Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

Friday, the 30^th day of May, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 98/2002

Between:

Madisetty Ekanadam, S/o. Madisetty Lakshmi Narsaiah,

Age: about 59 years, Occ: Doctor,

R/o. H.No1-8-453, Balasamudram,

 Hanamkonda,  Warangal District.

             … Complainant

AND

M/s. Agricultural Horticultural Society,

Rep by its Chairman, having its Office  .,

Situated at Public Garden,

Hyderabad – 500 004 .

… Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. P. Prabhakar  Reddy, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party  :  Sri P.Ramgopal   Rao, Advocate.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                                    ORDER

    Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant M.Ekanadham against the opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.4,27,500/- towards damages and interest and costs.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

                The complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.19-22 guntas in Sy.No.278/283 situated at Govardhanagiri Village of Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District.  The complainant raised Mango Orchard in the above land and are aged about 14 years and giving yield for past 10 years as on the date of complaint. The mango orchard is having irrigation facility and the above said land is fertile land suitable for raising mango garden and he invested huge amounts on each and every tree.  In the mango orchard the complainant about 100 trees were not desired variety all though they were extremely healthy.  The complainant approached the opposite party for advice regarding improvement of those trees. The officials of opposite party visited the orchard and advised the complainant for the top working of the trees which is the latest technique thus an amount of Rs12,500/- was paid by the complainant on 7-5-01 through D.D. to the opposite party @ Rs.125/- per each tree.  The opposite party received the said amount.  The complainant fulfilled all the formalities as advised by the opposite party, thus entrusted top working of 100 trees expecting a technically competent job under scientific supervision.  One employee by name Sri Shankar said to be a grafter was sent by the opposite party and has undertaken the grafting work and completed by September, October, 2001.  Inspite of excellent and knowledge care taken by the complainant 95 plants withered away and totally died.  Some of the photos along with negatives are also filed.  As per the complainant no proper scientific preoperative survey by a qualified professional has been undertaken as to the health of the trees general conditions in the orchard, type of the soil, water levels, availability of water and workers.  Thereafter most improper procedure/technique was adopted by not leaving atleast 25% of the tree and staging for the next season.  Binding of the scion was also not upto the mark as noticed during the later part of the operation.  The soin was getting separate from mother plant 25% to 50% of the tree must have been let intact and could have been top worked in stages i.e, next season after establishing this operation a success. A twig let was not sufficient to feed the entire plants especially in a ridlands especially in Telangana.  Thereafter he issued legal notices, then opposite party replied in vague. Then he filed the present complaint before this Forum.  

          The counsel for opposite party argued elaborately that only due to the careless of the complainant only the Mango Orchard sustained very much damages.  WE also agree with the contention of the opposite party and it is clear that due to carelessness of the complainant only he sustained heavy damages to the Mango orchard.

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,27,500/- towards damages and interest 12% p.a. and Rs.12,500/- paid as their fee.

After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:

The complainant had approached the opposite party in June, 2001 requesting for top working of 100 mango trees of inferior variety, out of a total of 700 trees in his garden, and he has given his consent letter along with D.D. for Rs.12,500/- towards advance payment for procuring the required variety of graft and in this case Benishan Variety, on 5-7-2001.  It is clear from  the reading of the consent letter that there is no commercial elements involved in the entire transaction and the actual expenses involved in conveyance and lodging are to be borne by the farmer.  And further it is clearly spelt out in the said letter that opposite party shall undertake the periodic plant protection work till 2 flushes are obtained and thereafter the plants shall be handed over to the farmer.  It shall be the responsibility of the farmer to provide irrigation and manuring to the trees as required as per the advice of the opposite party.

 We accept the arguments of the opposite party because they already argued that top working was accordingly undertaken of 100 trees in the garden of the complainant by a trained and experienced mali in July, 2002. 

There after care of top worked plants was being undertaken as per the agreement.  Infact on 5-3-2002 almost after 9 months of grafting the complainant himself sent a letter to the opposite party about the result of grafting, it is clear from the said letter that 50% of the top worked plants were making satisfactory progress, 25% of the plants needed relook, and 25% plants needed required reworking (10 plants totally dead.  Thus it is evident that even in March, 2002 the plants were alive except 10 trees which were reported dead. As already submitted, the maintenance of the plants was entrusted to the complainant as per the terms of the consent letter after two flushes, and there was no complaint whatsoever.  During July, 2002 when Mali who had done the grafting work had visited the garden of the complainant it was observed that 80 of the grafted trees and 10 non grafted trees had collapsed completely.  It was also expressed that the trees had died due to insufficient irrigation.

          The complainant addressed a letter dated 22-8-2002 alleging that the top working was done in haste by incompetent hands under no scientific supervision etc and claiming compensation, apart from refund of the advance paid.  The opposite party arranged for visit of a technical Committee to the garden of the complainant on 9-9-2002 which on examining the dead and surviving trees observed that all the 85 dead trees were having 5 to 8 grafted shoots 2 to 3 length indicating that the grafting has been successful.  The death of the plants is only due to lack of irrigation, lack of pest control and severe draught during the Summer 2002 which was unprecedented for which the opposite party is no way responsible and further technically competent authority can alone say whether the technique of grafting followed by opposite party is correct or not.

          For the foregoing reasons given by us it is clear that the death of the plants is only due to lack of irrigation and lack of pest control and severe drought during Summer, 2002.  So the opposite party is not responsible for the death of the trees, and opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to

the complainant.  Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of opposite party against the complainant.

Point No.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of opposite party against the complainant, this point also decided in favour of opposite party against the complainant.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 30^th May, 2008).

                                                 Sd/-                      Sd/-             Sd/-

                                             Member              Member         President,

                                            District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.

Affidavit of Witness of Complainant filed.                                                                

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Photo Graphs of Trees
2. Ex.A-2 D.D. voucher of Rs.12,539/-.
3. Ex.A-3 O/c of Legal Notice issued to Opposite party Dated:22-08-02.
4. Ex.A-4 Letter to Asst.Director of Agriculture dated:30-09-2002.
5. Ex.A-5  Letter by O.P. to Complainant dated:
6. Ex.A-6 Letter from Asst. Director of Horticulture dated:11-10-2002

 On behalf of Opposite party.

1.                 Ex.B-1 Letter from O.P. to Complainant

2.                 Ex.B-2 Consent Letter by Complainant

3.                 Ex.B-3 Letter from O.P. to Complainant dated:05-2-2002

4.                 Ex.B-4 Letter from Complainant to O.P. dated:22-08-2002

5.                 Ex.B-5 Letter by O.P. to Complainant

6.                 Ex.B-6 Letter from Complainant to O.P. dated: 02-09-2002

7.                 Ex.B-7 Photographs with negatives

8.                 Ex.B-8 Certificate by Y.Venkateshwar Rao, Addl. Sectrary GAD

9.                 Ex.B-9 Certificate by N.Venkataramaiah

10.            Ex.B-10 Certificate by R.Narsimha Chary

11.            Ex.B-11 Certificate by Hon’ble Justice V.Eshwaraiah date:26-11-02

12.            Ex.B-12 Letter by B.Srikanth Reddy, dated:12-12-2002

13.            Ex.B-13 Letter by B.Venkataramaiah Advocate to O.P.date:07-9-01

14.            Ex.B-14 Letter from N.Shiva Rao, to Chairman Public Gardner dt:22-11-02

15.            Ex.B-15 Letter from Krishna Kumar Reddy to O.P. dated:4-3-02

16.            Ex.B-16 Letter from K.P.Swaroop dated 29-12-2002

17.            Ex.B-17 Xerox copy of top working inferior seedling trees

18.            Ex.B-18 Clipping Book of Mamidee Thota

                                                                                                 Sd/-

PRESIDENT