Karnataka

Kolar

CC/4/2016

Narayana Swamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.M.Suresh - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Narendra Babu

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 18/02/2016

Date of Order: 01/07/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 01^ST DAY OF JULY 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 04 OF 2016

Sri. Narayanaswamy,

S/o. Doddappa,

Palya Village Kasaba Hobli,

Srinivasapura Taluk,

Kolar District.

 

(Rep. by Sri.K.Narendra Babu, Advocate)                          ….  Complainant.

 

 V/s 

S.M. Suresh, Proprietor,

Sri Chowdeshwari Traders,

Potato Merchant & Commission Agent,

APMC Yard, Shop No.32/2,

Bangarpet-563 114, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.N.Jayaprakash, Advocate)                        …. Opposite Party.

: ORDER:

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   Having submitted the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has sought relief of Rs.20,00,000/- for being recovered from the OP. 

 

02.   The facts in brief:

(a)    The complainant contends that, in Palya Village of Srinivaspura Hobli & Taluk he has lands bearing Sy. Nos. 82 and 83.  And that, of the part of the land in Sy. No. 82 and the land in Sy. No.83 i.e., totally to the extent of 05 Acers he opted to raise potato crop being an agriculturist by profession.

 

(b)    Further he has contended that, the OP is trading in potatoes and he is also a commission agent.  And that the OP gave much publicity for which he got attracted to purchase sowing worthy potatoes from him.  He has also contended that quite before hand of the intended purpose of sowing potatoes, he had ploughed the land 05 times and had spent Rs.1,00,000/- on labourers.  And that he had purchased 02 tons of neem cakes at the rate of Rs.600/- per 40 kilograms.  And that he had purchased 03 lorry loads poultry manure by paying Rs.20,000/- per lorry load.  And that by paying Rs.2,000/- per tractor load he had purchased 30 tractor loads of cattle manure.  And that by paying Rs.1,300/- per bag he had purchased 20 bags of D.A.P.  And that by paying Rs.800/- per bag he had purchased 10 bags of potash and by paying Rs.800/- per bag he had purchased 08 bags of nitrogen fertilizers and thus kept the said land to the said extent fit for sowing potatoes.  And that he had spent Rs.10,000/- on labourers to prepare sowing lines in the land keeping distance of about 02 feet in between the lines.

 

(c)    He has further contended that, on 09.12.2015 he had purchased 50 bags of sowing potatoes by paying Rs.1,280/- per bag of KKF brand from the OP, who had said that the said quantum would suffice to the extent of 05 Acres of land.  Further he has contended that, as the said quantum became insufficient again he approached the OP on 18.12.2015 at which point of time the said KKF stock was not available.  And that the OP assured him to purchase Kiran Variety of potatoes which were of still more high quality.  And that he purchased 06 bags of Kiran Sowing potatoes by paying Rs.1,400/- per bag. 

 

(d)    He has further contended that, as even the said quantum was insufficient again he approached the OP on 10.01.2016 and purchased 07 bags of Kiran Variety of sowing potatoes at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per bag, for, by that time the price of the sowing potatoes had come down.

 

(e)    Further he has contended that, on all the occasions the OP without giving authenticated receipts he gave hand written receipts and to make believe he put seal impressions of the shop.

 

(f)     Further he has contended that, though the OP had assured him to sow the said potatoes in the land on the very day of purchase itself he without doing so spread the said potatoes in a cool place and cut them to the weight of about 35 to 40 grams by taking care that 02 bulges were there in each such cut pieces.  And that while cutting the potatoes he used to dip the sickle more often in formalin solution of 10% strength.  And that even he had taken care to soak the sowing potatoes for 10 minutes in 10 liters of water mixed with 40 gram of dithane M-45.  And that while sowing also he had maintained expected depth.  And that the said solution was being changed on every use for 03 times.  And that for this by spending Rs.5,000/- he had purchased 100 kilograms formalin and by spending Rs.1,200/- he had purchased dithane M-45. 

