex.B10.  The District Forum without properly appreciating the documentary evidence filed by the  opp.parties   allowed the complaint directing to replace  the 12 mm lateral pipe with that of 16 mm one at the drip irrigation system  installed in the field of the complainant.  .

     The  respondent   submits that on account of  the installation of drip irrigation system there is 20% loss of sugar cane crop  and compensation awarded at Rs.20,000/-  may be confirmed .  For the submission made by the respondent  is concerned we have gone through the documentary evidence  filed by the complainant .  He has not filed any documentary evidence with regard to crop loss is concerned.  When the complainant complained to the opp.parties they have  immediately  rectified the defects  in the drip irrigation system.  We are of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the  District Forum  without any basis . The complainant could have filed village accounts  to show loss of crop.  He could have taken the Village  Assistant  and Agricultural Officer  to show   that  he sustained loss of crop . Except his oral assertion there is no proof  that he  sustained loss of crop.  Therefore we are unable to agree with the finding of the District Forum.   

     In the result appeal is  allowed .  Order of the District Forum  is set aside.  No costs. 

                           PRESIDENT                 LADY  MEMBER        MALE MEMBER

                                                                        DT.27.6.2008

Pm*