Karnataka

Gadag

CC/17/2016

Sri Ramesh. S. Nayak at Lamani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Jain Irregation Systems Ltd And Another - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Kaaradgi

18 Feb 2017

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is an agriculturist the three bros of the Complainant are the joint owner of the property bearing RS No.157 measuring 9 acre 5 g in Kalasapur village in Gadag taluk, Op No.1 is doing irrigation business and also selling plants of bananas for plantation and OP No.2 is the seller of the products of  OP No.1, further Complainant submits that with intension of growing banana in his land he purchased banana plants from OP No.1 the Op No.1 visited the land of the Complainant tested the soil and said that soil is fertile and it is good for growing banana plant. 

3.      Believing the words of Op No.1 Complainant purchased banana plants from Op No.1 a product by brand name “Banana Grant Nail Secondary Harden Plants” to the extent of 3200 plants for Rs 13/- in total Complainant paid Rs 41600/- to Op No.2 and cash bill had been received vide bill number 1401188148, to the extent of 2 acres 20 g.

4.      While planting the banana plant the Complainant has planted the said banana plant as per the procedures and precaution given by Op No.1. After 20 days the said plants have been attacked by mosaic disease, after this the Complainant intimated the Op about the mosaic disease, the Op No.2 inspected the same and assured that he will report the same to Op No.1 and promise to replace the plants against new one.

5.      Op 1 and 2 not turned back complainant wrote a letter to the Senior Assistant Horticulture Dept., Gadag to inspect the land of the Complainant and the scientist of university of horticulture science Bagalkot inspected the said banana trees and submitted the report on 20.10.2015 and 19.11.2015.

6.      Further complainant submits that the said banana plantation needs huge amount of water fertilizer as per the direction given by the Op No.2, the complainant installed drip irrigation, for all these he has spent Rs 136532/-.

7.      As per the assurance of OP No.2, Complainant planted banana trees even in voice issued by Op No.2 is clear that they are ready to replace the products which were under warranty, hence Complainant alleged that Op made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prayed to order a Rs 178132/- along with interest and Rs.50,000/- towards the damaged sustained to the Complainant and cost of the litigation.

 

8.       After receipt of notice, OPs have appeared before this Forum through their counsel and filed their Written Version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP’s:

The OP No.1 and 2 denied the averment’s of the complaints and submitted that op No.2 is not an expert to say that the soil is fit for cultivation but Op No.2 gave the direction to the complainant how to sow the plants.

    9.           Further Op submitted that OP 1’s company is a leading company under the ISO No.9001 and the company had sold banana plants to sow in 9 crores throughout, before selling the banana plants it is scientifically examined then only these plants are disposed to the cultivator. The plants which has been purchased by the complainant the same batch plants are disposed to the other agriculturist those agriculturist have got good yielding but complainant have himself failed to look after those plants as per the direction of Company the report issued by the expert from Bagalkot is not clear.

10.    Further Op’s submits that complainant is not liable for any compensation since they have not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

11.    By way of evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit and filed 11 documents which are marked as EX C1 to C11 in support of his case and lead the evidence of 1 Dr.Revannappa scientist at University of Horticulture Science, Bagalkot. The documents produced by the complainant are as follows:

EX C1	Tax Invoice
EX C2	Invoice 2 in No.
EX C3	Bill
EX C4 to C7	Photos
EX C8	Legal Notice
EX C9	Acknowledgement of post
EX C10	Postal cover along with notice
EX C11	RTC

                      

On the other hand, OP1 and 2 filed their respective Chief affidavits, OP No.1 produced the documents marked as EX OP 1 to EX OP 11.

EX OP1	Delivery Challan
EX OP2	Indent cum gate pass
EX OP3	Delivery Receipt
EX OP4	Letter
EX OP5 to OP9	Research Report
EX OP10	Certificates 10 in no.
EX OP11	Photo

 

12.    On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence and forum soumoto examine one Laxman Padanad, Asst. Technician, ARCRP Vegetable Dept. Dharwad who had signed the report given by University of Horticulture Science, Bagalkot. As such the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

 

1.     2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OPs have made deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – Negative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

     13.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

     14.    We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the material fact before the Forum is that the Complainant purchased banana plants to sow in his field after sowing the banana plants after taking all measures the plants are affected, due to mosaic disease as per complaint Complainant called the scientist from university of agricultural science, Bagalkot to examine the banana trees, as per the request of Complainant a team of agricultural science visited the field of the complainant and filed a report.