 

(g)    He has further contended that, for the purpose of sowing he paid Rs.44,000/- as labour charges and spent Rs.54,000/- to purchase steel pipes and cables and Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing pateral pipes.  And that he spent Rs.20,000/- to purchase PVC pipes.  And that for fixing these pipes he spent Rs.10,000/- as labour charges.

 

(h)    He has also contended that, in spite of taking so much of care and caution while sowing potatoes on 13.01.2016 only 40% of potatoes were germinated and 60% did not germinate at all.  And that even in the said extent of 40% germinated potatoes the germination had decayed. 

 

(i)     Further he has contended that, he brought the said development in failure of raising potato crop to the OP in-person.  And that the OP threatening sent him away.  And that he complained the development to the Assistant Director of Horticulture and also to the Deputy Commission.  And that the said Director of the Horticulture had come to the land and after inspection he gave report.  And that the Deputy Commissioner in-turn had directed the Deputy Director of Horticulture to take appropriate action.

 

(j)     He has further contended that, on 21.01.2016 he caused notice to the OP asking him to give reply by 15 days.  And that the OP through his advocate replied denying that, he (the complainant) was not an agriculturist and that he (the OP) had not sold any kind of sowing potatoes to him (to the complainant).  Further the complainant has contended that, for 01 bag of sowing potatoes 40 bags of potato yield should have come which was to fetch value of Rs.650/- per bag.  And that the likely yield could have been 2,640 bags worth of Rs.17,18,000/-.  And that thus he incurred loss to this extent on account of loss in the crop.

 

(k)    He has also contended that, for the labourers he had engaged gave them meals, refreshments, coffee and also spent money to meet some other expenses.  And that all the family members of him had joined hands in raising the said crop.  And that he had even raised hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the relatives.  And that on account of destroyed crop again he was forced to make the said land fertile by spending money.  And that on account of no income even the holy functions that were to be held came to grinding halt.

(l)     He has further contended that, (i) the OP had sold him inferior quality sowing potatoes, (ii) the OP had told falsely that, the potatoes were ready for sowing, (iii) the Op deceived him without issuing authenticated receipts, (iv) the OP had sold the potatoes worth for cooking as fit for sowing, (v) the OP had sold infected potatoes, (vi) the OP had sold the said potatoes without rearing the same by spreading in cool and shady place wherein there could be sufficient wind, (vii) the OP had sold the said potatoes at different prices each time, (viii) the Op had sold the sickly potatoes for the purpose of sowing, (ix) the Op was guilty of not processing the sowing potatoes and simply sold un-processed potatoes as if fit for sowing and (x) by issuing hand written receipts the OP is guilty of deceiving the Government from paying the CESS.

 

03.   On registration of the case and in response to the notice through RPAD issued the OP has put in his appearance through his said learned counsel and has submitted the written version denying case of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    The OP has only conceded issuance of notice by the complainant and the reply given by him.  He has specifically denied that the complainant was/is a farmer who purchased the contended potatoes on said dates of the said quantum from him.  There is also a denial with regard to failure of germination to the contended extent of 60% and further there is denial of contention of the complainant that even of the 40% germinated potatoes crop the germination was totally decayed.  Further there is denial with regard to the contended loss of the said income.

 

(b)    He has specifically contended that, he was/is not at all a merchant to deal in sowing potatoes.  He has also contended that the complainant has come up with this complaint only with an intention of causing loss and annoyance for making wrongful gain.  And that he, as only a potato merchant and commission agent running the business under the name and style “Sri Chowdeshwari Traders”.  And that he had and has been purchasing potatoes from the farmers and selling the same to the customers at APMC Yard, Bangarpet, as per the rules and regulations of the APMC.  And that the complainant had not at all purchased any potato box from him for the contended purpose of sowing.  And that he being a registered trader he was and is duty bound to give account for the sold potato bags.  And that at the time of delivery of the same the APMC authority would affix seal on the sale receipt when the customer would take the commodity outside through the gate of APMC Yard.

 

(c)    Further he has contended that as there are contradictions with regard to issuance of contended receipts as pleaded in the complaint when compared to the allegations made in the notice it would be evident that the same were created and concocted receipts.  And that the present complaint has been filed with an intention of causing loss and annoyance, so as to make wrongful gain.

 

(d)    Further he has contended that, the said KKF and Kiran being the producers were necessary parties to the present proceedings.  And that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

04.   The very complainant Narayanaswamy, S/o. Doddappa, residing at Palya Village, Srinivasapural Hobli and Taluk, in Kolar District, came to be examined as PW-1 and in all 34 documents came to be marked and received on his behalf.

05.   The very OP S.M. Suresh, S/o. Muniyappa, residing at: Madiwala, came to be examined as DW-1 and Exhs.D.1 to D.277 came to be marked and received in evidence.

 

06.   Both the parties have submitted their respective written arguments through their learned counsel.

 

07.   On 28.06.2016 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted list with copies of following 07 citations:-

(i) (2012) 1 CPJ 1

(ii) (2002) 2 CLT 130

(iii) (2012) 2 PCJ 170

(iv) (1998) 5 JT 536 (1)

(v) (2008) 3 CPJ 96

(vi) (2013) CJ 533 (NC)

(vii) (2014) CJ 35 (NC)

 

08.   On 28.06.2016 itself heard the prolix, persuasive and equally enlightening and also pains-taking arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of KKF and Kiran potato growers being necessary parities?

 

2. Whether the OP is guilty of selling inferior quality potatoes with false assurance to the complainant that the same are worthy of sowing?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

 

4.  What order?       

 

10.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT NO.1:- In the Negative

POINT NO.2:- In the Affirmative

 

POINT NO.3:- Partly Affirmative

 

POINT NO.4:-  As per the final order

                        for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1 :

11.   The contention of the OP is that, he was/he is not a merchant to sell sowing potatoes, contrary he is only a potato merchant and commission agent running business under the name and style “Sri Chowdeshwari Traders” by purchasing the potatoes from the farmers and selling the same to the customers at APMC Yard, Bangarpet as per the rules and regulations of APMC.  It is also worth to remember at this juncture that it is a definite case of the OP that he never sold any kind of potatoes to the complainant.  And he has specifically contended that, the complainant was/is not even an agriculturist.  (Reliance placed on Para-1 and Para-14(c) page of the written version).

 

(a)    When so, this OP would lack locus-standy to contend that, the said KKF and Kiran breed potato growers would be necessary parties. 

 

(b)    Even other-wise, it is definite case of the complainant that the very OP came forward with much publicity to sell sowing worthy potatoes to which he (the complainant) was attracted.  It is definite case of the OP that from the farmers he used to purchase the potatoes and in-turn sell the same to the customers.  Therefore he was not a dealer for any of the particular potato growers, in general, much less for KKF and Kiran breeds of potatoes.  Therefore, when the OP held the stock of potatoes by purchasing from different farmers, on such purchases being completed, the said stock shall have to be held as owned by the OP exclusively.  Hence, for any litigation accusing inferior quality of the potatoes the only parties would be the OP as a vendor and the complainant as a purchaser and hence consumer.

 

POINT NOS.2 & 3:

12.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    The OP by leading voluminous evidence has tried to impress upon that, he has been maintaining a very strict legal method in his trading and the fault is with the complainant who has intention to cause loss and annoyance in order to make wrongful gain.

 

(b)    In this context we are bound to be very much guarded before entering into discussion on merits with regard to the specific pleas raised by this OP.  The first and the foremost contention is that, the complainant was/is not a farmer.  Second contention is that, he had not sold any kind of potatoes to the complainant as contended.  Exhibit-P.27 is the reply dated: 02.02.2016 as issued by the OP through his learned counsel to the learned counsel for the complainant.  In Para-2 there is a very same contention as noticed in the written version that the complainant was/is not an agriculturist by profession and the OP had not sold any seed potatoes to the complainant.

 

(c)    Since the present litigation has virtually civil features only as the aspect of awarding or rejecting compensation is to be looked in to by us, we are bound to be quite mindful of preponderance of probabilities.  Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 are the Xerox copies of the receipts dated: 09.12.2015, 10.01.2016 and 18.12.2015 evidencing purchase of potatoes of KKF brand of the quantum of 50 bags of the value of Rs.1,280/- for each of the bags and hence for sum of Rs.64,500/-, purchase of Kiran variety potatoes of the quantum of 07 bags for price of Rs.1,000/- for each of the bags and hence for a total sum of Rs.7,000/-  and purchase of Kiran variety potatoes of the quantum of 06 bags for the value of Rs.1,400/- each and thus for total sum of Rs.8,400/-.  These are nothing but handwritten receipts on ruled papers.  They bear receipt Nos. 83, 87 and 75 respectively.  The OP rejects these documents by contending that, they are not issued by him at all. 

 

(d)    The present complainant has made unceasing efforts to complain against unmindful conduct of the OP by complaining to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, and the copy of this letter dated: 16.01.2016 is vide Exh.P.32.  This document was much before the present complaint being submitted which was so submitted on 18.02.2016.  True the paper publication of the news item re-affirming the said allegation is in Vijayavani Kannada Daily dated: 08.04.2016 Page-5A, (Xerox copy is produced) is vide Exhibit-P.33.  This paper publication though is a subsequent development after submission of the present complaint and hence during pendency of the present proceedings it has much relevance, for, it has not come out for the first time as an afterthought, it is an offshoot of Exhibit.P.32 the representation made by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, on 16.01.2016 vide Exhibit-P.32. 

 

(e)    Exhibit-P.30 is also a development during the present proceeding as it is copy of the letter dated: 07.04.2016 a day earlier to the said news item vide Exhibit-P.33, through this document the complainant has tried to draw the attention of the Joint Director Of Horticulture, Kolar, about unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Again we are to observe that this Exhibit-P.30 is nothing but an offshoot of the said Exhibit-P.32 dated: 16.01.2016.  As the present complainant was and is of the impression that the OP has kept continued his unfair trade practice by issuing such un-authenticated receipts and also selling inferior quality potatoes as if worthy of sowing potatoes we do not find any wrong in the conduct of the complainant. 

 

(f)     At any rate Exhibit-P.33 and P.30 though they have come up during pendency of the present proceedings cannot be termed as an afterthought so as to reject the same.  These documents vide Exhibit-P.33 and P.30 have the taproot in Exhibit-P.32 the representation dated: 16.01.2016 addressed by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar.  The complainant in his this representation has contended that, he had purchased 66 bags of potatoes for the purpose of sowing from the OP and there could be a total failure in the crop which is the contention in the present complaint submitted before this Forum on 18.02.2016.

 

(g)    Perhaps the complainant resorted to unceasing efforts in making the OP to come on the proper track in his trading.  Therefore what the result we find is in the form of re-issuance of receipt on the part of the OP in favour of the complainant and Xerox copies of the same are vide Exhibits-P.23 to P.25.

