BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT. DCFR NO. 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12.
THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
COMPLAINANT :- E. Krishtappa S/o. Rangappa, Age: 48 years,
[In C.C NO. 89/12] Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Lingankahan Doddi village,
Dist: Raichur.
[In C.C NO.90/12] :- Zaheeruddin Ahmed S/o. Ahmed Mohiuddin,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 9-8-88,
Maddipet, Raichur
[In C.C NO.91/12] :- Kishanrao S/o. Raghavendrarao, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Lingankahan Doddi village, Tq. Manvi, Raichur
[In C.C NO.92/12] :- G. Veeranagouda S/o. Linganna, Age: 55 years, Occ:
Agriculture, R/o. Madigeri village, Tq. Manvi, Dist:
Raichur.
//VERSUS//
COMMON OPPOSITE:- 1. State Research and Technology Center, ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderbad-30,
Andhra Pradesh
2. Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Beeja Bhavan
Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore- 560 024.
3. Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Agriculture University, Askihal Road, Raichur.
4. The Karnataka State Seeds Certification Agency, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024.
Date of institution.
[In C.C NO. 89/12 to 91/12] :- 06-11-12.
[In C.C.No. 92/12] :- 07-11-12.
Notice served on .
[In C.C NO. 89/12 to 92/12 :- 22-11-12.
Date of disposal :- 28-03-13.
Complainant represented by Sri. Mallinaath.S.Hiremathn, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 represented by Sri. Avaneesh Taranath, Advocate.
Opposite No-4 is dismissed vide order dt. 09-11-2012.
---
These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
C.C. No. 89/12 is the complaint filed by the complainant E. Krishtappa against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award compensation amount of Rs. 95,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of the full amount with cost.
C.C. No.90/12 is the complaint filed by the complainant Zaheeruddin against the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 who are similar opposites in CC. No. 89/12 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay compensation amount of Rs. 3,32,400/- with interest
C.C.No. 91/12 is the complaint filed by one Kishanrao against the same opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 89/12, 90/12 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposites to pay compensation amount of Rs. 2,36,000/- with interest and cost.
C.C. No. 92/12 is the complaint filed by one G.Veernagouda against the same opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection act for to direct the opposites to pay compensation amount of Rs. 6,56,000/- with interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case in C.C. No.89/12 are that, he is the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No. 66 to the extent of 4 acres, situated at Lingankahn Doddi of Manvi Tq. in Raichur District.
In Kharif season of the year 2010, he undertook the production of paddy seeds in his land. He approached opposite Nos. 2 & 3 for supply of BPT- 5204 breeder seeds. As per his request opposite Nos. 2 & 3 supplied breed seeds for production of paddy seeds with an assurance of 99 percentage of pure seeds, as those seeds were supplied to them by opposite No-1.
He totally paid Rs. 2,450/- to opposite No-2 dt. 14-06-2010 vide Bill No. 902 thereafter, he sown breed seeds and after (60) days, the officers of opposite Nos. 2 & 3 visited the land and noticed the presence of different plants of different variety growth they suggested the complainant to destroy the other variety of plants which grown to the extent of 5-10 percentage of the total plant thereafter, he approached the opposite No-3 after harvesting the crop but opposite No-3 refused to purchase the seeds, as those were sub-standard seeds. In view of this situation, he sustained heavy loss. Hence, this complaint is filed against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 for the reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. The brief facts of the complainant case is C.C. No. 90/12 are that, is the owner land bearing Sy.No. 493/1 to the extent of 2 acres 16 guntas and 493/2 to the extent of 3 acres 26 gutnas and Sy.No. 395/4 to the extent of 4 acres 7 guntas situated in Chandra Bhanda village.
In Kharif season of the year 2010, he under took to produce the breed paddy seeds in his land. He purchased BPT-5204 breeder seeds from opposite Nos. 2 & 3 by paying Rs. 7,450/- vide Bill No. 866 dt. 01-06-2010 with an assurance of 99 percentage of purity in the seeds, accordingly, he sown the said breed seeds in his land and after (60) days of sowing, the opposite Nos. 2 & 3 visited his land and noticed to the extent of 5-10 percentage of total plants grown in his land are of different quality, it contained 1.1% percentage of other seeds and they have directed the complainant to remove those plants, after following the instructions by the authorities concerned and after harvesting the crop, he went to opposite No-3 to sell the crop, but they noticed sub-standard quality of paddy and they purchased at lower price. Hence, he sustained heavy loss due to supply of sub-standard seeds by opposites. Thereafter, he filed this complaint for the relief as noted in it.
4. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is CC.No. 91/12 are that, is the owner of land bearing Sy.No. 288 to the extent of 2 acres 30 gutnas, Sy.No. 200/1 to the extent of 2 acres 13 gutnas and Sy.No. 259 to the extent of 2 acres 5 guntas situated in Linganakahan Doddi village of Manvi Tq.
In Kharif season of the year 2010, he approached opposite Nos. 2 & 3 and purchased BPT 5204 quality breeder seeds by paying an amount of Rs. 5550/- vide Bill No. 901 dt. 14-06-2010, he sown those seeds in his land, after (60) days of sowing the seeds, opposite Nos. 2 & 3 visited his land and noticed that, 5-10 percentage of total plants grown in his land are of other categories of plants and thereby the breeder seeds contained other seeds of lower quality and of different seeds. According to instructions, he maintained the crop. After harvesting opposite No-3 refused to purchase the crop as a breeder seeds. Hence, he sustained heavy loss and thereby, he filed this complaint against the opposites for the relief as noted in it.
5. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is CC.No. 92/12 are that, is the owner of land bearing Sy.No. 94/A to the extent of 9 acres 18 guntas, Sy.No. 47 HissaC3 to the extent of 3 acres 4 gutnas, in Sy.No. 47 HissaD2 to the extent of 3 acres 38 gutnas, Sy.No. 47/1/P2/ HissaC1 to the extent of 4 acres 36 guntas situated at Sanna Housur village and Madigeri village Tq. Manvi, Dist. Raichur.
In Kharif season of the year 2010, he purchased BPT- 5204 breeder seeds for Rs. 17,200/- vide Bill No. 864 dt. 25-05-10 from opposite Nos. 2 & 3 thereafter, he sown and after six months of sowing the seeds of opposite Nos. 2 & 3 inspected the land and noticed 5-10 percentage of plants germinated were of different crops seeds and after harvesting the crop, he approached opposite No-3 for to sell it, but opposite No-3 refused to purchase the crop as breeder seeds, because of lower quality in paddy crop and thereby, he sustained heavy loss as such, he filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it.
6. Opposite No-1 in all the cases is State Research & Technology Center, ANGR Agricultural University Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, appeared in all these cases through its Advocate.
As per order dt. 09-11-2012 in all these cases, this complaint against opposite No-4 has been dismissed as per the memo
Opposite No-1 in all the cases filed written version by denying all the allegations made by each complainant. Opposite No-1 has admitted the production of breeder seeds, foundation seeds and distributing them in different parts of India. The breeder seeds are producing under strict supervision of concerned breeder, in the main breeding station and these are cent percent pure genetically and physically. The genetic purity of breeder seeds maintained through a system of breeder seed monitoring team. It is catering the needs of farmers by producing large quantities of quality breeder seeds and those being supplied to corporations, agencies and other institutions and to the farmers regularly. The supervision of breeder is concerned breeder rouging will be done at four stages of crop growth period for to remove other types of plants present in the field. After monitoring the team of five members, it instructed to all the complainants to follow the instructions by removing waste plants. The complainants in each cases have not followed its instructions, it supplied 100 percentage of pure BPT 5204 to opposite Nos. 2 & 3 vide Bill No. 149175 with certification, accordingly, it denied all the allegations made by each complainant regarding sub-standard quality of breeder seeds produced and supplied by it to opposite Nos. 2 & 3 and thereby it prayed for to dismiss all the complaints with cost.
