Mr.Ravi Kumar.C. Sameer.P.Mulay, M/s Banadeshwar Agro Agencies, Mr.G.Nagesh,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- Complainant in C.C. No. 12/08, 13/08, 19/08 are permanent resident of Athnur village, complainant in C.C. No. 18/08 is permanent resident of Chimalapur village and complainants in C.C. No. 14/08, 17/08, 20/08 to 22/08 are permanent residents of Shakapur village. 2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in all above said cases are one and the same, question of facts and law involved in these complaints are one and the same. As such we heard all these complaints together and disposed of them by this common judgment, in order to avoid repetition of appreciation of the evidences of the parties, the complainants of each case filed their respective complaints against opposite Nos. 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award the loss sustained by each of them due to cultivation of defective seeds supplied by the opposite No.1 prepared by opposite Nos. 2 to 4. 3. The brief facts of the complainants case in all these cases are on similar facts, each complainant contended in their respective complaints that they have purchased jawar seeds Ajeet 333 Brand from Opposite No-1 for consideration produced by opposite No-2 to 4, each of them are sown the said jawar seeds in their respective lands in the presence of officer of the opposites. The management of the crop done by each of them as per the instructions given by the opposites, but their respective crops failed in giving minimum yield they sustained heavy loss due to sowing of defective seeds supplied by the opposite No.1, it was brought to the notice of opposites, they shown their negligence and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their service towards each complainant of the respective cases. 4. The Opposite No-1 appeared in this case through his Advocate and Opposite Nos. 2 to 4 also appeared through their Advocate. Opposite No-1 filed his written version in all cases separately on common ground that, he is the only dealer of the above said jawar seeds produced and tested by opposite No. 2 to 4, each of the complainants have purchased the jawar seeds from him and he issued bills to each of them. All other allegations made against by the respective complainants are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss all the complaints among other grounds. 5. The brief facts of the opposites Nos. 2 to 4 in each case as there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by each complainant, the complainants of each case have purchased Ajeet 333 Brand jawar seeds from opposite No.1 produced and tested by opposite No.2 to 4. The complainants have not sown those jawar seeds, as per the instructions given to them. The season of sowing was not a proper season, the management of the crop not done properly, hence their might be failure of crop due to non following the instructions given by the company to each complainant, accordingly they prayed for to dismiss all the complaints among other grounds. 6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties, in C.C. No. 12/08 to 22/08, the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainants in C.C. No. 12/08 to 22/08 proves that, they have purchased jawar seeds Ajeet 333 Brand from opposite No-1 produced and tested by the opposite Nos-2 to 4 with assurance and publicity given by them in-respect of those seeds with hope that they will get good yield, if sown in their respective lands and sown the said seeds in their respective lands proper management of the crop done by them, as per the instructions given by the opposites, but seeds not properly settled, the seeds not developed and MT husk and thereby each of them have suffered heavy loss, opposites not taken care of their grievances, they were negligent in considering their request and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in service towards them ? 2. Whether each complainant in C.C. No. 12/08 to 22/08 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their respective complaints. 3. What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 8. To prove the facts involved in these two points. In C.C. No. 12/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Malappagowda was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of opposite No. 1 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 marked. Affidavit evidence of the opposite No-1 was filed he was noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked. 9. In C.C.No. 13/08 Affidavit-evidence complainant Rangappa was filed he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of Field Assistant of opposite Nos-2 to 4 was filed he was noted as PW-2. The Respondents cross-examined him, affidavit-evidence of Associate Professor (seeds & science technology) Regional Agricultural Research Station Raichur, University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad was filed, he was noted as PW-3, the Respondent No. 2 to 4 have cross-examined him. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-11 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, he was noted as RW-1, affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No-2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-2. The document Ex.R-2 is marked. 10. In C.C.No. 14/08 Affidavit-evidence of the complainant Balappa was filed he was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-12 & Ex.P-13 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 11. In C.C. No. 15/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Shekarappa was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-14 & Ex.P-15 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No-2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 12. In C.C. No. 16/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Sugappa was filed he was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-16 & Ex.P-17 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No-2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 13. In C.C. No. 17/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Ramangouda was filed he was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-18 & Ex.P-19 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. 