 

(h)    Exhibit-P.23 the receipt dated: 10.01.2016, equivalent to Exhibit-P.4 and it also bears the serial number of the receipt as 87.  Exhibit-P.24 is another Xerox copy of the receipt with serial No.75 dated: 18.12.2015 which is equivalent to Exhibit-P.5.  Exhibit-P.25 is another receipt with serial No.83, dated: 09.12.2015 which is equivalent to Exhibit-P.3.  Now we can see the difference in these receipts possibly issued subsequent to Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 in as much as though the text of the purchases remained unaltered and beneath portion of these Exhibits-P.23 to P.25 would disclose the seal impressions of the trading concern of the OP.  The said seal impression reads thus:-

Prop:-S.M. SURESH   @:-9448002978

SRI CHOWDESHWARI TRADERS

Potato Merchant & Commission Agent

Shop No.32/2, APMC YARD,

BANGARPET-563114, Kolar Dist. KA

 

(i)     We cannot concede to the contention of the OP that these Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 and then Exhibits-P.23 to P.25 are got up documents by the very complainant.  The complainant is the poor agriculturist hailing from rural area.  And we do not think that he would get the said trading seal impression from the concern run by the OP.  Even this seal impression discloses mobile phone number of the OP.  The learned counsel appearing for the OP maintained that the Shop Number shown as 32/2 in these Exhibits-P.23 to 25 is not the shop assigned to the OP by the APMC.  If there is error with regard to the shop number the OP is the author of this error and not the complainant.

 

(j)     The OP has gone into much depth to distract our attention by leading such a voluminous evidence to contend that, case of the complainant suffers with contradictions.  The OP has been trying systematically to avoid himself from the clutches of law.  The reasonings we are to give quite here after would confirm such a conduct on the part of the OP.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has maintained that, Exhibit-D.3 the receipt book standing in the name of Sri Chowdeshwari Traders is nothing but repetition of printing the receipt books of the very same serial numbers to avoid the CESS and to dupe the innocent farmers.  He has drawn attention of us on receipt No.396 issued on 19.09.2015 by the OP which receipt book is marked and received in the evidence as Exhibit-D.3.  And it stands in the name of one Krishnappa for transaction amounting to Rs.16,412/-.    

 

(k)    Here is the OP who is trying to mislead and misguide us, for, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has drawn our specific attention to Exhibit-D.55 the Xerox copy of the receipt dated: 19.09.2015 which bears receipt No.396 only (this among others stood issued by Public Information Officer & Assistant Secretary, APMC, Bangarpet thus being a certified copy).  This receipt stands in the name of Venkatesh evidencing sale transactions to the tune of Rs.14,140/-.  As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant what is the content in Exhibit-D.55 ought to have been in the receipt bearing serial No.396 of Exhibit-D.3 as the transactions covered are one and the same or conversely what is written in Exhibit-D.3 vide receipt No.396 should have been reflected in Exhibit-D.55.  The learned counsel appearing for the OP argued vehemently that, the transactions and the period as covered by Exhibit-D.55 and receipt No.396 of Exhibit-D.3 were on different dates.  We cannot believe in such submissions.  To do so would be to believe falsity. 

 

(l)     Therefore the contention of the OP in Para-14(d) of the written version that, the complainant had resorted to create concocted receipts cannot be accepted.

 

(m)   Vide receipt No.396 of Exhibit-D.3 and vide Exhibit-D.55 the OP himself resorted to self-contradiction.  So the OP cannot blame the complainant as guilty of contradictions, for, allegations in the complaint are mirror reflections of the self-contradictory conduct on the part of the OP.

 

(n)    Under the circumstances by looking into the preponderance and probabilities of this case we are of the definite opinion that vide said Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 equivalent to Exhibit-P.23 and 25 the complainant had made purchases of the said quantum of potato bags i.e., 66 bags in number and undoubtedly these potatoes were of totally inferior in quality as there could be no proper germination.   The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has placed reliance on (i) (2012) 1 CPJ 1, (ii) (2002) 2 CLT 130, (iii) (2012) 2 PCJ 170, (iv) (1998) 5 JT 536 (1), (v) (2008) 3 CPJ 96, (vi) (2013) CJ 533 (NC), vii) (2014) CJ 35 (NC). 