7. Opposite Nos. 2 & 3 appeared and contended that, they have purchased the breeder seeds from opposite No-1, as per the Government direction, those seeds were certified by the competent authority with certification slip. After sowing the crop by each complainant they have visited the lands of complainants and given instructions to remove other plants, but complainants have not followed their instructions as such they denied other allegations made by these complainants against them and prayed for to dismiss the complaints among other grounds.
8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties, in each cases, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
In C.C. No. 89/12:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased BPT-5204 breeder seeds at the cost of Rs. 2,450/- on 14-06-10 vide bill No. 902 produced by opposite No-1 on certification of purity of seeds to the extent of 99% and after sowing seeds by him in his land, plants grown up with different varieties of paddy seeds those plants cannot be called as a breeder seeds plants and after inspection by opposite No. 2 & 3 on the complaint of him, it noticed that breeder seeds supplied by them are sub standard quality and mixed up with other paddy seeds, and thereby opposite No-1 falsely certified that those seeds are breeder seeds and opposite No- 2 & 3 sold those seeds to complainant with assurance of 99% of purity but due to different variety of plants grown out of the seeds supplied by opposite No- 2 & 3, he sustained heavy loss in the yield of the year 2010 and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. What order?
In C.C. No. 90/12:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased BPT-5204 breeder seeds at the cost of Rs. 7450/- on 01-06-10 vide bill No. 866 produced by opposite No-1 on certification of purity of seeds to the extent of 99% and after sowing seeds by him in his land, plants grown up with different varieties of paddy seeds those plants cannot be called as a breeder seeds plants and after inspection by opposite No. 2 & 3 on the complaint of him, it noticed that breeder seeds supplied by them are sub standard quality and mixed up with other paddy seeds, and thereby opposite No-1 falsely certified that those seeds are breeder seeds and opposite No- 2 & 3 sold those seeds to complainant with assurance of 99% of purity but due to different variety of plants grown out of the seeds supplied by opposite No- 2 & 3, he sustained heavy loss in the yield of the year 2010 and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. What order?
In C.C. No. 91/12:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased BPT-5204 breeder seeds at the cost of Rs. 5550/- on 14-06-10 vide bill No. 901 produced by opposite No-1 on certification of purity of seeds to the extent of 99% and after sowing seeds by him in his land, plants grown up with different varieties of paddy seeds those plants cannot be called as a breeder seeds plants and after inspection by opposite No. 2 & 3 on the complaint of him, it noticed that breeder seeds supplied by them are sub standard quality and mixed up with other paddy seeds, and thereby opposite No-1 falsely certified that those seeds are breeder seeds and opposite No- 2 & 3 sold those seeds to complainant with assurance of 99% of purity but due to different variety of plants grown out of the seeds supplied by opposite No- 2 & 3, he sustained heavy loss in the yield of the year 2010 and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
4. What order?
In C.C. No. 92/12:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased BPT-5204 breeder seeds at the cost of Rs. 17200/- on 25-05-10 vide bill No. 864 produced by opposite No-1 on certification of purity of seeds to the extent of 99% and after sowing seeds by him in his land, plants grown up with different varieties of paddy seeds those plants cannot be called as a breeder seeds plants and after inspection by opposite No. 2 & 3 on the complaint of him, it noticed that breeder seeds supplied by them are sub standard quality and mixed up with other paddy seeds, and thereby opposite No-1 falsely certified that those seeds are breeder seeds and opposite No- 2 & 3 sold those seeds to complainant with assurance of 99% of purity but due to different variety of plants grown out of the seeds supplied by opposite No- 2 & 3, he sustained heavy loss in the yield of the year 2010 and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.