14. In C.C. No. 18/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Basavarajappa was filed was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-21 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 15. In C.C. No. 19/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Sambangouda was filed was noted as PW-1. Three documents Ex.P-22 to Ex.P-24 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 16. In C.C. No. 20/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Ramappaa was filed he was noted as PW-1. Three documents Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-27 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 17. In C.C. No. 21/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Shankrappa was filed was noted as PW-1. Two documents Ex.P-28 & Ex.P-29 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 18. In C.C. No. 22/08 Affidavit-evidence of complainant Yelappa was filed was noted as PW-1. Three documents Ex.P-30 to Ex.P-32 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Regional Manager of Respondent No- 2 to 4 was filed he was noted as RW-1. 19. On perusal of the pleadings of parties, evidences lead by them in each case which clearly goes to show that the opposite No-1 is the dealer of jawar seeds Ajeet 333 Brand produced and tested by opposite No- 2 to 4, in all cases Respondent No. 1 to 4 have admitted the fact of purchasing of jawar seeds Brand Ajeet 333 from Respondent No-1 for consideration by these complainants. It is further fact that Respondent No-1 issued bills to each complainant for purchase of jawar seeds Ajeet 333 Brand by the respective complainant, as such bills produced by each complainants in their respective cases regarding for the purchase of jawar from Respondent No-1 are need not require much appreciation. Sowing the said jawar seeds by each complainant in their respective lands as pleaded in their respective complaints is also not in dispute. Further the crop of the said jawar utterly failed without giving minimum quantity to yield by each complainant as pleaded in their respective complaints are not in serious dispute. 20. With these undisputed facts, now let us examine the case of complainants with regard to the seeds purchased by each of them from opposite No-1 are of defective seeds. Admittedly in all these complainants are farmers and not much educative. They have not preserved any samples of such jawar seeds and not produced before this Forum to get it testified by the competent authorities as provided U/section 13(c) to 13(g). In the said circumstances the common question before us is to see as to whether the complaint filed by each complainants is maintainable for non compliance of section 13(c) to 13(g) of C.P. Act. 21. In this regard, we have referred ruling reported in 2009 CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC) National Seeds Corporation Limited V/s. P.V. Krishnareddy and others. In the said case their lordships of the National Commission held as an agriculturist is not expected that, he would conserve a portion of seeds for any such future eventuality. 22. Keeping in view of the principles of their lordships of the Hnble National Commission, we are of the view that the said principles are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as in all these cases each complainant is an agriculturist and he is not expected to preserve a portion of seeds for to get it testify to meet out any future eventuality. In view of the circumstances stated above, we are of the view that non preservation and production of those samples seeds before this Forum in their respective cases for to get it testify by the experts as contemplated U/sec. 13(c) to 13(g) of C.P. Act is not a fatal to the case of each complainant 23. Now, we have to see as to whether the complainants of each case has proved the fact that they have sown Ajeet 333 Brand jawar seeds purchased from opposite No-1 produced by opposite No. 2 to 4, as per the instructions and guidelines of the cultivation published by these opposites and due to defect in the said seeds each of them have not got minimum quantity of yield and thereby there was deficiency in service of these opposites. 24. In this regard evidence of the parties, in C.C. No. 13/08 are material evidences relied by all the complainants, hence the affidavit-evidence of parties and documents produced by them in C.C. No. 13/08 are required detail appreciation. Admittedly PW-1 is the affidavit-evidence of complainant in each case, in C.C. No. 13/08 affidavit-evidence of Field Assistant of opposite No- 2 to 4 company was filed, he was noted as PW-2, the opposites have cross-examined this witness, another affidavit-evidence of Basavegouda who is the Associate Professor (seeds & science technology) Regional Agricultural Research Station, Raichur affiliated to University of Agricultural Science Dharwad was filed and he noted as PW-3. The documents marked in C.C. No. 13/08 are Ex.P-1 is the field inspection report of PW-3 and his second field inspection report is at Ex.P-2. Ex.P-8 is the seeds packet on which certification of seeds printed by these opposites by showing that the germination (minimum) to the extent of 75%, pure seeds (minimum) 98%, weed seeds (maximum) 2%. 25. The evidence of PW-2 who is the Field Officer of the opposite Nos. 2 to 4 company clearly stated in examination in chief as he canvassed about the quality of jawar seeds Brand 333 in surrounding area of Athnur village, Shakapur village and Raichur and before some other farmers. In pursuance of the canvass made by him about the quality of seeds, these complainants have purchased seeds from opposite No-1 dealer. Further it is stated by him that complainants have sown the above said seeds in their respective lands in his presence, this admission would show that the objection of opposite No 2 to 4 regarding the effect of low temperature in soil, moisture, pest problems, variation in planting etc., cannot be accepted as the competent and authorized person PW-2 allowed these complainants to sow the seeds in their respective lands under his supervision. 