 

(o)    The first citation deals with consignee not collecting the consignment which resulted in loss to the complainant therein.  Since such are not the facts of the case on hand the principle enunciated cannot be applied to the case on hand.

 

(p)    The 2^nd citation is to enunciate the principle that when the purchaser with faith in the vendor purchases the seeds, not retaining the sample so as to send the same for test is inconsequential.  Following the principle enunciated in this citation we hold that, the complainant was justified in coming before us with the complaint without sending the samples of said sowing potatoes for laboratory analysis.  Besides the very commodity since perishable even one cannot expect to subject such commodity for laboratory analyses or test.  Moreover such is not even the case tried to be made out by the OP.

 

(q)    The principles enunciated in the remaining citations are to the effect that poor germination or low germination would entitle the purchaser to prefer complaint so as to claim compensation.  Therefore in the light of the principles enunciated in these citations we proceed to decide the case on merits.

 

(r)     When we make this observation we are fortified by Exhibit-P.2 being copy of the confirmation letter dated: 14.01.2016 issued by the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, Zilla Panchayath, Srinivasapura.  It is worth to note that on 13.01.2016 the complainant had made the representation and on that day the said officer had been to the said lands of the complainant and was convinced that, 60% of the sown potatoes were not germinated and of the 40% germinated sown potatoes they were decayed at the root level and the loss assessed is to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The public servant of the concerned department had been gone to the spot and has confirmed the loss by going to the said land physically when the OP who is guilty of selling the said potatoes vide Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 is evasive by contending that he has not sold so.  

 

(s)    We are of the firm opinion that, this opinion by an expert in the field being a public servant shall prevail.  Before parting in this context we fail not to make yet another observation that this document vide Exhibit-P.2 is to affirm the fact that the complainant was/is an agriculturist.  Moreover Exhibit-P.28 and 29 being record of rights pertaining to the said lands bearing Nos.82 and 83 would disclose that the present complainant is the owner of the said lands situated in Palya Village of Srinivasapura Hobli and Taluk.  What more is required to believe that the complainant is an agriculturist?  By trying to deny that the complainant is an agriculturist the OP intends to escape himself from clutches of ensuing liability which he cannot. 

 

(t)     Vide Exhibits-P.3 to P.5 (i.e., Exhibits-P.23 to P.25 – reissued with seal of the trading concern run by the OP) the OP had received Rs.79,900/- from the complainant as against 66 bags of poor quality potatoes he had sold, that too representing the complainant that they were worthy sowing, hence the OP shall have to refund this amount together with the loss estimated vide Exhibit-P.2 that came to Rs.3,00,000/-, i.e., total sum of Rs.3,79,900/-.

 

(u)    For no fault on the part of the complainant, he was made to suffer by the OP who has continued his unfair conduct before this Forum while participating in the proceedings.  Thus he is guilty of unfair trade practice and unfair conduct.  And we are of the opinion that the complainant is bound to be compensated in this context and thus we award compensation to the extent of Rs.1,20,100/-.

 

(v)    Consequently we hold that, the complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.02.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization from the OP.

 

POINT 4:

13.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

(01)  For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- against the OP as hereunder:-

 

(a)    The OP shall pay to the complainant total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.02.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 01^st DAY OF JULY 2016)

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURES

1) LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:

PW.1        ::      Sri. Narayanaswamy

 

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT:

Exh.P.1::    Copy of guidelines issued by Information & Consultation Centre of Horticulture.

 

Exh.P.2::    Letter dated: 14.01.2016 by Senior Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Z.P. Srinivaspur.

 

Exh.P.3::              Xerox copy of receipt dated: 09.12.2015

Exhs. P.4 & 5::    Xerox copies of receipts dated: 10.01.2016 & 18.12.2015.

Exh.P.6::              Xerox copy of label issued by K.K.F.

Exhs.P.7 & 8::     Xerox copies of receipts dated: 30.08.2015, 11.09.2015

issued by Sri Srinivas Hardware & Electricals,

Valageranahalli Cross.

