Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/33/2013

C.Ananda Reddy S/o. C.Chinna Reddeppa Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.V.Bhaskar

12 Dec 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:09.05.2013

Order Date: 12.12.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

     PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.33/2013

 

Between

 

1.         C.Ananda Reddy,

            S/o. C.Chinna Reddeppa Reddy,

            D.No.18-6-332, 10^th cross, Sundaraiah Nagar,

            Opposite to Railway Colony,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         C.Chinna Reddeppa Reddy,

            S/o. C.Pulla Reddy,

            Rangareddy Palli,

            Jandala Post,

            Rompicherla Mandal,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  … Complainants

 

And

 

1.         The Branch Manager,

            Sivasakthi Bio Plant Tech Ltd.,

            Plot No.18-1-602, 3^rd Floor,

            V.V.Mahal Road,

            Tiruapti.

 

2.         Area Sales Manager,

            Sivasakthi Bio Plant Tech.Ltd.,

            27-21-36, Swarna House,

            1^st Floor, Kaleswar Rao Road,

            Governorpet,

            Vijayawada – 520 002.

 

3.         The General Manager,

            Sivasakthi Bio Plant Tech.Ltd.,

            No.7-1-621/ 98 & 34,

            Opp. to Axis Bank,

            S.R.Nagar,

            Hyderabad  500 038.

 

4.         The Managing Director,

            Sivasakthi Bio Plant Tech.Ltd.,

            No.7-1-621 / 98 & 34,

            Opp. to Axis Bank,

            S.R.Nagar,

            Hyderabad – 500 038                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.09.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.V.Bhaskar, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K.Vijaya Rama Raju, counsel for the opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, complaining deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for selling substandard quality of saplings, which results no yield.  

2.The brief facts of the case are :- The complainants, being father and son of Hindu undivided family, eek their livelihood by doing cultivation. The complainant No.2 wanted to raise mango garden in their 2 acres of land and accordingly by seeing advertisement in T.V and Radio of opposite parties, approached opposite party No.1 for purchase of mango saplings. The staff of 1^st opposite party visited the land of the complainants and confirm that the land is fit for mango crop and also assured them that the saplings supplied by them will give good yield. By believing the words of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant purchased 150 mango saplings by paying Rs.2,000/- as advance and remaining balance of Rs.14,350/- was paid on 30.07.2011. The complainant submitted that he invested Rs.15,000/- for leveling the land and make it fit for plantation by hiring JCB and for labour he incurred Rs.25,000/-. As per the instructions and assistance of Agriculture Officer and Sales Person of opposite parties 3 and 4, the saplings were planted and he paid Rs.44,215/- for drip irrigation. He spent Rs.26,460/- for fertilizers for the said land. The complainants submitted that they are doing cultivation for so many years and also submitted that the opposite parties promised to inspect the land regularly after plantation and also promised to replace the saplings if any sapling will die, but they failed to turn-up. The saplings were died one after the other. Finally, all the saplings were died. The complainant further submits that the opposite parties never replaced the saplings in the place of dead saplings and never visited the land after plantation inspite of requests made by the complainant. The complainant sent the soil for testing to the Agriculture Board, to ascertain the reason for the death of the saplings. The Agriculture Authority gave the report stating that the soil is fit for mango plantation and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as they sold the sub-standard quality of saplings and failed to inspect the land after plantation as promised by them. Finally on 19.10.2012, the complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties. The notice sent to opposite parties 1 and 2 were returned and opposite parties 3 and 4 after receipt of notice, sent reply notice with false and baseless allegations. Hence, the complaint is filed by the complainant praying the Forum to pass an award by directing the opposite parties to refund the amount invested for saplings a sum of Rs.16,350/-, Rs.25,000/- for labour and JCB expenses of Rs.15,000/- and for drip irrigation Rs.44,215/- and Rs.26,460/- for fertilizers and directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

