Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/09/2

S. Narender Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy, O/c Agriculture - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd., Ramakrishnapuram. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R. Srinivasulu

19 Jun 2009

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

        Friday, the 19^th day of June, 2009

   Present:-   Sri  T. Ashok Kumar, M.A., LL.B., I  Addl. Dist. & Sessions   Judge-cum-FAC President

          Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B., Member

               Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member                     

                                                                            C.C.NO. 2  Of   2009

Between:-  

S. Narender Reddy S/o Pulla Reddy, age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,  R/o Yaparla village of Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                                                                                            … Complainant

And   

The General Manager, Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd., Ramakrishnapuram, R/o H.No.18-143/2, Raghavendra Colony, Kothakota – 509381, Mahabubnagar.                                                                                                                                                      … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 29-05-2009 in the presence of Sri R. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:  

O R D E R

(Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, Member)       

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite party with a view to develop cultivation of Sugar Cane for their factory purpose approached the complainant and advised to take up the Sugar Cane crop and supplied the seedling of five loads of tractor trips.  The complainant planted the same in his fields as per the directions of OP in the month of September, 2007, but found no germination even after lapse of one month.  He brought this to the notice of OP and also to the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pebbair.   They inspected the fields.  Based on the report of the Area Agricultural Officer, the complainant repeatedly met the OP and demanded to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh and twenty five thousand only) for crop loss, investment and all other sufferance.  The complainant got issued legal notice, but OP replied evasively. When the matter was not getting resolved between the parties, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the OP rendered services in deficit by supplying defective seedling.    

3.     The opposite party filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the complainant and contended that it is constructing Sugar Factory at Ramakrishnapuram village of Kothakota Mandal of Mahabubnagar District and the construction is under progress and it will take some more time for completion.  The opposite party is not having any Sugar Cane seed plants and they are not at all producing the same, as such the question of supplying of seedling does not arise.  Hence it has not at all supplied the seedlings to the complainant for any consideration.  In fact, the OP has arranged loan to the complainant to the tune of Rs.19,718/- to procure the seedlings from one P.V. Gandhi, R/o Rangapur village of Pebbair Mandal.  The seedling was purchased by the complainant from that person.  As such the complainant is not a consumer since he has not purchased the seedling from OP.  Furthermore, the complainant has not at all taken proper steps for the crop and there was negligence on his part and lack of supervision in raising the crop and that particularly the complainant has not drained out the water stagnated in the field and in fact there is overflow of canal water due to which the crop was completely submerged in that water for many days.  The complainant was advised time and again to take proper steps in this matter but he never paid any attention and not at all properly supervised the fields and hence he could not get the germination.  Thus there is no deficiency of service by the OP and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.   

4.  The complainant has filed his affidavit so also written arguments.  He also examined the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Pebbair as C.W.2 and one B. Bapu Reddy as C.W.3 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8.  

5. The opposite party has filed his affidavit so also written arguments and got marked Ex.B-1 on his behalf.  

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

7. The points which fall for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’?
2. Whether it is proved that the seedling was defective?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?  

   

8.    Point No.(i):-  The dispute will hinge around the quality of seedling and its supply.   According to the complainant, he purchased the seedling from OP, as such he is a consumer.   The complainant relied upon Exs. A-3, A-5 and A-7 to prove his contention.  In rebuttal the OP is contending that it has not supplied the seedling but provided loan to the complainant to procure the seedling from one farmer by name P.V. Gandhi, resident of Rangapur village and that the complainant purchased the seedling from him and payment was made by OP directly to the said person and as such the complainant is not a consumer, but he is only a loanee.                                                                                                                                                                                       The word ‘Consumer’ is defined U/s 2 (d) of C.P. Act.   As per the definition any person who buys and sells goods for a consideration is a consumer.  The learned counsel for the complainant drawn our attention on Exs.A-3, A-5 and A-7.   The Ex.A-3 is the reply to the legal notice of the complainant. Ex.A-5 is the xerox copy of supply permit cum acknowledgement.  Ex.A-7 is a cash receipt issued for transportation charges.   We have carefully perused these documents.  Admittedly, the OP is constructing Sugar factory within the limits of Ramakrishnapuram village of Kothakota Mandal.  It is evident from Ex.A-7 that the complainant transported the seedling from Rampur village.   Though Ex.A-5 is not pertaining to the complainant it confirms that one farmer by name P.V. Gandhi is resident of Rangapur village.   So it can be safely concluded that the complainant purchased the seedling from said P.V. Gandhi, as such he transported the same from Rangapur village to his native village vide Ex.A-7.  Furthermore, the complainant witness C.W.2 i.e., Agricultural Officer, Pebbair in his cross examination stated that the complainant has not purchased the seedling from OP and the same was purchased from another farmer of Rangapur village and its cost was paid by the complainant. This evidence also confirms the contention of OP beyond the reasonable doubt.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP admitted in its reply to legal notice i.e., Ex.A-3 that they have supplied the seed to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the OP objected it and argued that the counsel is wrongly interpreting the word ‘Arranged’.   He argued that in fact we arranged the seed but not sold.   The meaning of ‘arrange’ is different with ‘selling’ and he argued that the complainant has not filed any cash receipt or agreement to prove his contention that he purchased the seedling from OP.   The complainant did not file any material to show that the seed was supplied/sold by the OP.  There is no whisper even in the complaint with regard to price, variety of the seedling.  The crucial documents i.e., Exs.A-3, A-5 and A-7 on which the complainant relied are not revealing that the seedling was sold by OP.   Therefore these documents will not be helpful to the case of the complainant, but in a way support the contention of OP.  In view of these material and deposition of C.W.2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not purchased the seedling from OP, hence he would not fall within the scope of definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined U/s 2 (d) of C.P. Act, 1986.  Therefore this point is decided in favour of the OP and against the complainant.     