 

Exhs.P.9 to P.17::Xerox copies of receipts dated: 29.08.2015, 24.12.2015,

10.12.2015, 02.12.2015, 10.12.2015, 10.12.2015, 10.12.2015, 05.12.2015, 10.12.2015 issued by different agencies.

 

Exh.P.18::  Xerox copy of quotation issued by Ambika Drip Irrigation, Kolar.

Exhs.P.19 to P.21::Xerox copies of receipts dated: 30.12.105, 29.12.2015,

25.11.2015 evidencing purchase of manure.

 

 

Exh.P.22::  Printed guideline published by Horticulture Department, A.P.,

Kolar Dist., with regard to improved cultivation procedure for

growing potato.

 

Exhs.P.23 to P.25:: Xerox copies of three receipts dated: 10.01.2016,

18.01.2016, 09.12.2015 issued by Sri Chowdeshwari Traders, Bangarpet.

 

Exh.P.26::  Office copy of legal notice dated: 21.01.2016.

 

Exh.P.27::            Copy of reply dated: 02.02.2016

 

Exhs.P.28 & P.29::Xerox copies of RTC extracts for the year 2015-16

pertaining to Sy. Nos.82 & 83 with regard to the lands situated at Palya Village.

Exh.P.30::            Copy of letter dt: 07.04.2016 addressed to Joint Director,

Horticulture Department, Kolar.

 

Exh.P.31::            One photo with said Joint Director in my said land

 

Exh.P.32::            Copy of letter dt: 16.01.2016 addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner, Kolar,

 

Exh.P.33::            Xerox copy of the news paper Vijaya Vani Kannada daily,

dated: 08.04.2016, Page-5A.

 

Exh.P.34::            Copy of letter dt: 07.04.2016 addressed to The Deputy

Commissioner, Kolar.

 

3) LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OP:

DW.1          ::        S.M. Suresh.

 

 

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF OP:

 

Exh.D.1::    Receipt dated 07.04.2016 issued by APMC Bangarpet. 

 

Exh.D.2::    Similar Receipt dated 10.03.2016.

 

Exh.D.3::    Office copy of receipt book in the name of Sri Chowdeshwari Traders concern, Bangarpet, from Receipt Nos. 301 to 400, excepting Receipt No.399.  

 

Exh.D.4::    Letter dated: 06.06.2016 issued by APMC Bangarpet to DW.1.  

 

Exhs.D.5: to D.9:: Five statements with regard to Consumer Fees as issued

by Asst. Secretary and Public Information Officer, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exhs.D.10 to D.53:: APMC along with the statements has issued copies of

receipts as issued by DW.1 and received by APMC, such 44 copies of receipts. 

 

Exhs.D.54::          Statement of bill issued by Public Information Officer and

Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exhs.D.55 to D.81:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information Officer

    and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being 27 in no.  

 

Exh.D.82::           Statement of bills issued by Public Information Officer

and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.  

 

Exhs.D.83 to D.110:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being

28 in no.

 

Exh.D.111::         Statement of bills issued by Public Information Officer

and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exh.D.112 to D.133:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being 22 in

no.

 

Exh.D.134::         Statement of bills in two sheets issued by Public

Information Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exhs.D.135 to D.179::  Copies of receipt issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being  in 45no.

 

Exh.D.180::         Statement of bill issued by Public Information Officer and

Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exhs.D.181 to D.223:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being 43 in

no.

 

Exh.D.224::         Statement of bill issued by Public Information Officer and

Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet.

 

Exhs.D.225 to D.253:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being 29 in no.

 

Exh.D.254::         Statement of bill issued by Public Information Officer and

Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet. 

 

Exh.D.255 to D.277:: Copies of receipts issued by Public Information

Officer and Asst. Secretary, APMC Bangarpet being

23 in no.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                      PRESIDENT