KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                              APPEAL  NO: 95/2006

                     JUDGMENT DATED. 10/05/2010

PRESENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

Associate Director,

Regional Agricultural Research Station,                     : APPELLANT

Special Zone,

Kumarakam North.P.O, Kottayam.

(By Adv:Smt.V.S.Sheeba)

            Vs.

Saju Joseph,

Kulangara House,                                                  : RESPONDENT

Kanjirathanam.P.O,

Kothanalloor.Kottayam.

(By Adv: Sri.Renjith.C Nair)                                            

                             JUDGMENT

SHRI.C. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The order dated:31/8/2005 in OP:288/04 of CDRF, Kottayam is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party wherein the opposite party is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.750/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a farmer and has purchased 250gms of cucumber seeds on 6..3..2004 for a sum of Rs.250/- from the opposite party and that he has sowed the seeds in one hectare  of land out of 3 ½ hectares of land which was taken on lease for cultivation.  The complainant’s case is that the fruits obtained from the cultivation were of substandard quality with irregular shape and empty inside which were not fit for sale and that he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.75,000/-.  It is also alleged that though he had complained before the opposite party and though an agricultural officer by name Preetha Paul had visited the farm, no action was taken by the opposite party and that inspite of a lawyer notice on 11/5//2004 and the details furnished by him in response to the reply received, the opposite party had shown negligence in taking action on the complaint of the complainant. It is also submitted by him that with regard to the poor yield obtained by several farmers who had purchased seeds from the opposite party there was a programme in Asianet TV Channel at 1.pm on 18/4/2004.  The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with further compensation and costs.

3. The opposite party in the version admitted that the complainant had purchased 250.gms of cucumber seeds on 6/3/2004 and submitted that the seeds were of standard quality and if at all any poor yield was obtained by the complainant it might be due to excess chemical manuring  by the complainant.  The opposite party further submitted that there was no other complaint from any of the persons who had purchased the seeds and it was also contended that for one hectare of land, 500 to 750 gms of seeds were required and it was false to state that the complainant had sowed 250 gms in one hectare of land.  Further it was admitted by the opposite party that the petitioner had contacted his office and informed about the poor quality of the seeds though it was contended that there was any complaint in this regard from the complainant.  The opposite party further submitted that the lawyer notice was promptly replied and the complainant was directed to contact the Agricultural University, Vellanikkara for further information.  Thus, contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed from both sides and Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant and B1 on the side of the opposite party.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- is without any substantial material before it and that the District Forum had totally misconstrued the facts and evidence of the case.  It is the very case of the appellant that there was no deficiency at all on the side of the opposite party.  It was also argued that the Forum below ought to have found that the complainant had not discharged his burden to prove the quality of the seeds purchased from the opposite party and that the complainant had failed in cultivating the cucumber seeds as per directions given in the publications issued by the Agricultural University which is produced as Ext.B1.  It is his further case that the loss assessed by the complainant is exorbitant as 250 gms of the seeds could be sowed only in half hectare of land and 500 to 750 gms of seeds are necessary for cultivating one hectare of land.  The learned counsel has also advanced the contention that the complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of the loss claimed by him and the Forum has passed the order on presumptions and assumptions.  Thus the learned counsel argued for the position that the appeal is to be allowed setting aside the order of the Forum below.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  He has argued before us that the Forum has passed the order after proper appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances and also considering the poor plight of the petitioner who endured great loss consequent to the cultivation of the cucumber seeds purchased from the opposite party/appellant.  He has drawn before us the pathetic and pitiable picture of a farmer who had high hopes of making a livelihood on purchase of the seeds from a recognized and Government institution and who has suffered great loss after the cultivation.  It is also his case that the opposite party had shown callous negligence in washing off their hands by directing the complainant to approach the Director of Research, Kerala Agricultural University for further information (Ext.P6).  It is also his case that though he had submitted of the details by Ext.P5, the opposite party took a negligent attitude in considering the matter.  The learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that Asianet TV channel had telecasted about the poor yield and if the opposite party had taken some action they could have very well settle the matter without dragging the complainant before the Forum and spend money and time for litigation.  It is his very case that the compensation awarded is very much on the lower side as the complainant had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.75,000/- for the cultivation of the cucumber seeds by way of rent on the land manures the time and energy spent for the cultivation.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also on perusing the records produced before us by the counsels, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that 250 gms of cucumber seeds is sold to the complainant on 6/3/2004 for a sum of Rs.250/-.  It is also not disputed that the complainant had cultivated the cucumber seeds in one hectare of land though it is argued by the appellant that for cultivation of one hectare of land 500 to 750 grams of seeds are necessary.  The learned counsel for the appellant would also argue that there was no evidence adduced by the complainant in support of the fact that the seeds were of poor quality and that the yield was also not up to the expectation of the complainant.  But we find that the opposite party has no case that there was no cultivation at all by the complainant with the seeds purchased from the appellant.  It is also to be found that when all the seeds were sowed there will not be any seeds left for any inspection.  The Forum below has observed that the opposite party could have produced sample seeds and proved the fact that the seeds were of good quality cucumber ad that the seeds had no defect.  It is also to be found that the fruits are of perishable nature and after the yield the complainant will not be able to produce the yield for any inspection.  But we find that the complainant had made a written complaint before the opposite party by Ext.P3.  It is the letter sent on 11/5//2004 to the opposite party.  It is also to be found that the opposite party has no case that they did not get the letter from the complainant regarding the poor quality of the yield.  Ext.P4 is the reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant calling for the details with regard to the cultivation and Ext.P5 is the details furnished by the complainant to the opposite party.  On a perusal of Ext.P6 we find that the opposite party has washed their hands by forwarding the complaint to the Agricultural University and asked the complainant to have future correspondence with the Agricultural University.  It is also to be found that the opposite party had taken a stand that the complainant had not cultivated cucumber as per directions given in Ext.B1 and it could be the reason for the substandard quality of the fruits obtained in the cultivation.  However we find no evidence forthcoming to show that Ext.B1 was served on the complainant while selling seeds.  Moreover the complainant is a farmer who has been cultivating the same type of crops and it is the very case of the complainant that he had cultivated the cucumber in accordance with the standard procedures.  We also find that without any substantial ground the complainant could not have approached the agricultural officer and also written to the opposite party regarding the poor yield and resultant loss sustained by him.  The opposite party/appellant ought to have been diligent in taking proper action on the complaint made by the complainant as Ext.P3.

9. The Forum had ordered for the payment of Rs.30,000/- as compensation.  Even accepting the contention that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- for 3 ½ acres of land the complainant himself has admitted that he has sowed  cucumber seeds purchased from the appellant/opposite party in only one hectare of land.  It is also to be found that no substantial evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.75,000/- in the process of cultivation.  But it is our irresistible conclusion that the complainant had suffered loss due to the poor quality of the fruits obtained in the cultivation using the 250 gms of seeds sold by the opposite party to the complainant.  On an entire appreciation  of the facts and circumstances of the case we find that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be just and reasonable to be paid by the opposite party to he complainant as compensation.  The cost of Rs.750/- awarded by the Forum below is sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby the opposite party/appellant is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation within one month from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment.  The cost of Rs.750/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER