D.O.F:6/9/11
D.O.O:23/6/14
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.225/11
Dated this, the 23rd day of June 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
K.V.Syamalavalli, W/o Raveendran.V.P,
Payyamkulam, KollamparaPo, : Complainant
(Adv. N.Rajamohanan,Hosdurg)
President/Secretary Samridha Purusha -
Swayam Sahaya sangham,Chennatta : Opposite party
Karindalam Po, Nileshwar Via, 671314.
(Adv.P.Narayanan,Hosdurg)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
That the complainant has purchased 210 rubber plants from the opposite party @Rs.70/- per plant and after one week the entire plants were distructed after shredding of leaves and she checked and found that plants have not been scientifically nursed and the fact was informed to opposite party but the opposite party did not head to the complaint of the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
2 On receipt of notice from the Forum opposite party entered in appearance and filed their version . In the version the opposite party denied all the allegations made against the opposite party by the complainant. The contention of opposite party is that the opposite party has not supplied any rubber plants to the complainant and the opposite party has not received any consideration from the complainant and also submits that he is not conducting rubber nursery and submitted that if a party approach the opposite party for assistance for improving agriculture in the village the opposite party would render assistance to them. The opposite party further submitted that the opposite party would supply the rubber plants to the needy customer by purchasing from the rubber nursery and further submitted that the purchaser shall plant the rubber plants immediately after purchase and if any delay is caused the same will effect the rubber plants. The opposite party further submitted that he is not a proper party to the complaint and complainant is failed to make Samridha Purusha swayam sahaya sangham as a party to the proceedings and the complaint is bad for non joinder of parties. There is no merit in the complaint hence it is liable to be dismissed.
3. Here on the side of complainant PWs 1 to 3 examined and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. In this case the complainant had taken out an expert commission and the report filed by the expert is marked as Ext.C1. Opposite party is examined as DW1 . Heard the counsel for complainant and documents perused and on the side of opposite party, he filed notes of argument .
4. Upon hearing the counsel for complainant and on going through the entire facts on record and on perusal of argument notes the following issues raised for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties or not?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party or not?
3. If so what is the relief ?
5. The opposite party taken a specific contention that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. According to opposite party the Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya sangham is a necessary party and the President/Secretary Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya sangham is an unnecessary party. Here the complainant filed this complaint against the President/Secretary Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya sangham meant that the Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya sangham represented by either its president or its secretary. The complainant is not filed against any individual . That means the complaint is filed against the sangham and the President or the Secretary can be represented for the sangham. Here the opposite party filed vakalath signed by the secretary, the status as Secretary of Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya sangham and not in his personal capacity. Vakalath of opposite party shows that he has signed affixing his seal as secretary. That means he is representing for the sangham. Moreover in cross examination of DW1 stated that he is deposing for and on behalf of the sangham. Therefore we are of the opinion that the sangham is on record and the opposite party is sangham . The Ist issue is found in favour of the complainant. Hence complaint is not bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Ist issue is answered accordingly.
6. The 2nd issue is whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party or not?. The specific case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 120 rubber plants from the opposite party and planted in her property by spending transportation charges and meeting other expenses like making of pits and other expenses. In order to prove that the complainant had spent other expenses, on the side of complainant PW2&PW3 were examined . PW2 and 3 are the workers engaged for planting the rubber plants. According to the complainant after one week of the above plantation the plants were destructed and the reason for such destruction is that of unscientific nursing of the plants by the opposite party. Here the opposite party never admitted that the opposite party had supplied the rubber plants to the complainant. Before discussing the second issue we have looked in to the fact that whether the opposite party supplied the rubber plants to the complainant. In the version the opposite party stated that the opposite party would supply the rubber plants to the persons who required rubber plants by purchasing the same from the rubber nursery. But here the opposite party has no case that the opposite party supplied the rubber plants to the complainant by purchasing the same from rubber nursery. If the disputed rubber plants purchased from rubber nursery and the same supplied to the complainant definitely the opposite party could have been stated in their version from where they purchased the rubber plants. It reveals that the opposite party has not made any purchase from anywhere . Then the question to be answered whether opposite party has got any rubber nursery