-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.94/2018.
Date of filing: 27.12.2018.
Date of disposal: 05.07.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Ashok Hanamath Malaghan B.Com., LL.B.( Spl.)
President. ( I/C )
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi)
B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S Kishanrao, S/o Bhaurao Saigaonkar,
Age: about 64 years Occ: Agriculture.
And Advocacy resident of Saigaon
Tq.Bhalki Dist.Bidar.
(By Smt. Padma M. Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1. Sudham, S/o Ganpathrao
Prop. Sudham Krushi Seva Kendra
Shop no. 5-5-45 Main road Bhalki
Br.APMC Yard Bhalki.
2. The Managing Director
Rising Sun Seeds Private Limited
194 A 1st Floor Block no.1 and 2
Tara Vilas apartment plot no.28
Dr. Munje Marg Dhantoli
Nagpur MS India.
( O.P.No.1 Exparte )
( O.P.No.2 By R.J. Doijode Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan President.
This is a complaint filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act. 1986 against the O.Ps claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50 0000/- from the O.Ps.
2. Brief facts of the case of the complaint are:
The complainant averred that he is native of village Saigaon, Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar and he is having agricultural land at village Saigaon. The complainant used to cultivate in his irrigated land and having black cotton soil land. The complainant states that on 16.06.2018 he purchased 8 bags containing Soyabeen seeds from O.P.no.1. who is the dealer of the said seeds. In the said 8 bags 5 bags contained Soyabeen Rising seeds RS 228 and 3 bags contained of gold green seeds (Soyabeen ) each bags having 25 kgs. of the same bearing receipt no.251 and the complainant was sown the said seeds in his land on 17.06.2018 but, the rising seeds 228 has not grown up in the land of the complainant and it has become failure. So, the complainant has put to loss of 90 to 100 quintals of Soyabeen yield. The complainant has made complaint before the Asst. Director of Agriculture Bhalki in regard to failure of seeds and thereafter the Asst.Director of Agriculture Bhalki has visited the land of the complainant and collected the seeds from the complainant and sent the seeds to the Asst. Director of Agriculture, seed examination Laboratory at Gangavathi for examination of the germination strength and power of the seeds and after examination of the said Soyabeen RS 228 have been examined in the laboratory they found that the seeds were low quality. Due to failure of the said seeds the complainant has put to loss which he had spend more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards purchase of the seeds and sowing the seeds and using of fertilizers and manure etc. The land of the complainant was high black cotton soil and the potentiality of the land was very high and in addition to that, the land is having irrigated land installed of I.P. sets on Bank of Manjara river and there were two bore wells in the land of the complainant. Despite of that, the crops did not grow in the land of the complainant, consequentially the complainant did not get any yield of the Soyabeen and he put to loss 90 to 100 quintals of Soyabeen it worth of Rs.4,00,000/ Hence, the complainant has issued the legal notice on 06.12.2018 through post to respondent no.1 and 2 who are the dealer and manufacturer of the said seeds respectively. In turn the O.Ps have not replied to the said legal notice So, it amounts that, they have admitted the claim of the complainant. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent no.1 and 2 are held responsible for their illegal actives and liable to pay the compensation due to failure of the said seeds. Hence the complainant prayed to the Forum, that the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/ with 12% may be awarded against the O.Ps.
3. After the notices issued by the Forum the O.P. no. 1 & 2 have received the notices in spite of service of notice the O.P.no.1 has not appeared this Forum hence, the O.P.no.1 placed exparte. The O.P.no.2 has appeared before this forum and not filed the written version. The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit in support of his case and also documents are filed as annexure 1 to 13 the written arguments the O.P.no.2 has not filed any evidence affidavit.
4. Considering the above said facts and circumstances the following points arose for our consideration.
- Does the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opponents in supplying good quality of seeds?
- Whether the complainant is entitled any relief claimed ?
- What orders?
5. Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-
- In the affirmative.
- Partly in the affirmative.
- As per the final order owing to the following:-
6 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that, the complainant being an agriculturist and having irrigated lands at Saigaon village had purchased 8 bags of Soyabeen seeds from O.Pno.1 Shop which were manufactured by O.P.no.2 in order to grow the same in his land. Out of 8 bags of seeds 05 bags contained Soyabeen Rising seeds RS-228 and 3 bags contained gold green seeds (Soyabeen) having 25 kgs.each. The counsel for complainat further argued that, the complainant has sown said of Rising seeds RS 228 having 25 kgs. in his land on 17.06.2018. But the said seeds have not been grown up in the land of the complainant and thereby entire crop become failured in spite of all agronomical procedure followed by the complainant to grow the same and thereby the complainant has put to loss of 90 to 100 quintals of Soyabeen yields.
7. In view of the said circumstances the complainant had approached the Asst. Director of Agriculture Bhalki for providing reasons for failure of crop, thereafter, the said Officer has visited the land of the complainant and collected the sample seeds from the complainant and then he has sent the same to Asst. Director of Agriculture, seeds examination laboratory at Gangavati for examination of it s germination strength and for its quality test. Then the said laboratory has examined the said seeds and it was found that the seeds are of low quality and have no proper germination power and are sub standard. Hence the learned counsel has contended that
the seeds supplied by the O.Ps. are defective in nature and of substandard. Therefore on account of such failure the complainant has put to loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/
8. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that, after failure of said crop the complainant has issued a legal notice to O.P.no.1 and 2 through RPAD post but the same were not replied by the O.Ps in any manner despite notice served on them, meaning thereby they have admitted the facts contained in the said notice. Therefore, the both O.Ps have shown their deficiency of service and have played un fair trade practice upon the complainant by supplying low quality seeds and as such said seeds are entirely defective in nature. Hence the both O.Ps. jointly and severally liable to answer the claim of the complainant. So the counsel for the complainant prayed to allow the complaint by granting reliefs claimed.
9. Considering the above said argument we have perused the evidence of the complainant along with his documents produced in this case under annexure 1 to 13. On perusal of Annexure-1 a seeds purchased receipt issued by O.P.no.1 on 06.06.2018 clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased Soyabeen rising seeds RS 228 of 5 bags containing 25 kgs.each at the rate of Rs.1850/- totaling Rs. 9250/- and another 3 bags of gold green seeds (Soyabeen) at the rate of Rs.2000/- totalling Rs.3000/-. So in all the complainant has paid Rs.15250/- for purchase of both seeds stated above. On perusal of the said receipt was issued by O.P.no.1. to complainant. On perusal of annexure 2 the seeds test report issued by Asst.Director of seeds examination laboratory Gangavati he has opined that the seeds purchased by the complainant were sub standard quality and has no germination power percentage. Which is evident and supports the say of the complainant that the seeds purchased by him from O.P.no.1 are of sub-standard and are not qualitative. The annexure 3 is the legal notice copy issued against the OP.no.1 & 2 through RPAD post which was evident from annexure 5 and 6 the postal receipts. On perusal of annexure 4 and 6 the acknowledgement and post at track confirmation receipts confirms that, the legal sent by the complainant was served on the O.P.no.1 and 2. Annexure-8 is the Panchanama drawn by Asst.Director of Agricalture Bhalki in the land of the complainant in the presence of the Panchas in view of the requisition filed by the complainant to inspect and to verify the crops in his land. On perusal of annexure-9 it is the record of right of R.S.No.125 B measuring 14.4 acres standing in the name of the complainant reveals that the complainant is the owner of the said agricultural land. Annexure-10 to 12 are the photo copies of the crop of the complainant’s land. On perusal of the said photos the crop of the complainant was not properly grown and there is a big gaps between crops grown which indicates that, the crop of the complainant was failure at its germination only. Annexure 13 is the requisition letter submitted by complainant to Asst.Director of Agriculture, Bhalki with request to verify his land and the crop grown in his land R.S.No.125 of Saigaon village.