26. Further evidence of him goes to show that crop in the lands of complainants not grown, it completely spoiled, there was no filling of jawar in the husk. However this witness was cross-examined by opposites 1 to 4, certain facts suggested by these opposites in his cross-examination as he is the relative of some of the complainants of this case, he is not competent to work as field officer and he is giving false evidence to support the political leaders of the village. This witness denied all such suggestions, we cannot accept the main ground as suggested to this witness as he is not competent to work as a filed officer, if it was a case, then why these opposite appointed him as a field officer in the company the opposites cannot give any answers to this question as they have denied the total evidence of PW-2, but not denied the fact of working him in their firm as a field officer. 27. Other facts out coming in his cross-examination in Para- 1 to 7 are not at all destroyed the evidence given by him in his examination in chief. Hence it is very much clear that as per the canvass made by him with regard to quality of jawar seeds Brand 333 these complainants had reposed belief in him about quality of seeds purchased and sown as per the direction given to them by PW-2. Non suitability of monsoon, non proper management of crop as contended by opposites not established from the evidence of this witness, hence we are of the view that PW-2 is trustworthy witness to place reliance on him, as such we accepted his evidence and came to a conclusion that the evidence of complainant of each case are corroborating with the evidence of PW-2, as such the objection raised by opposites with regard to discrepancies, contradictions and omissions out coming from his cross-examination are over looked. 28. Now coming to the evidence of another material witness PW-3 in C.C. No. 13/08 and his reports at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. Admittedly PW-3 is an expert in seeds and science technology under University of Agricultural Science Dharwad, as per his examination in chief, he inspected the field of the complainant along with Assistant Director of Agriculture Manvi, after thorough inspection of the crops standing in fields of the complainants, he opined that the failure of crop was due to non suitable for the Rabi Season of seeds of jawar hybrid of Ajeet Company, accordingly he submitted two reports Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2. 29. Now, we have to see the cross-examination of PW-3 by the opposites 1 to 4 on Page No-2 of the cross-examination it was suggested to him that he came to court to give evidence at the instance of one Mallappagouda, this witness denied the said suggestion. Further cross-examinations of him shows that PW-3 not taken the assistance of Village Accountant to identify the lands of each complainant, he was not prepared panchanama at the time of inspection and non collecting of the sample of the seeds from the lands of complainants. 30. Further cross-examination in para-5 on page No-3 goes to show that the condition of soil of the crop during the inspection was normal. At the time of inspection, there was no cool temperature at floret differentiation, stage causes premature cell, microsores disassociation, shrinking another cavity and pollen sterility to the extent of 46% which will affect the seeds setting. Further he opened that failure of crop was due to non tolerable of low temperature. 31. The learned advocate for opposite No-1 relied on the ruling reported in II 2009 CPJ 414 (Maharastra State Commission) Somanath Kashinath Ghodse V/s. Vilas Gangaram Jagap & another. The learned advocate for opposite No. 2 to 4 have relied on the following rulings: (1) III (2004) CPJ 17 (NC) Ganesh Ram & Others V/s. Proprietor Kisan Agro Sales & Another (2) II (2004) CPJ 651 SIV Industries Limited & Another V/s. M. Rajarathinam (Tamilnadu State Commission) (3) 1986-2005 Consumer 9397 (SC). In all the above said cases their lordships have dismissed the complaints on the grounds that variation in argo climatic condition and for non followed the directions issued by Agriculture Department regarding the cultivation. With great respect to the lordships of the above said rulings, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand are different to the facts and circumstances in the cases dealt by their lordships. 32. Now, it appears to us that these opposites intended to take the benefit of the opinion of PW-3 by contending that there was no defect in the seeds, complainant themselves have not cultivated in proper season and thereby they might have not proper yield out of such cultivation in non-suitable season. 33. We have gone through the entire cross-examination of PW-3 and the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites, we are of the view that as the opinion of PW-3 not helpful for them to jurk their responsibility on the shoulder of each complainant for the reason that each complainant have sown the above said seeds in their respective lands in presence of field officer of PW-2, as such we are of the view that, if it was a real fact that the complainants have not sown the above seeds in suitable season, then why the field officer of PW-2 allowed them to sow the said seeds in their respective lands of the complainants in his presence at that time, as such we have perused the cover at Ex.P-8 wherein no such instruction printed on it, but they have printed only minimum germination of seeds and maximum weed seeds contained in the packet. Hence we are of the view that the said portion of