IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)

C.C.No.106/14 (Filed on 11.08.2014)

Between:

1. K.V. Samuel, Secretary,

Kuttappuzha Residents Association,

Reg.No.PTM/TC/3/2013,

Kalladikuzhiyil,

RSPO., Thiruvalla – 689 111,

1. P.T. Abraham, Puthenparampil,

RSPO, Thiruvalla – 689 101.

1. Vinod George, Azhakathu,

           -do.  –do.

4. Renji Varghese, Mathilunkal,

           -do.  –do.

5. Thomas Varghese, Cheruvettolil,

             -do.  –do.

6. Prof. Jacob Varghese, Manayil,

            -do.  –do.                                      …..   Complainants

And:

Principal Krishi Officer,

Mini Civil Station,

Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

(By Adv.R. Satheesh Kumar,

 Addl. Govt. Pleader, PTA)                            …..   Opposite party

O R D E R

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):

                 Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief from the Forum against the opposite party.

                 2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows.  The 1^st complainant is the Secretary of Kuttapuzha Residents Association.  Others are the members of the Association.  The Central Government have introduced a project, New terrace vegetable cultivation in grow bags.  Under this project, the opposite party supplied vegetable seeds and grow bags for Rs.2,000/- per unit.  The Government gave 75% subsidy to the members.  In this scheme, a member has to pay Rs.500/- for one unit, which consists of 25 grow bags.  Complainants are the members of this scheme.  Krishi Bhavan supplied grow bags and vegetable seeds to the complainants and others.  The quality of the soil mixture provided to the members in the grow bag was not good.  Even though the complainant and others cultivated the vegetables in the grow bag.  But the unexpected rain perished the vegetable plants because the water was not sedimented from the grow bag.  On 20-03-2013, the matter was reported to the opposite party.  They inspected the terrace vegetable cultivation in grow bags and prepared reports.  But no replay was received so far.  The complaints of the grow bags and potting mixture was not rectified.  Even after repeated requests by the complainants to the opposite parties, no action was taken by them.  The complainants did not get any benefits from the new terrace vegetable cultivation in grow bags due to its complaint.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss and is liable to the complainants for the same.  Hence this complaint for getting compensation of Rs.1,000/- each and cost of Rs.500/- each.

                 3. Opposite parties filed their version with the following contentions.  Opposite parties admitted that they have supplied the grow bags and vegetable seeds for new terrace vegetable cultivation in the year of 2012-2013.  In total they supplied 1330 grow bag units costing of 25 grow bags for per unit.  One unit will be supplied to each agriculturist.  The grow bags and potting media combination was made as per the instructions and guide lines of the Agriculture University.  The potting mixture inside the bag was checked by the Additional Director of Agricultural Department.  On 20-03-2013, the complainants had given a complaint before the principal agricultural officer.  In that complaint they stated that their plants were perished due to rain and the quality of the soil mixture was not good.  So the water was not sedimented from the grow bags.  In that complaint he attached one photograph also.  In the photographs out of 15 grow bags plants, the tomato plants were fruiting and chilly plant flowering.  The photo shows that the plants were perished not because of rain but it is of pesta.  The other complainants had not produced any proof or evidence to shows that the plants supplied by the opposite parties were defective or adulterated.  By this, it can be conclude that their plants were good in condition.  The complainants gave complaint only at the Principal Agriculture Officer, Pathanamthitta.  On the basis of the complaint from the complainants on 20-03-2013, the agricultural field officer visited the agricultural land of the 1^st complainant and report given to the opposite party on 28-05-2013.  He reported that the 1^st complainant had cultivated the plants more than 25 grow bags and the plants were flowering and fruiting.  So the complainant is exploiting the scheme.  The opposite parties gave information to the complainants that Krishi Bhavan will provide new seeds and grow bags for cultivation for the year 2013-2014.  But the complainants did not follow the proper instructions and methods given by the opposite party which has caused improper yield.  Instead of following the instructions, the complainants filed complaint before this Forum.  The complainants are not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party as they had not suffered any loss or mental agony as alleged in the complaint.  The grow bags given to the agriculturist on 75% subsidy.  Therefore, the complainants have no cause of action against the opposite party and they are not entitled to get any of the relief sought for in the complaint.  With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B7.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

        6. The Point:-  The complainants’ allegation is that under the Central Government’s Project, New terrace vegetable cultivation in grow bags supplied by the opposite party.  But the quality of the soil mixture in the grow bags were not good.  Even though the complainants cultivated the vegetables in the grow bag, the unexpected rain perished the plants because the water was not sedemented from the bag.  So the complainants filed complaint before the opposite party but they have not taken any positive action for redressing the complainants grievances.  The complainants did not get any benefits from the vegetable cultivation in grow bags.  Because of the above said act of the opposite party, complainants had sustained financial loss and mental agony.  So the opposite party is liable for the same.  Therefore the complainants prays for allowing this complaint.

                 7. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the 1^st complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the cash bill No. 316 for Rs.500/- issued by Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvalla.  Ext.A1(a) is the cash bill No.110 for Rs.2,500/- (5 members) issued by Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvalla.  Ext A2 is the photograph of perished plants.  Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint given to the principal Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta (opposite party).  Ext.A4 is the letter dated 22-04-2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the 1^st complainant intimating to attend the meeting on 17-05-2013.