9.    Point No.(ii):-  According to the complainant, due to the defect in quality of seedling there was no germination, as such the OP is liable for it.   The learned counsel for OP argued that there is no material or such finding by an expert.  The complainant relied upon Ex.A-1 to prove his contention.   Ex.A-1 is the certificate issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer after field inspection.  The said officer was also examined as C.W.2 as the complainant witness.  The complainant further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in (i) 2001 (6) ALT 40 (NC) (CPA) and (ii) CPJ 2007 (4) P.286 (NC) in support of his arguments.   

    We have carefully gone through Ex.A-1 and also the deposition of the Agricultural Officer, who issued Ex.A-1 and also the case law submitted by the complainant.   It is settled law that the deficiency/defect cannot be assumed, but it needs to be proved by way of any expert opinion and expert report is paramount to decide the case U/s 13 of C.P. Act and onus to prove deficiency will be on the complainant.  The Agricultural Officer, in our view would be the ‘Expert’ to comment on defect in the seedling and on deficiency if any on the part of the OP one way or the other.   There is not even a whisper about the defect in quality of seedling in Ex.A-1 or in the deposition of the Agricultural Officer, who inspected the fields of the complainant and examined as expert.  At no stage or in any words he has commented upon the seedling, its variety or the fault and about the agricultural methods adopted by the complainant to draw any adverse inference against the OP.  In the case law referred to by the complainant, particularly in the decision reported in CPJ 2007 (4) P. 286 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission held that onus to prove deficiency will be on the complainant and the expert opinion is a valid one and  there is a material expression with regard to the type of seed sown, the output from the seed sown, the field conditions, agricultural practices adopted by farmer, effect of drought if any, use of fertilizers, pesticides etc.  In the instant case, Ex.A-1 and the deposition of Agricultural Officer is quite silent about the above issues.  

    In light of the above decision, the Ex.A-1 is not a valid report, hence it is no way helpful to the complainant.  The complainant did not file any other material to prove his case of defect in seedling.   Further the complainant also failed to prove that he adopted all agricultural procedures under supervision of Agricultural Officer of concerned area and followed the suggestions of experts.   The case law relied by the complainant is also against his case.  Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish the case with cogent evidence that the seedling supplied by OP was defective.  Therefore, we hold that due to lack of proper advise and supervision, the complainant has failed to follow the proper agricultural procedures, as such there was no germination.   In these circumstances, he cannot blame the OP for deficiency of services.  Therefore this point is decided against the complainant. 

10. Point No.(iii):-  In view of our finding on point Nos.(i) and (ii) that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant failed to prove the defect in the seedling, we hold that the OP is not responsible to compensate any loss or damages and the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs.   This point is answered accordingly. 

       11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. 

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of June, 2009.           

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT (FAC)

                                                                                                   Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite party:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1:        Certificate issued by A.O. Pebbair, Dt.3.11.2007.

Ex.A-2:        Copy of Legal Notice, Dt.3.11.2007.

Ex.A-3:        Copy of Reply Notice, Dt.31.1.2008.

Ex.A-4:        Pahani issued by V.R.O.

Ex.A-5:        Xerox copy of receipt issued by OP.

Ex.A-6:        Cash/credit memorandum issued by Mahesh Traders,

                   Dt.24.10.2007.  

Ex.A-7:        Cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).

Ex.A-8:        Pamphlet issued by OP.

Exhibits marked for OP:-   

Ex.B-1:        Receipt issued by OP.

By the Forum:

     - Nil-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT (FAC)

Copy to:-

1. Sri R. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.