BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1566 & 1567/2012
APPEAL NO. 1566/2012
The Managing Director, Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Beeja Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore-560024. (By Sri.R.S.Hegde, Advocate) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Holalkere, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. | ..Respondent/s |
2. | Sri.Shivakumaraiah Bin Kencha Basaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o.Hulemalali, Shivapura Post, Hollakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. | |
APPEAL NO. 1567/2012
The Managing Director, Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Beeja Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore-560024. (By Sri.R.S.Hegde, Advocate) | …Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Holalkere, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. | Respondent/s |
2. | Sri.G.S.Parameshwarappa Bin Shivalingappa, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Hulemalali, Shivapura Post, Hollakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. | |
COMMON ORDER
BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred these both appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.10.07.2012 passed in CC.Nos. 03/2012 and 04/2012, on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chitradurga. In both appeals, both parties are one and the same and the matter in issue is also one and the same. Hence, to avoid repetition of work, all these appeals are clubbed together and being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant had purchased certified paddy seeds B.P.T.5204 verity on 11.07.2011 from the Opponent No.1 and the raised crop in his land of Kunugali Village and he did not get proper yield and incurred loss of expenditures made for cultivation and loss of income on account of low yield of the crop and alleged that the seeds supplied by the Respondent-1 were not certified seeds and were defective and thereby he sustained the loss. Hence the complaint.
3. After service of the notice, OP-1 & OP-2 appeared through their counsels and filed their version. The Respondent No.1 & 2 admitted that the complainant has purchased paddy seeds P.B.T-5204 on 11.07.2011 and denied all other allegations of the complainant and contended that the seeds supplied to the complainant were certified seeds, germinated well and the paddy plants had grown up. The failure of the crop is not an account of the defective seed but on account of improper cultivation and attack of pests resulted in diseases to the crop for harvest for which the complainant is wholly responsible and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP/s and prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the Opposite parties No.1 & 2 towards compensation along with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Further the District Commission is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Opposite parties have preferred these appeals on various grounds and pray to allow their appeals in the interest of justice and equity.
6. Perused the order sheet of this Commission, we noticed that both the parties have absent from long time and in spite of sufficient opportunities has been granted not argued the matter. Hence, we have taken the matters for orders.
7. Perused the appeal memo order passed by the District Commission at Chitradurga, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the Respondents-2 in both cases have purchased paddy seeds P.B.T.5204 on 11.07.2011. It is also not in dispute that after sowing the seeds he did not get proper yield. It is also not in dispute that on 08.12.2011 Agriculture Department Kathalgere, Chennagere Taluk, District Davangere and the professor of the Agriculture University of the Bangalore visited the lands of the Respondents-2 and submitted the reports that up to 70% to 80% crops are damaged. The allegations of the Respondents-2 is that in spite of proper sowing and after taking all the care he did not get proper yield in his land.
8. Per contra, the appellant contended that the seeds supplied to the Respondents-2 were certified seeds and the failure of the crop is not an account of defective seeds but on the account of improper cultivation and an attack of pests resulting in diseases to the crops for which the Respondents-2 in both cases are responsible and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellants.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is an evident that Ex-B-2, the report of Agriculture Scientist Dr.T.H.Gouda, Dr. Malleshappa and Dr.G.V.Jagadish Assistant Professor Agriculture Department Kathalgere, dated 08.12.2011 reveals that the seeds P.B.T.5204 are not suitable for cultivation in Rainy season. Moreover, the appellant has sent seeds for lab testing at Bellary. However, the appellants has not filed or produced the expert evidence to prove that the seeds provided by him were not defective.
10. The appellant contended that failure of Respondents-2 had not taken proper care in the cultivation and hence attacked by the disease and failed the crops. However, the appellant had not produced any evidence to controvert the findings contained therein that Respondents-2 had not taken proper care and what was the actual reason for that and the Respondent-2 have not get proper yield, also it is not possible to the poor farmers to show negligence in cultivation after spending huge amount on crops by using pesticides and medicines etc.,
11. Hence considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that even though the seeds are not suitable for cultivation in a rainy season appellant had supplied the sub-standard seeds to the Respondents-2 which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission after appreciating the reports on records is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The Appeal No.1566/2012 and Appeal No.1567/2012 are dismissed. No order costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainants.
Keep the original of this order in Appeal No.1566/2012 and copies thereof in connected files.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
P*