                 8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainants that the opposite party has not supplied good quality grow bags and potting mixture is false.  The grow bags and potting mixture was made as per the instructions and guidelines of the Agriculture University.  The grow bags and potting mixture were checked by the Additional Director of Agriculture Department.  Moreover, the complainants had never contacted or intimated the Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvalla.  On the basis of the complaint from the complainants, the agriculture field officer visited the agricultural land of the 1^st complainant and report given to the opposite party.  In that report, he stated that the plants were flowering and fruiting.  So the allegation of the complainants are baseless and the opposite parties has not caused any losses to the complainants.  Thus according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service from their part.  With the above contentions, opposite party argued for the dismissal of the complaint.

                 9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the Agricultural officer of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with 7 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and documents produced are marked as Exts.B1to B7.  Ext.B1 is the photograph of the grow bags cultivated in 1^st complainant’s house.  Exts.B1(a) is also the photograph of the grow bag.  Ext.B2 is the authorization letter. Ext.B3 is the copy of the specification for grow bags and potting media combination and type of vegetable seeds supplied by the Agriculture University.  Ext B4 is the copy of the enquiry report filed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture on 25-05-2013 about the complaint of the complainants.  Ext.B5 is the copy of the enquiry report filed by the Agricultural field officer on 28-05-2013 about the complaint of the complainants.  Ext.B6 is the photographs and paper news about the terrace vegetable cultivation in grow bags.  Ext B7 is the copy of the enquiry report dated 17-05-2013 prepared by Assistant Director of Agriculture.

                 10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that there is no dispute with regard to the project of new terrace vegetable cultivation.  The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the quality of the grow bags and potting mixture supplied to them.  According to the complainants, the grow bags are very low in quality, the potting mixture combination is not good.  During the rainy season, complainants plants were perished because the water was not sedemented from the grow bag.  But the opposite party’s contention is that the grow bags and potting mixture were checked by the Additional Director of Agriculture Department and issued certificate to the Krishi Bhavan.  On the basis of the complaint from the complainants, the Agriculture Field Officer visited the Agriculture land of the 1^st complainant and report given to the opposite party.  In that report and photographs, the 1^st complainant has cultivated the plants more than 25 grow bags and the plants were flowering and fruiting.  The opposite party had supplied 25 grow bags only to each agriculturist.  Further the opposite party contented that the complainants never raised any objection at the time of supplying the grow bags and mixture.  Though the complainants raised a contention that the potting mixture and grow bags were low in quality, he failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the above contentions.  The complainants’ had not produced any proof or evidence to show that grow bags and mixture supplied by the Krishi Bhavan were defective or adulterated.  The complainants attended the meeting on 17-05-2013, but they did not follow the proper instructions and methods given by the opposite party.

                 11. Mere allegation alone is not sufficient for establishing a case.  In the absence of any supporting evidence in favour of the complainants allegation further Exts.B1, and B1(a), and Exts.B4 to Ext.B7 clearly shows that the complainants allegations are baseless.  Therefore, we find that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants.  Hence this complaint is found not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 

                 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 14^th day of November, 2014.

                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                 Sheela Jacob,

                                                                                  (Member- II)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)            :   (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I)       :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainants:

PW1  :  K.V. Samuel

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:

A1 :  Cash bill No.316 for Rs.500/- issued by Krishi Bhavan,  

        Thiruvalla. 

A1(a) :  Cash bill No.110 for Rs.2,500/- (5 members) issued by  

            Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvalla. 

A2 :  Photograph of perished plants. 

A3 :  Copy of the complaint dated 20.03.2013 issued to the  

        Principal Agricultural Officer, Pathanamthitta. 

A4 :  Letter dated 22-04-2013 issued by the opposite party in the  

        name of the 1^st complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1  :  J. Sajeev

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1 :  Photograph of the grow bags cultivated in complainant’s  

         house. 

B1(a) : Photograph of the grow bag. 

B2 :  Authorization letter dated 30.09.2014 sent by the opposite  

         party to the Agricultural Field Officer.

B3 :  Photocopy of the specifications for grow bags and potting  

         media combination. 

B4 :  Photocopy of the enquiry report dated 25.05.2013 filed by  

        the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Kavumbhagom, Thiruvalla. 

B5 : Photocopy of the enquiry report dated 28.05.2013 filed by  

       the Agricultural field officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thiruvalla. 

B6 :  Photographs and paper news about the terrace vegetable  

         cultivation in grow bags. 

B7 :  Photocopy of the enquiry report dated 17-05-2013 prepared  

         by Assistant Director of Agriculture.    

                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) K.V. Samuel, Secretary, Kuttappuzha Residents     

                    Association, Reg.No.PTM/TC/3/2013,

            Kalladikuzhiyil, RSPO., Thiruvalla – 689 111,

               (2) Principal Krishi Officer, Mini Civil Station,

                    Pathanamthitta – 689 645.

               (3) The Stock File.