cross-examination of PW-3 not helpful for opposite Nos. 1 to 4 to show that these complainants have sown the above seeds in the non suitable climate and temperature and thereby they not got any yield out of the crop. 34. Now, it is fact that the crop of jawar in the respective lands of the complainants not gave any yield, the evidence of PW- 1 to 3 in C.C. N. 13/08 and evidence of the complainant in all other cases shows that the seeds supplied by opposite No-1 of jawar 333 Brand to these complainants produced tested by opposite No- 2 to 4 are of defective seeds, there is no need to get any other experts opinion to come to such conclusions, the evidence of RW-1 and the evidence of RW-2 in all the cases are not helpful for the opposites to hold contrary view, accordingly we rejected the evidence of the opposites and accepted the evidence of PW- 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 13/08 and made applicable to all other cases and came to a conclusion that all these opposites of each case as referred above have committed the deficiency in their services towards each complainant of the above said cases, as such we answered Point No-1 in all the above said cases as in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- In C.C. No. 12/08 to 22/08 35. According to complainant Mallappaguda in C.C. No. 12/08, he purchased 11 packets of seeds containing 3 Kgs each that means to say that, he purchased 33 Kgs of jawar seeds from opposite No-1 produced and tested by opposite Nos. 2 to 4 vide bill at Ex.P-2 (it is not in dispute by the parties). As per his calculation probable good yield will be 38 quintals of jawar per acre and as per his assessment, the market value of the jawar per quintal in the year 2007 would be Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 1,800/-, he had grown 33 Kgs of jawar in 11 acres of his land. As per his expectation the expected yield would be 418 quintals taking rate per quintal as 1,700/-, the total market value of the 418 quintal of jawar in that year would be Rs. 7,10,600/- he deducted sale price of Rs. 1,10,000/- which works out to Rs. 6,06,600/- this is amount claimed by him in this case. 36. The complainant has not produced any records or evidence on record to hold that the expected yield was 38 quintals per acre at the same time no records filed by him to accept that in the relevant year, price of the jawar of other variety or of the same variety was for Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 1,800/- per quintal. 37. In the light of circumstances stated above, it appears to us from the pleadings of the parties, that the land of the complainant in which the jawar seeds sown is not an irrigated land, it is rain fed land, as such the average probable highest yield of jawar in the dry land more particularly in the said area would be 4 quintal per acre, as such complainant sown the said jawar seeds in 11 acres of his land and thereby total expected good yield in 11 acres of his land would be 11x4=44 quintals this is the expected yield of jawar in 11 acres of the land of the complainant. As stated above these complainant not filed any documentary evidences to show the market value of jawar 333 variety was of Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 1,800/- per quintal in the year 2007, however we have taken note of the price of jawar per quintal in the year 2007 from our experience by gets work as highest price of jawar per quintal might be Rs. 1,000/-, accordingly 44x1000=44000 as per reports at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 by PW-3 in C.C. No. 13/08, the seeds setting of the crop of the land of complainant would be 10% to 20%. But we have taken average seeds setting as 15% which works out to 6,600/-, this amount is deducted out of the expected income of the year 2007, that is 44000-6600=37400 for which the complainant is entitled for loss of yield of jawar due to defective seeds. 38. Probable expenditure of the cultivation in 11 acres is taken to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- for which the complainant is entitled, for their deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to the complainant under deficiency in services of opposites. The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Hence the complainant entitled recover total amount of Rs. 56,000/- and he is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 36. In C.C. No. 13/08 Complainant Rangappa sown the jawar seeds 333 variety supplied by opposite No-1 in 7 acres of his land bearing Sy.No. 83. According to his claim, the expected yield per acre is 34 to 38 quintals, he quoted the rate per quintal jawar as Rs. 1,700/-, This complainant also not produced any records to show the minimum yield per acre to the extent of 34 to 38 quintals and no records to show that the rate per quintal will be Rs. 1,700/- in the year 2007. The land of the complainant is rain fed land, the probable highest yield of jawar in dry land would be 4 quintals per acre, the complainant sown jawar seeds in 7 acres of his land, that means he expected yield will be 7x4=28 quintals. The maximum probable rate per quintal of jawar in the year 2007 is taken as Rs. 1000/-, hence 28x1000=28000, as per reports at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 in C.C. No. 13/08, the seeds setting in the husk of the crop was to the extent of 10% to 20% as such the average of it is taken as 15% which works out to Rs. 4,200/-, this amount is to be deducted out of Rs. 28,000/-. Hence the total loss sustained by the complainant for growing defective seeds is to the extent of Rs. 23,800/- cultivation cost in 7 acres of his land is fixed to Rs. 8,000/- lumpsum amount for which the complainant is entitled for we have noticed deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, as such the lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is granted to the complainant under the head of deficiency in service by these opposites. Another lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- is granted to the complainant towards cost of this litigation. Hence the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 36,8000/- from the opposites, the complainant is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 37. In C.C. N. 14/08 Complainant Balappa sown the jawar seeds 333 variety in 2 acres of his land, no doubt he has claimed 34 to 38 quintals of jawar per acre as an expected yield and Rs. 1,700/- to Rs. 1,800/- per quintal. In order to substantiate this claim of him, he has not produced any records to acdept his probable yield and rate claimed by him, however we have taken into consideration of the general yield in dry lands, the highest yield per acre is taken as 4 quintals. The complainant sown his jawar seeds in 2 acres of his land as such the yield will be 4x2=8 quintals, we have taken note of the entire facts and circumstances of the market value of jawar i.e, 2007 and taken as the price per quintal is Rs. 1,000/- as such 8x1000=8000. 37. As per the reports at Ex.P- 1 & Ex.P-2 by PW-3 in C.C. No. 13/08, there was no development of seeds in the husk. Hence the complainant sustained loss to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- out of 2 acres of his land, as such he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 8,000- from the opposites, cultivation cost of Rs. 5,000/- in lumpsum is fixed, we have noticed deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, as such the complainant is entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head. The complainant is also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 18,000/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 38. In C.C. No. 15/08 complainant Shekarapppa sown the said jawar seeds in 7 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No. 302, according to him expected yield was 34 to 38 quintals per acre, price claimed by him is Rs. 1,700/- per quintal and expected income would be Rs. 3,87,000/-. In the instant case also complainant not filed any documentary evidences either to expect the good yield of the 34-38 per quintals or the price per acre was Rs. 1,700/-. In the absence of such documentary evidences, we cannot accept the said claim of complainant, however we have taken note of the yield generally from the dry lands and taken the highest yield per acre as 4 quintals. In the instant case the complainant had sown the said jawar in 7 acres 8 guntas, however we have taken it as 7 acres of his land. Hence the probable highest yield of jawar in 7 acres will be 7x4=28, we have taken note of the price of jawar per quintal was Rs. 1,000/- in that year, as such 28x1000=28000 which is the loss sustained by him in the cultivation due to defective seeds, as per report at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 by PW-3 in C.C. No. 13/08 percentage of seeds setting in his land was to the extent of 10% to 20%, average of this figure is taken as 15% which works out to Rs. 4,200/-, this amount is to be deducted out of Rs. 28,000/-, then it will come to Rs. 23,800/-, this is the amount for which the complainant is entitled for the loss in his agriculture due to defective seeds. 39. We have taken note of the cost of the cultivation in the year 2007 and granted lumpsum amount of Rs. 7,000/- we have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, as such a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to the complainant under this head. Another lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- is granted towards cost of this litigation. As such the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 35,800/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 40. In C.C. No. 16/08 Complainant Sugappa made cultivation of jawar in his 3 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No. 31, this complainant is also claimed 34 to 38 per quintal yield per acre and Rs. 1,700/- per quintal as price of the jawar. He also not produced any records in support of this claim, however the land of the complainant to the extent of 3 acres 34 guntas is a dry land to calculate the loss we have taken 3 acres 34 guntas as 4 acres as it will not make much difference in the area, the highest probable yield of jawar in the said area is 4 quintals per acre, hence 4 x 4 =16 quintals, we have taken the price of the said jawar per quintal in the year 2007 as Rs. 1,000/-, hence 16x1000=16000 as per report at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 by PW-3 in C.C. No. 13/08, he noted the seeds set in the husk to the extent of 20 to 30%, we have taken average of it is taken as 25% which works out to Rs. 4,000/- this figure is to be deducted out of Rs.16,000/- that works out to Rs. 12,000/-, which is the loss sustained by him due to defective seeds, cost of the cultivation is taken as Rs. 5,000/- (lumpsum) for which the complainant is entitled for, we have noticed deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, accordingly he is entitled to recover lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head. We have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is totally entitled for to recover Rs. 22,000/- from the opposites with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 41. In C.C. No. 17/08 Ramangouda grown jawar crop to the extent of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No. 6 of his land, as per his claim the probable yield shown as 35 quintals per acre and the rate of it at that time is shown as Rs. 1,700/- to 1,800/- per quintal. He is not produced any documentary evidences in support of his claim, admittedly his land is dry land he grown jawar crop in his dry land, the probable highest yield per quintal in the area is 4 quintals, so 4.20 x4=16.80 which is rounded to 17 quintals of his yield, the price per quintal in the year 2007 is as Rs. 1,000/- which is the highest price of jawar, hence 17x1000=17000, in Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 of C.C. No. 13/08 by PW-3 not shown