and the disputed rubber plants were supplied by the opposite party. In order to prove the case of the complaint, the complainant produced Ext.A3&A4 documents . Ext.A3 is the notice showing the inauguration and selling of rubber plants by the karindalam Haritha Rubber Swayam Sahaya Sangham. In Ext.A3 it is stated that it is going to form a Swayam Sahaya Sagham under the leadership of karindalam Samridha Purusha Swayam Sahaya Sangham . Ext.A3 will not show that the opposite party is producing and selling the rubber plants. . Ext.A3 will not help the complainant to prove that opposite party is producing and selling the rubber plant . Ext.A4 is the Malayala Manorama daily dt.3rd May 2011. In page No.4 of Ext.A4 shows report regarding the rubber nursery of opposite party. On plain regarding of Ext.A4 itself clear that in the year 2011, May opposite party started to supply rubber plants. This complaint was filed on September 2011. Therefore it is clear that the opposite party is having a rubber nursery and they were supplying the rubber plants from their nursery even prior to the disputed period. Considering the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the alleged supply of rubber plants were made by opposite party. Here the utter denial of supply of rubber plants to the complainant is an unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party. Then we have to consider whether the rubber plants supplied to the complainants were inferior in quality or they were unscientifically nursed. In order to prove the quality of the rubber plants the complainant had taken an expert commission. Sri.C.P.Somarajan Deputy Production Commissioner, Rubber Board Regional Office Kanhangad is appointed as Commissioner and the report is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 the commissioner specifically stated that instead of using soil ,coir piths were filled in polythene bags for planting rubber stumps. In Ext.C1 the commissioner explained the disadvantages of use of coir piths instead of soil. The commissioner reported that normally soil is filled in poly bags for planting rubber stumps and developing roots will bind the soil particles together, making it into a core/cake and they will help to minimize disturbance to the root system during transportation and transplanting. The commissioner reported that in the present case coir piths were used instead of soil and he opinioned that coir pith does not have the binding quality and hence there is chance for maximum disturbance to the root system during transportation and when the root system is disturbed beyond a certain tenure the leaves will fall off causing stress to the plants and threading redeem their vigor. Here the opposite party is producing the rubber plants for selling it to the needy customers. They must be very vigilant to note that it is to be transported and replanted . So at most care must be taken while producing those plants. Here the opposite party failed to produce the plants scientifically. On going through Ext.C1 it is clear that unscientific method is used for production of rubber plants.
7. In Kalagovinda Dhulgonda Patil vs. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation (2012 CPJ 161) the Hon’ble National Commission decided that seeds –adulterated-report of technical officer cannot be ignored merely because a sample of the seeds manufactured and distributed by respondents and used by petitioner was not subjected to fall scale laterally test to determine the extent of adulteration –reasonable compensation availed.
8. Here the commissioner examined the rubber plants purchased by Rajeevan which were not planted at the time of commission’s visit. The opposite party taken another contention that there is no bill to show that the opposite party sold the rubber plants to the complainant. Complainant’s case is that opposite party failed to give receipt to the complainant. DW1 admits in one case of similar nature that he issued bill to the customer. Being a registered co-operative society it is the duty of the opposite party to pass bills on every cash transactions. Moreover the opposite party failed to produce before the Forum the statement of accounts of the society during the relevant period ie, at the time of alleged purchase by the complainant .It is also an unfair trade practice. Moreover the society is governed by law and it is an offence committed under Law.
9. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party by supplying inferior quality of rubber plants and also by denial of supply of rubber plants to complainant. The act of opposite party is an unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant suffered much and has to be compensated . Then the question to be answered is what is the relief as cost and compensation.
In Nursery men co-operative Society Ltd vs. Kasi Vishwanath (2007) CPJ(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission held that- plantations -purchase of banana tissues culture plants - 80% thereof not of variety assured- complainant suffered loss of crops- deficiency in service proved. Forum rightly awarded Rs.73,000/- towards loss of crops in addition to amount spent by complainant for manure pesticides and labour charges.
10. Here the complainant paid Rs.70/- per plant and spent Rs.40/- for making pit and other labour charges. The complainant is also entitled for compensation for mental agony and sufferings.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 23,100/- towards the price of the rubber plants and other expenses and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- being compensation for mental agony and sufferings and cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Exts:
A1-receipt
A2-letter to OP
A3- inauguration notice
A4-Malayala Manorama daily
C1- Commission report
PW1-K.V.Syamalavally-complainant
PW2-Roja Varghese- Witness of PW1
PW3-Babu.T.V-Witness of PW1
DW1-Bhaskaran.K-Secretary of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
