This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.P.Madhava Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a resident of Kusumanapalli village of Thotapalli Gramanchayat of Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, had taken the land on lease in Sy.No.115/2 e, 126/3, total extent of Ac.6-00 of land and sowed the chilli seeds in the said extent of land. In the meanwhile, the opposite party approached the complainant and influenced him to apply Biometric fertilizers to the chilli plants, as it gives more yielding and by believing the words of opposite party, the complainant purchased biofertilizers for Rs.9,000/- and applied to his chilli plants. Having applied the said fertilizer, after 15 days, the leafy colour of the plants changed into another colour and the entire land came into dead position. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party and narrated the physical condition of the crop and requested him to visit the land of the complainant, but the opposite party did not heed the request of the complainant, on that the complainant approached the concerned Agricultural Officer. The said Agricultural Officer inspected the land and orally opined that the entire crop was destroyed due to applying of bio fertilizers supplied by the opposite party, on that the complainant demanded the opposite party to pay compensation to him for supplying of spurious bio fertilizers, but the demand was not accepted. The complainant while sowing the chilli seed, applied fertilizers, engaged coolies for the purpose of sowing plants and he took all the precautions for the healthy growth of the chilli crop and spent Rs.2,00,000/-. Even then there was no progress in the growth of the plants. Because of spurious bio fertilizer supplied by the opposite party, the complainant sustained loss over the crop and there is no hope to get the yield from the chilli crop. Thus the complainant sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- due to the spurious bio fertilizers supplied by the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Having received the notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. In the counter, it is submitted that the bio fertilizers are eco-friendly, it only helps to the crops, plants to grow healthier and for that purpose the Government of India had been encouraging to use bio fertilizers to all the crops to avoid all sorts of ill effects on soil and crops and it also puts on hole all sorts of restrictions and freed from all departmental restrictions. Only two aspects apply for the bio fertilizers those are either it works positively or do not work, but it never harms. The company of the opposite party had been manufacturing the bio fertilizers with the help of Acharya N.G.Ranga University and has also been supplying bio fertilizers to all the government agricultural departments and they are all supplying to number of farmers since 4 years. These bacterial strains are already present in the soil and that the opposite party not inducing any new bacteria. The complainant already used the bio fertilizers for the chilly nursery and after his complete satisfaction only he has taken for the crops after transplantation in his field. The complainant bought the product from the opposite party but it is not sure whether the complainant used the Bio fertilizers or not. No single fact works against it except chemical usage unmindfully. The bio fertilizer only helps to create healthy environment, one can get good advise from the experts that no bio fertilizers will harm the crop and the plant. The complainant never contacted the factory about the alleged damage, but directly filed the complaint in to the court in order to black mail the opposite party and to cause loss, this complaint is filed. When the commissioner was appointed to inspect the crop and to file the report with the assistance of agricultural officer, the agricultural officer also gave her opinion that there was no ill effect of bio fertilizers. Therefore, all the allegations are proved to be false and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On behalf of the complainant, he has filed a receipt, dt.29-3-2008 for purchase of bio fertilizers from the opposite party and also filed broacher of opposite party fertilizers and some photos of the land where the said fertilizer was used by the complainant.
Both the parties filed their written arguments.
During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant got appointed an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition schedule land with the help of V.A.O. and M.A.O. Accordingly, the said petition was allowed and one K.Srinivasa Rao, advocate is appointed as Advocate commissioner. Apart from the report of advocate commissioner, the complainant got examined the then Agricultural Officer as P.W.1 and got marked her report as Ex.C.1.
Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the points that arose for consideration are,
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the claim
sought in the complaint?
2. To what relief?
Point No.1:
The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant purchased bio fertilizer from the opposite party and applied the said fertilizers to the lands to an extent of Ac.6.00, now the dispute regarding the quality of bio fertilizer. As per the case of the complainant, the opposite party supplied spurious bio fertilizer due to which he sustained chilli crop loss. On the other hand it is the case of the opposite party that in order to black mail the opposite party and to cause loss to the opposite party, this complaint is filed in order to extract money. In order to find out this aspect of the case, the complainant got examined the then Horticultural officer as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 report. In the report, P.W.1 has made some observations. Among the observations, at para No.7 she has categorically stated that the farmer based on the recommendations made by the companies representative (Rover Biotechnologies Pvt Ltd.,) has applied PSB (Phosphorous Solubulizing bacteria) which is no way concerned with the control of the above mentioned disease. In her evidence, she further opined that instead of COC drenching the farmer has applied PSB (Phosphorous Solubulizing bacteria) based on the recommendation of the company representative, due to which the farmer has not gone for chemical control measure or any type of chemical control measures, due to which these plants died. She has categorically stated in her evidence that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, she visited the petition schedule land, which was identified by V.R.O. of Kusumanapalli village. On her inspection she observed that the crop was severely effected by dieback and fruit rot based on visual symptoms. On her enquiry the farmer said that he has not applied any chemical fungicide or pesticide to control the disease, but for the control of the fungus causing wilt or dieback the COC drenching should be taken up initially and biologically application of trichoderma virdidi will control the fungi. The farmer based on the recommendations made by the companies representatives (Rover Bio technologies Pvt. Ltd), the farmer has applied PSB (Phasphorous solubulizing bacteria) which is no way concerned with the control of the above mentioned disease. Based on the recommendations of the companies representative farmer has not gone for chemical control measures. It is the representative of the company, who prescribed the farmer for achieving the financial targets. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear regarding the damage caused to the crop on account of introducing made by the company representative to apply bio fertilizers. In her evidence she has categorically stated that it is the company representative totally misguided the farmer for achieving targets. The evidence of P.W.1 is an important piece of evidence. This evidence cannot be brushed aside. Basing on the evidence of P.W.1, it is made clear that the company representatives has misguided the complainant for achieving the financial targets and supplied this kind of bio fertilizers, which made the complainant to sustain chill crop loss. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the advocate commissioner filed the report, wherein he has clearly estimated the damage caused to the chilli crop as 50% and further observed that the yielding of the crop in that particular area is 25 quintals per acre. He has enquired the adjacent farmers, who informed him the yield of crop is 25 quintals per acre and the market value of the crop is Rs.6,000/- per quintal and he estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. On the other hand no effective cross-examination is offered by the opposite party, to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. No reason is assigned by the opposite party as to why the report of advocate commissioner and the evidence of P.W.1 should not be believed. In the absence of any contra we are rather compelled to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and also the report of court commissioner and opine that chill crop loss sustained by the complainant is only on account of spurious bio fertilizers supplied by the opposite party.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to his chilli crop on account of spurious bio fertilizers supplied by the opposite party, to which the complainant is entitled to claim the loss.
Point No.2:
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards the damage caused to the chilli crop together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of purchase i.e. 29-9-2008 till the date of deposit and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 25th day of November, 2010.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:
P.W1 – A.Anuradha, Agricultural officer
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:
- None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
-Nil-
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:
-Nil-
Exhibit marked by the Advocate commissioner
Ex.C.1 - Agricultural officer’s report, dt.3-2-2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMMAM
