Date of filing:06-06-2012
Date of Disposal: 21-04-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 21st of April, 2014
C.C.NO.27/2012
Between:
G.Rajasekhar Reddy
S/o G.Yella Reddy
Chennampalli Village & Post
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager,
Greenearth Bio-Technologies Ltd.,
D.No.14-A, Jigani Industrial Area
Bangalore.
2. Tirupathi Naidu
Area Officer
Yallutla Village
Putluru Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the complainant and Sri K.Chandrasekhar Rao, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri K.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of the both side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of crop, Rs.65,000/- towards purchase of Banana Plants, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- towards legal notice charges totaling to a sum of Rs.12,67,000/-
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Chennampalli Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. He is living by agriculture and entirely depending on agriculture. The complainant submits that the opposite parties have canvassed and lured the ryots in the Village that the Hybrid Banana Plants give good yield and they can get income of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The complainant purchased 6000 Banana Plants from the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards Banana Plants under invoice No.61 dt.07-02-2011.
3. After purchase of Hybrid Banana Plants, the same was delivered to the complainant and he planted the Banana plants in the petition schedule land in about Ac.5.00 of land by spending an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre towards cultivation and other expenses. The complainant submits that he followed the procedure for planting Banana plants as directed by the 2nd opposite party and he took necessary care in watering and using pesticides to control the diseases. Banana plants grew well but the yield was very poor. The size of banana bunch was very small and the fruits in the bunch were also very small in size, which cannot be sold in the market. The complainant after seeing the yield of the crop, he complained to the 2nd opposite party and requested him to inspect his land but the 2nd opposite party did not visit his land. The complainant further submits that the size of the bunch and the fruits in the bunch were very small due to interior quality of the Banana plants supplied by the opposite parties. Further, the complainant submits that the entire land is a red fertile land, which is irrigated by bore-well.
4. The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- x 5.00 Acres = Rs.10,00,000/- and also claiming Rs.65,000/- towards the cost of Banana plants and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service.
5. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to inspect the land and to file a report of with full details of the crop in the petition schedule property with photographs.
6. The 1st opposite party filed a counter stating that the allegations made in the complaint are not true as submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have canvassed and lured the ryots in the Village to purchase Hybrid Banana Plants and get good yield is totally false. The 1st opposite party submits that it is false that the complainant has purchased 6000 Banana Plants from the opposite parties by paying Rs.65,000/- under order form No.860 dt.07-02-2011 is a created one for the purpose of this complaint and the invoice No.712 dt.31-03-2011 is issued by the opposite party is also false and created for the purpose of this complaint. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the size of the Banana fruits and size of the bunch were very small in size insptie of complainant taking proper care as to watering and applying proper manure and fertilizers and using pesticides to control the diseases is totally false. Further the allegation of the complainant that the Banana Plants supplied by the 1st opposite party are of inferior quality is false. Further the 1st opposite party submits that at the time of Advocate-Commissioner’s visit though the Agricultural Extension Officer was present there was no report filed by the Agricultural Extension Officer with regard to the crop and the reason for the crop failure.
7. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the complainant without filing the expert’s opinion with regard to quality of Banana Plants supplied by the 1st opposite party, one cannot assess the quality of the Banana plants supplied by the 1st opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the Banana plants for commercial purpose, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party. Further the allegation that the complainant has lost a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards crop failure is equally false and the claim made under different heads towards mental agony and deficiency of service is very high and there is no evidence to show that the 1st opposite party has supplied inferior quality of Banana plants to the complainant and hence the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation towards loss of Banana crop.
8. The 2nd opposite party filed a counter stating that the allegations made in para 1 of the complaint may be true and correct and the allegation made in para 3 of the complaint that believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant has purchased Banana plants from 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party is not correct and the complainant has purchased after verifying personally and the Banana plants supplied by the opposite parties were of good variety. Hence he approached this opposite party and on his request the opposite party supplied Banana plants to the complainant. At the time of supply the opposite party has given all information with regard to precautions to be taken by the complainant in planting the Banana plants and the precautions which are to be taken after plantation. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that the complainant might not have taken proper care in plantation of Banana plants and did not take proper precautions after plantation, which resulted in the failure of the crop. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that the Hybrid Banana Plants which were supplied by the complainant were of good quality and there were no remarks till date. It is only due to the complainant not taking proper precautions after plantation. There was low yield. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that the low yield of Banana crop was due to improper care by the complainant but not due to the quality of the Banana plants. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.
9. In I.A.No.42/12 Advocate-Commissioner’s report is filed.
10. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complaint has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. The 1st opposite party has filed evidence on affidavit on its behalf and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents. The 2nd opposite party did not file any evidence on affidavit and no documents are marked on his behalf.
12. Heard on both sides.
13. POINT NO.1: - The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has purchased Hybrid Banana Plants from the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party only on their canvassing and lured by their words purchased 6000 Banana Plants by paying Rs.65,000/- under Invoice No.61 dt.07-02-2011. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the Banana Plants were delivered by the 2nd opposite party and the same were planted in the petition schedule property:
Item No.1:
Property situated in SRD of Singanamala and R.D. of Ananthapuramu within the Village fields of Chennampalli Village.
Sl.No. Babu Sy.No. Extent
- Govt. Dry 338 Ac.2.00
Item No.2:
Property situated in SRD of Singanamala and R.D. of Ananthapuramu within the Village fields of Muchukuntapalli Village.