3. What order?
10. In all these four cases, complainants in each case are different but opposite Nos. 1 to 3 are one and the same. Question of facts and law involved in all these cases are one and the same. The contentions of opposite No-1 in all the cases are one and the same. Similarly the contentions of opposite No- 2 & 3 are in all the cases are one and the same. Hence we heard all these complaints together and disposed of them by this common judgment.
11. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
In C.C. No. 89/12 :-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following :
In C.C. No. 90/12 :-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following
In C.C. No. 91/12 :-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following
In C.C. No. 92/12 :-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order
(3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the
final order for the following
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 89/12. 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12.
12. To prove the facts involved in Point No-1, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-6 are marked. Opposite No-3 adopted the evidence of RW-2.
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 90/12.
13. To prove the facts involved in this point, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. Opposite No-3 adopted the same evidence. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. One document is marked Ex.R-5.
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 91/12.
14. To prove the facts involved in this point, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 is marked. Affidavit-evidence of Opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. Documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-6 are marked. Opposite No-3 is adopted evidence opposite No-2.
POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 92/12.
15. To prove the facts involved in this point, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. One document Ex.R-1 is filed. Opposite No-3 adopted the evidence of RW-1.
16. We have gone through the pleadings, affidavit-evidences of complainant and opposites and their respective documents in all the cases and we have noticed that, some of the following points are undisputed points in between the parties.
(1) It is undisputed fact that, opposite No-1 is the authorized and recognized institution for production of breeder paddy seeds accordingly it produced breed seeds of paddy for the purpose of growing breed paddy seeds.
(2) It is further undisputed fact that, those breed seeds of paddy supplied to complainants if all the cases have been certified the purity and quality by its experts.
(3) It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-1 supplied those seeds in bags to opposite Nos. 2 & 3 with certification.
(4) Further it is undisputed fact that, opposite No- 2 & 3 have sold those
breed seeds to each complainant of all the cases on payment of cost as noted by the complainant in their respective complaints
(5) Further it is undisputed fact that, each complainant has sown those breed paddy seeds in their respective lands as contended in their respective complaints but the grown up of different quality paddy seed and not as pure breed seeds plants.
17. In the light of the undisputed facts referred above, we have gone through the documents Ex.R-2, which is one and the same in all other cases. It is a joint inspection report of expert’s in BPT-5204 breed paddy seeds and crops. According to this expert’s report, three members have inspected the standing crop of the complainants in CC.No. 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12 and all f them and clearly opined that, there were mixed variety of plants germinated out of the breed paddy seeds sown in their respective lands. Ex.R-3 is the report of Karnataka State Seeds Certificate Agency Hebbal dt. 03-09-2011 in which, they have also noticed the low quality of mixed breed seeds sown by these complainants, as well as the farmers in Raichur area and Sindhanur area. In view of the fact low quality of seeds out coming after harvesting the crops by these complainants and they have refused to consider grown the paddy seed as a breed seeds. Hence, they have awarded Rs. 1000/- per acre to each complainant of these cases out of seed production risk fund. Ex.R-4 is the certificate issued by Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Raichur regarding the payment made by it to the each complainant as per order Ex.R-3.
18. On careful perusal of all these documents referred above, it is very much clear that, the breed seeds supplied to each complainant by opposite Nos. 2 & 3 were with mixed variety of paddy seeds, those are not purely breed seeds as certified by opposite No-1 and opposite No. 2 & 3 have sold the mixed and low variety of paddy seeds to each complainant by assuring them that, those are 99 percentage of pure in breed seeds of paddy and yield to the extent of 30 quintals of per acre. Hence this clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 to 3, as such, we are of the view that, there is no need for us to discuss other documents as contended by opposite No-1 or opposite No-2 accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in all the cases as in affirmative.
POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12.
19. These points are related to the reliefs claimed by complainant in each cases. In 89/12, complainant claimed for to award Rs. 95,600/- due to loss sustained by him in support of it, he has filed APMC pricelist and other related documents.
On perusal of the facts noted in Para-9 of this complaint and his affidavit-evidence which clearly goes to show that, he calculated yield of paddy his lands at the rate of 30 quintals per acre and loss was calculated at the rate of 760 per acre, accordingly he claimed for Rs. 45,600/- which is a loss sustained by him for supply of sub-standard seeds.
20. In similar way all other complainants have calculated their loss based on the above said formula by taking into consideration of the yield of 30 quintals per acre. We have considered all these facts as contended by each complainant in their respective complaints and we are of the view that, the above said calculation might be probable yield of breed seeds to the extent of 30 quintals per acre, but it is not a correct standard yield to consider, it might be only promise or assurance given by opposite Nos. 2 & 3, we cannot take it as a standard to calculate approximate yield per acre in that year. However, we have considered yield by considering the different area of the land of the complainants, and other un-noticed errors, we have taken the yield to the extent of 20 quintals per acre by rejecting the claim of the complainant as 30 quintal per acre.
21. We have taken into consideration of the pricelists produced by APMC Raichur and came to a conclusion that, each complainant have sustained loss in the market value of the breed seeds to the extent of Rs. 760 per acre.
In view of our discussions with reference to the documentary evidences produced by opposites, as well as complainant, we assessed the loss in CC No. 89/12 for 2 acres of land = 30,400/- out of the said amount, he received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as per document Ex.R-4, as such, he is entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 30,400-20,000=10400/- only.
In CC.No. 90/12, complainant Zaheeruddin grown breed seeds in 2 acre 1 guntas of land in SyNo. 493/1, 3 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No. 493/2 and 4 acres 7 guntas of land in Sy.No. 395/4, but Ex.R-2 inspection report reveals the cultivated area of this complainant is to the extent of 8 acre only, we have calculated the loss to the extent of 760 per acre by taking into consideration of 20 quintals of yield per acre, as such, he sustained loss of Rs. 15,200x8=1,21,600 but this person was given an amount of Rs. 8000/- only as such, this amount was deducted in 1,21600/- which comes to Rs. 1,13,600/- for which the complainant is entitled.
In the similar way in CC.No. 91/12 complainant Kishanrao sown the breed seeds of paddy in the area of 6 acres we applied the above said formula as calculated in CC.No. 89/12 & 90/12 and the probable yield as taken as 20 quintal per acre and loss sustained by him is to the extent of 760. Hence 120x760=91200 out of which he was paid R. 6000/- which is deducted in the amount of Rs. 91200=85,200/- for which he is entitled to the said total sum from opposite nos. 1 to 3.
In C.C.No. 92/12 the same formula was applied the calculated the assessed of the loss by G.Veernagouda who is sown in 20 acre of land, loss comes to Rs. 3,04000/- as per above calculations, out of that amount, he was paid Rs. 20000/-. Hence the said amount was deducted out of Rs. 3,04,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,84,000/-. Hence G.Veeranagouda in CC No 92/12 is entitled to recover from opposite 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
22. In all the four cases we have taken note of the deficiency in service by opposite Nos. 1 to 3 as such, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to each complainant in all the cases and each complainant in all the cases are also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation, as such, we answered this point accordingly.
POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No. 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12.
23. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 89/12, 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
In C.C. No. 89/12.
The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 89/12 is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant by name E.Krishtappa in CC.No. 89/12 is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 15,400/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
In CC.No. 90/12.
The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 90/12 is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant by name Zaheeruddin Ahmed in C.C.No. 90/12 is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,18,600/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
In CC.No. 91/12.
The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 91/12 is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant by name Kishanrao in C.C.No. 91/12 is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 90,200/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
In CC.No. 92/12.
The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 92/12 is partly allowed with cost.
Complainant by name G. Veeranagouda in C.C.No. 92/12 is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,89,000/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in all the cases have given one month time to make the payment each cases as stated above.
Keeping the copies of judgment in C.C. No. 90/12, 91/12 & 92/12.
Intimate all the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-03-13)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
*RK*