3.  After issuing notices to opposite parties, Sri.K.Vijaya Rama Raju, filed vakalat for opposite parties 1 to 4 and filed written version contending that the opposite party has changed the company name from “Shivashakthi Bio Planttee Ltd” to “Shivashakthi Bio Technologies Limited” with effect from 29.11.2012 and admitted that the complainants purchased mango saplings from them to raise mango garden, which will give good income and purchased the saplings for commercial purpose. Hence, he will not come under the purview of consumer as he purchased the saplings for commercial purpose. The opposite party further contended that he informed the complainant that the yield of crop depends upon the nature of the soil and also it is the duty of the complainant that soil test shall be done before plantation. So that it will helpful to the complainant for management of post plantation and also they have not assured that it will give better yield because it depends on management practice in the field and other factors and particularly mentioned the conditions in the brochure issued to the complainant and they have given instructions to the complainant to take proper care of the plants and to take proper steps for drip irrigation, manure etc. but the complainant failed to do so. After purchase of the plants, the complainant never made any complaint to the opposite party with regard to the growth of the plants. After lapse of one year, the complainant addressed a legal notice. After receipt of the said notice, the opposite party sent its representative to inspect the field of the complainants, wherein it was found that the complainants failed to manage the saplings in proper condition and in order to escape from their fault, they made a baseless and frivolous allegations against them and in the absence of any scientific laboratory report about the saplings being defective, the complainant un-necessary throwing blame on the opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

4.  The complainant No.1 filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the opposite party Mr.V.Ramakrishna, S/o. V.Subbarayudu, Deputy Service Manager of Shivashakthi Bio-Technologies Limited filed his affidavit and no documents were marked on their behalf.

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant will come under the purview of consumer under

       Section-2(i)(d) of C.P.Act?           

(ii)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

        party?

(iii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

(iv).  To what result?

6.  Point No.(i):- The complainants being father and son belonging to Hindu un-divided family, to eek their livelihood doing cultivation, but not for resale or commercial purpose, and as they are farmers, they will come under the purview of consumer and accordingly this point is answered.