any percentage of setting seeds in the husk, hence the complainant is entitled for 17,000/- towards loss sustained by him for the defective seeds, he cultivated 4 acres 20 guntas as such lumpsum amount of Rs. 6,000/- is awarded towards cost of cultivation, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded towards deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards cost of this litigation. Hence the complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 28,000/- from these opposites with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 42. In C.C. No. 18/08 Complainant Basavarajappa grown jawar seeds in 3 acres of his land in Sy.No. 55 he claimed the yield and price per quintal as claimed in his complaint. He not filed any supportive documents for his claim, as such we have taken into consideration of the yield of jawar crop in the area and fixed probable highest yield as is 4 quintal per acre, his grown area is 3 acres, as such 3 x 4 =12 quintals of yield in 3 acres. The probable highest rate per quintal in the year 2007 for jawar is taken as Rs. 1,000/-, hence 12x1000=12000. In Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 in C.C. No. 13/08, shows that there was 30% to 40% of seeds setting in the husk, hence the average of it is taken as 35%, which totally works out to Rs. 4,200/- this amount is to be deducted out of the total loss of Rs. 12,000/- which comes to Rs. 7,800/- which is the amount entitled by the complainant for loss crop, the cost of cultivation is taken into consideration and lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded, the complainant also entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, Rs. 2,000/- is awarded towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 17,800/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 43. In C.C. N. 19/08 Complainant Shambanaguda grown jawar crop in 2 acres of Sy.No. 1/2/A and in 9 acres 30 guntas of Sy.No. 6 total area under cultivation was to the extent of 9 acres 30 guntas which is rounded to 10 acres as it will not make much difference in the area. The complainant not produced any documentary evidences to show the probable yield and expected rate per quintal as claimed in his complaint, however we have taken note of the total 4 per quintal in the said area from our experience and came to a conclusion that the highest yield is 4 quintal per acrequintal, hence 12x4=48 quintals which is expected yield from the said cultivation. We have taken note of the rate of jawar in the year 2007 and came to a conclusion that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per quintal is proper rate. Hence we have taken the price of jawar per quintal is Rs. 1,000/- hence 48x10=48000, this is the expected yield from cultivation, as per the reports at Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 in C.C. No. 13/08 seeds setting in the husk of the crop is to the extent of 10% to 15%, as such 15% of the total amount of Rs. 48,000/- is Rs. 7,200/- which is deductable from 48,000/-, after deduction we will get an amount of Rs. 40,800/- which is the loss sustained by the complainant due to cultivation of defective seeds supplied by the opposites. We have taken note of the area under cultivation and lumpsum amount of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded to the complainant, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded towards deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, Rs. 2,000/- is awarded towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 57,800/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 43. In C.C. No. 20/08 Complainant Ramappa grown jawar crop in the area 2 acres 19 guntas in one Sy.No. and 1 acres 35 guntas in another Sy.No. total cultivated area is taken as 4 acres, as stated in the earlier complaint this complainant also not produced any documents to show the probable yield and the probable rate per quintal as claimed in his complaint. We have taken note of the probable yield of jawar in the area and taken it as 4 acres per quintal, as such 4x4=16 quintals, we have also taken note of the rate in the year 2007 and fixed Rs. 1,000/- per quintal, as such 16x1000=16000, in Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 in C.C. No. 13/08 not shown any percentage of setting of seeds in the crop. Hence the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 16,000/- towards loss sustained in the cultivation cost of the cultivation, fixed is for Rs. 5,000/- (lumpsum) and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is fixed towards deficiency in service, Rs. 2,000/- is fixed towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 26,000/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 44. In C.C. No. 21/08 Complainant Shankrappa grown jawar in 1 acre 3 guntas of his Sy.No. 107. He also claimed the total yield and probable rate in the year 2007, there are no records in support of such claim, as such we have taken note of the probable yield per acre is 4 quintals, as such 4 x 1=4 quintals the rate per quintal is taken as Rs. 1,000/- hence 4x1000=4000, this is the expected yield out of 1 acres of land under cultivation. As per the reports at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 in C.C. No. 13/08 setting of seeds in the said crop was to the extent of 10% to 20%, average of it is taken as 15%, as such 15% of the total amount of Rs. 4,000/- is of Rs. 600/-. Hence the actual loss sustained by the complainant is Rs. 4,000-600=3400 this is amount entitled by the complainant from the opposites, the cultivation was 1 acre as such cost of cultivation is taken as 2500 in lumpsum. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- lumpsum was awarded under deficiency in service and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards cost of this litigation, as such the complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 10,900/- with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 45. In C.C. No. 22/08 Complainant Yellappa grown jawar seeds to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No. 26(a) and also 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No. 26(b), hence total cultivation is in 3 acres 20 guntas. He also claimed the highest probable yield per quintal and price per quintal without any support of documentary evidences as such we have not taken into consideration of such yield and price as pleaded in his complaint. We have taken note of the entire facts and came to a conclusion that, highest probable yield per acre is as 4 quintals, the grown area of the complainant is 3 acres 20 guntas. Hence the total yield will be 14 quintals, we have taken note of the price of jawar in the year 2007 from our experience and fixed rate per quintal is as Rs. 1,000/-, as such 14x1000=14000 as per the report at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 in 13/08 yield setting in the husk was to the extent of 20% to 30%, average percentage is taken as 25%, and 25% of 14,000 is 3,500, this figure is to be deducted out of 14,000/- it comes to 10,500/-, this is the amount is entitled by the complainant in the loss sustained by him due to defective seeds, the cost of cultivation is fixed to Rs. 5,000/- for which the complainant is entitled for, he also entitled for Rs. 3,000/-under deficiency in service by opposites and he is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, accordingly this complainant is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,500/- from the opposites. 46. Now, we have to decide the liability of the opposites in all the cases. Admittedly in all the cases opposite No-1 is a dealer and supplier of seeds prepared and tested by opposite No-2 to 4, according to the complainant opposites 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to each complainant, according to opposite No-1 he is the only dealer of seeds produced and tested by opposite No-2 to 4, as such he is not liable to pay any amount to any one of the complainants, according to opposite Nos- 2 to 4 they are not liable to pay any amount to any one of the complainants, as there was no deficiency in service on their part. 47. The claim of opposite No-2 to 4 regarding the deficiency in service committed by them as already decided in the above said Paras. In the said circumstances, now the liability of opposite No-1 & 2 to 4 jointly and severally is to be decided, in this regard we have referred a ruling reported in 1996 (3) CPJ 101 (SC) Anil Sehgal & others V/s. Harminder Singh & others, in the said case their lordships held as dealer cannot avoid his responsibility on the ground that, he was not the manufacturer. He may involve manufacturer under litigation for to recover the amount paid by him. 48. Keeping in view the principles of the ruling stated above, we are of the view that opposites No. 1 to 4 in all the cases are jointly and severally are liable to pay the awarded amount to each complainant of their respective case. Hence we answered Point No 1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 49. In C.C. No. 12/08 to 22/08 in view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in the said cases, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER In C.C. No. 12/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 12/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 56,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 56,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 13/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 13/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 36,800/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 36,800/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 14/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 14/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 18,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 18,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 15/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 15/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 35,800/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 35,800/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 16/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 16/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 22,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 22,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 17/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 17/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 28,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 28,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 18/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 18/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 17,800/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 17,800/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 19/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 19/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 57,800/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 57,800/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 20/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 20/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 26,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 26,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 21/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 21/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 11,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 11,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 22/08 The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 22/08 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 20,500/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 20,500/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 4 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. Keeping the copy of judgment in C.C. No. 13/08 to 22/08. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-10-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