    15.     The Ops apposed the contention of Complainant stating that they have supplied a good plants for cultivation but due to the negligence of the Complainant the plants are affected but not for their plants and further submits that before supplying the plants it has been examined by the different scientist in a different department as such Complainant have no case to prove these are the contentions of Op’s.

 

   16.      After considering the averment made by the parties, we have carefully gone through the records of the case there is no dispute between the parties that Complainant is a consumer and Op is a service provider, the main issue we have to discuss is that the plants supplied by the Ops are defective or not here complainant purchased plants with the Ops on 02.02.2015 under the order and the same has been supplied to the complainant on 25.06.2015 these facts revealed in EX C1 and the payment is already made to the Op on the same date of the order i.e.02.02.2015 the document No.2 speaks it. On the other hand while going through the document produced by Op No.1 & 2 i.e. EX OP7 speaks that before supplying the plants to Complainant the plants have sent for testing to Jain Research and Development on 17.06.2016 and the plants had been tested, as per the report the plants supplied to Complainant are not defective. Moreover Complainant booked the Banana plant on 02.02.2015 under the booking No.6000985720. The OPs documents have marked as Documents EX OP11 and EX OP12 speaks that Complainant agreed for the Terms and Condition of Agreement. The documents produced by the OP marked as EX OP2, the Indent cum Gate Pass clearly speaks that the product purchased by the Complainant is of a brand J404, the OP had scientifically tested the batches in the laboratories and produced the test report marked as EX OP7 which clears that the product of the batch J404 is non-defective.  

 

      17.     Advocate for the Complainant filed an I.A. to summon the witness to speak the truth on the document which has been produced by the Complainant a Report of University of Horticulture Science, Bagalkot. One Sri. Dr.Revannappa Scientist of University of Horticulture Science Bagalkot appeared before the Forum and said that it is difficult to say exactly what is the reason how the plants are affected by Mosaic disease as per the Report given by the Team of University, advocate for the OP cross examined the said witness about the affected Banana plants that how many plants are affected in that field and how many types of deceases are there and if any intercrops are there, these are the question raised by Ops Advocate to all these questions witness answered that he don’t know about the all these things since he has not personally visited the field and further he submitted before the Forum that a person who had came along with him has visited the field of the Complainant.

   18.      As such, Forum somoto called the person who was present before the Forum along with the witness and to give justice to the parties, Forum placed sub-question before that witness who is none other than a team member who has visited the field of the Complainant one Laxman Padanad, Asst. Technician, ARCPR, Dharwad. Elaborately  submitted his evidence that there are three types of diseases they are ‘Bangi Top Banana’, ‘Mosaic’ and ‘Mosaic Street Type’ and further he submitted that the type of the disease affected to the banana plants in the field of Complainant is Mosaic disease.. Further, when Forum asked the reason for this decease he virtually answered that there are many reasons like claimaitical condition, equipments and inter-crop, and further submits that they cannot come to the conclusion on that day when they went to examine the banana plants because once plants were planted it is impossible to say the exact reason. While going through the Photos produced by the Complainant before the Forum, i.e. EX C4 to C7, it is clear that there is an intercrop between the plants like Chilly and onion. As such, Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant had not taken the precautionary measures while planting the banana plants, Complainant had harvested the intercrop in between the banana plants. Hence, OP has not made any an unfair trade practice and moreover OP submitted that they have sold the same batch plants to many agriculturist in the same village and there are no complaints about the defects of the plants. Further, while learned counsel for OP arguing the matter the OP produced a photograph of a Complainant’s and said that the OP have visited the field of the Complainant and the plants were not affected by the diseased. The Complainant had not denied anything against the Agreement between OP and Complainant. The Complainant had admitted that the OP No.1 had visited the land of the Complainant. Hence, Forum came to the conclusion that Complainant had utterly failed to prove his case. Hence, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in negative.          

 19.   POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order on costs.
3. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 18^th day of February, 2017)
 

Member

President