7.  Point No.(ii):-  It is an admitted fact that the complainants purchased 150 saplings from opposite party No.1 by paying total amount of Rs.16,350/- under Ex.A1 and A2. Hence, there is no dispute regarding the purchase of saplings. The next allegation of the complainant is that after inspection of the land by the Agriculture Officer and staff of opposite party and certifying that the land is fit for mango garden only, they planted the saplings and invested an amount of Rs.15,000/- for engaging JCB and another sum of Rs.25,000/- for labour and another sum of Rs.44,215/- for drip irrigation under Ex.A3. The complainants also incurred an amount of Rs.26,460/- for fertilizers under Ex.A4. The complainants stated that the opposite party failed to visit the field after plantation. The opposite party contended that at the time of purchase of plants, they informed the complainants that it is better to plant the saplings after getting the soil examination by the agriculture authority for better yield of the crop. Whether the complainants got soil test by the competent agriculture authority before plantation is not explained by the complainants. As per Ex.A5, it seems that the complainant approached the soil examination centre for testing sample of the soil in the year 2013 and report also given in favour of the complainants under Ex.A5 dt:05.01.2013 i.e. after two years of plantation. In the said report given by the Agriculture Officer, it clearly reveals that “the nature of soil is karuchowdu nelalu” and also given advise as to what are the precautions to be taken before plantation. But there is no mention by the complainants that they have followed the instructions given by the Agriculture Officer under Ex.A5. Hence, it appears prima facie without taking proper precautions i.e. soil test before plantation, they planted the saplings. Surprisingly, in the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainants, the complainants stated subsequently they have purchased another saplings under bill No.3098 dt:12.03.2013 and bill No.3451 dt:09.10.2013 by investing Rs.20,000/- and planted them in the same field, but for the reasons best known, the complainants did not mention how many saplings were survived and how many saplings were dead, if so, when they are die, and the complainants also silent when they planted the subsequently purchased saplings. The complainants did not file the above bills in the Forum. Hence, the version of complainants cannot be considered so far as dying of earlier saplings and plantation of new saplings in the same land. Thus adverse inference could be drawn against the complainants on the ground of having not sending the saplings for laboratory test. Hence, we cannot come to conclusion that the saplings purchased from the opposite party No.1 as sub-standard quality in nature without any evidential proof, as the complainant failed to prove the same. The complainant alleged that he spent Rs.16,350/- towards cost of the saplings purchased from opposite party No.1, which is not in dispute and he spent another sum of Rs.15,000/- for leveling the field by engaging JCB and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards labour charges, Rs.44,215/- towards drip irrigation. Similarly, another sum of Rs.26,460/- for fertilizers. The complainants filed Ex.A3 tax invoice for drip irrigation, in which it is mentioned a sum of Rs.44,215/- it appears that it is only an estimation and it was not carried out actually by the complainants. Ex.A3 is also not signed by any authorized signatory, as such it cannot be taken into consideration. Fertilizers receipt under Ex.A4 is issued by Rompicherla Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society dt:10.10.2011. According to complainants, plantation was taken place in two acres of land. It was not advised by any Agriculture Officer that how much quantity of fertilizers should be supplied for the growth of plantation. Even according to Ex.A5, Assistant Director of Agriculture gave some instructions, how to use the fertilizers and they have given specifically a table for which land which fertilizer should be supplied, but there is no evidence as per the instructions given under Ex.A5, the complainants have supplied the fertilizers for the saplings that too when the land is described as karuchowdu nelalu, it may not be fit for agriculture / cultivation, unless the instructions given under Ex.A5 are scrupulously applied for. Ex.A5 shows that it was obtained in the month of May 2013 after lapse of one and half year. If Ex.A5 is taken into consideration, it can be said that the saplings were very alive by the date of Ex.A5. If the complainant version is believed, Ex.A5 can be ignored. As the complainants failed to produce any evidence for purchase of subsequent saplings and their plantation, it cannot be said that the earlier saplings purchased from the opposite parties were very much alive on the basis of Ex.A5, as it is not the case of the complainants that the subsequent plantation was done after obtaining Ex.A5. In case Ex.A3 i.e. tax invoice for drip irrigation system is taken into account, it is also obtained in the month of May 2013, so it can be held that the earlier saplings were not dead and there is no evidence to show that the complainants purchased new saplings subsequently. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, on the other hand, the complainants are placing un-believable version before the Forum.

8. Point No.(iii):-   in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove that they have followed the instructions given by the Agriculture Officer or opposite parties 1 and 2. They have also failed to prove that the saplings supplied by opposite parties 1 and 2 were dead. Similarly, they also failed to prove that subsequently they have purchased new saplings and planted them in the same field. Exs.A3, A4 and A5 do not come to the rescue of the complainants. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to establish the case and therefore the complainants are not entitled to the reliefs sought for.

9.  Point No.(iv):-  In view of our discussion held supra, we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to prove either of the allegations made against the opposite parties, therefore the complaint is deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of December, 2014.

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                         

Lady Member                                                                                                     President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 

PW-1: C.Ananda Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.		Advance receipt for purchase of Saplings.
2.	30.07.2011	Final receipt for purchase of Saplings.
3.	07.10.2011	Drip irrigation receipt.
4.	10.10.2011	Fertilizer purchase receipt.
5.	05.01.2013	Soil test report.
6.	19.10.2012	Office copy of Legal notice with postal receipts.
7.	23.10.2012	Returned postal cover from Opposite Party.No.1.
8.	25.10.2012	Refused Postal cover from Opposite Party.No.2.
9.	26.10.2012	Postal acknowledgement card from Opposite Party.No.3.
10.	26.10.2012	Postal acknowledgement card from Opposite Party.No.4.
11.	28.11.2012	Reply Notice from Opposite Party.No.3 & 4.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

- Nil -

 

                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                   President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.     

    

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainants.

                        2. The opposite parties.