Sl.No. Babu Sy.No. Extent
- Govt. Dry 3378 Ac.3.00
Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the same was mentioned in the adangals, which were marked as Ex.A5.
14. The counsel for the complainant argued that though the complainant followed the advice of the opposite parties and applied fertilizers as per their advice and also used pesticides in order to control diseases as prescribed by the opposite parties, the size of the bunch and size of the banana fruit was very small in size. The counsel further argued that though the Banana Plants grew well, the bunch and the fruits in the bunch were very small in size though the complainant has followed the advice of the opposite parties. Then the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party to visit his land but the 2nd opposite party failed to visit his lands. The counsel for the complainant argued that due to inferior quality of Banana Plants supplied by the opposite parties, the size of the bunch and size of fruit in the bunches were very small. The counsel for the complainant argued that as the fruits in the bunch of the Banana Plants were very small in size, they could not sell the same in the market. Hence the total crop was a failure and to substantiate the same, the complainant has filed photographs of the same, which are marked as Ex.A4.
15. The counsel for the complainant argued that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed in order to assess the crop loss and to note down the physical features of the field in which the Banana crop was raised and the Agricultural Officer also visited the schedule mentioned property at the time of Advocate-Commissioner’s visit. The counsel for the complainant argued that the report of the Advocate-Commissioner also clearly shows that the land was fertile and there was sufficient water but whereas the size of the bunch and the size of the fruits in the bunch were very small, which cannot be sold in the market. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre towards cultivation and application of pesticides, fertilizers and water management. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had expected an yield of Banana Crop of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties did not visit the complainant’s field though they were informed to visit the said land in order to assess the loss. The opposite parties failed to visit the land and avoided to estimate the loss, which is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable and they are also liable to pay loss of income from Banana Plantation.
16. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that they never canvassed or lured the ryots with regard to yield of the Banana Crop. The counsel argued that it is the complainant who after visiting the opposite parties office and observing Banana Plants, the complainant ordered for the Banana Plants and further argued that the order form No.860 dt.07-02-2011 and Invoice No.61 dt.07-02-2011 were created by the complainant for the purpose of this complaint and the original Invoice No. was 712 dt.31-03-2011 and the Delivery Challan No.9797 dt.01-04-2011. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that at the time of delivery, the 1st opposite party has advised the complainant to follow the instructions of the opposite party and that they will not be liable for the loss of crop as the yield depends upon the land fertility and other management abilities. Further the 1st opposite party argued that the complainant is not at all a consumer as the Banana Plants were bought for commercial purpose and hence the Forum does not have jurisdiction.
17. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of Advocate-Commissioner’s visit to the said fields, the Agriculture Officer also visited the said lands but no report is filed by the Agriculture Officer. Mere Advocate-Commissioner report cannot be taken into consideration as he has no technical knowledge with regard to banana crop and the reasons for the crop failure.
18. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that they never assured the quantum of yield per acre or quantum of amount per acre. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
19. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, the supply of banana plants by the opposite party is not disputed. The points that are to be considered are:
Whether the complainant has followed the advice of the opposite parties in the management of crop. As seen from the photographs which are marked as Ex.A4, the Banana plants are grown well but whereas bunches in the Banana plants are very small and the fruit size in the bunch is also very small, which cannot be sold in the marked. The arguments of the complainant that the Advocate-Commissioner shows that there is crop loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable for the supply of inferior quality of Banana Plants cannot be considered because the Advocate-Commissioner’s report only shows that the yield of the crop is very poor. But in order to establish that the Banana Plants supplied by the opposite parties is of inferior quality, technical expert’s report is must. But in the instant case, though the Agricultural Officer visited the fields of the complainant with the Advocate-Commissioner, but the Agricultural Officer’s report is not filed in assessing the quality of Banana plants supplied by the opposite parties and also with regard to crop loss.
20. Though the counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cultivation, the complainant did not file any documents for the amounts spent by him. Further the crop loss of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre is also not established by the complainant that how he arrived for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Merely claiming Rs.2,00,000/- towards crop loss cannot be considered without any documentary evidence.
21. In the above circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that the Banana Plants supplied by the opposite parties were of inferior quality and due to that the crop failed and the yield was very poor in size of the bunch and size of the fruit. The complainant also did not file any documentary proof towards the amount spent for the cultivation and the loss which he estimated @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that as the complainant could not prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2, no compensation can be awarded to the complainant.
22. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 21st day of April, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Order form No.860 dt.07-02-2011 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of
the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Invoice No.61 dt.07-02-0211 issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of
the complainant.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of Pattadar Pass Book issued by the M.R.O., B.K.Samudram in favour of
The complainant.
Ex.A4 - Photographs of Banana Crop.
Ex.A5 – Adagal extracts for the Fasli 1421.
Ex.A6 – Office copy of notice dt.13-04-2012 got issued by the complainant to Opposite parties
1 & 2.
Ex.A7 – Postal acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A8 – Postal Receipt dt.17-04-2012.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 – Photo copy of Invoice No.712 dt.31-03-2011 for Rs.52,200/- issued by the 1st opposite
Party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.B2 – Photo copy of Delivery Challan dt.01-04-2011 /- issued by the 1st opposite
Party in favour of the complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed JPNN