10. After careful consideration of the above said documents, the documents produced by the complainant are supporting the say of the complainant. In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has mainly relied upon annexure 2 the certificate of seeds testing issued by the Asst. Director of Seeds examination laboratory Gangavati. So on perusal of the said documents it is clearly evident that, the seeds purchased by the complainant i.e. Soyabeen rising seeds RS 228 were of sub-standard and has no germination power. Therefore, in our view the said documents are very much proofs for failure of crops on account of sub-standard of seeds supplied by the O.Ps. since the said certificate has been issued by the competent authority who was expert in such field by testing the same in the laboratory. Under the circumstances same is acceptable document in the absence of any other contra proofs produced by the O.Ps. It is further observed by us that, when the complainant had made a serious allegation against O.Ps. they have not come forward to object the say of the complainant in any manner by filing their version or by producing rebuttal documents including any other test of their own laboratory in respect of seeds in question. Therefore, in the absence of the same we are of the firm view that the seeds supplied by the O.Ps. which were manufactured O.P.no.2 are of sub standard in its quality and in its germination etc. In view of the said fact the complainant has contended that, on account of supply of sub-standard seeds the complainant has put to loss of his crop and thereby O.Ps have shown their deficiency of service is holds good. Looking to any angle in our view the O.Ps have shown their deficiency in service in providing quality of seeds and their act and attitude amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in the eye of law. Therefore we are of the firm opinion that as discussed above and for the reasons stated above in our view the complainant has proved the point no.1 hence same is answered in the Affirmative.
Point.No.2
11. For the reasons stated above we have answered the point no.1 in the Affirmative. Hence, the claim of the complainant is maintainable against the O.Ps. and both opponents are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim of the complainant.
12. The complainant has claimed total Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation but, for such higher claim he has not produced any iota of evidence in support of his claim and failed to produce any proofs regarding the rates of the Soyabeen crops as on the date of failure of such crops. But, considering the grievances of the complainant, and alleged loss caused to the complainant even in the absence of any documentary proofs in our view it is just and proper to award Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss caused to the complainant including the amount spent for growing the said crops by considering the nature of agriculture concept under modern system, wherein the entire agriculture depending on much labour and other infrastructural facilities such as manure labour cost supervisory cost and other maintenance cost etc. So, in our view considering above all aspects the above said award is just and proper which fulfilled the needs of the complainant in the interest of justice. In addition to the above claim the complainant is entitled Rs. 25,000/- towards his pain and sufferings and for other in-conviniences caused etc and Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings. Hence the complainant is entiled to receive Rs.2,00,000/ + Rs. 25,000/ + Rs.5,000/ total Rs. 2,30,000/ as stated above from the O.P.no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence both Opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amounts to the complainant. Thus a stated above we answered the point no.2 partly in the Affirmative. Hence the following:
::ORDERS::
The complaint filed by the complainant against O.Ps. no.1 and 2 is partly allowed with costs.
Consequently the O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.2,30,000/ as stated above to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realisation of the entire amount. The O.Ps. shall comply the above said orders within one month from the date of this order.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 5th day of July 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Ashok Hanamanth Malaghan
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.1 Original receipt of purchase of Soyabeen seeds issued by O.P.no.1.
- Annexure.2 seeds report issued by Asst.Director seeds
examination Laboratory Gangavati
- Annexure.3 Legal notice dt. 06.12.2018.
- Annexure.4 Acknowledgement card
- Annexure.5 & 6 Postal receipts
- Annexure.7 Post track confirmation receipts
- Annexure.8 Copy of Panchanama.
- Annexure.9 Copy of RTC.
- Annexure.10 to 12 colour Photographs.
- Annexure.13. Letter addressed to the Asst.Director of Agriculture Bhalki by the complainant.
Document produced by the Opponent. NIL
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1 Kishanrao S/o Bhaurao Saigaonkar
(Complainant )
Opponents. NIL
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Ashok Hanamanth Malaghan
Member President.
