BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,           PRESIDENT 

                                               THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC.       MEMBER – II

CC. 2 / 2005

                                  TUESDAY THE 20^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.

1. Sivalingam,

    S/o. Budagan,

    Krishnapuram Village,

    Chenji Post, (Via)

    Latheri, Katpadi Taluk.                                                               …  Complainant.

       - Vs –

1.   The Manager,

      M/s. Growmore Bio-Tech Ltd.,

      No.41-B, Sipcot, Phase-II,

      4^th Cross Road,

      Krishnagiri Main Road,

      Hosur 635 109.

2.  Horticulture Officer,

     Department of Horticulture,

     No.34/2 R.S. Road,

     Kondasamuthiram,

     Gudiyattham,

     Vellore District.                                                  … Opposite parties.

. . . .

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 29.11.2011, in the presence of Thiru. T.S.Kannaiyan, Advocate  for the complainant and Thiru. N. Maruthi Jayakumar, Advocate for the opposite party-1 and Thiru. T. Raja Sekar, Advocate of the opposite party-2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant is small farmer and has good experience in cultivating crops like Brinjal, Lady’s Finger, Cabbage and Plantain and etc., so he decided to do agricultural work by taking land under lease at Krishnapuram Village.  Accordingly he has taken 0.75 cents of land under lease about one year back and the agricultural lease amount to be paid to the land lord is Rs.20,000/-.  He decided to cultivate plantain.  So he approached 2^nd opposite party recommend a suitable plantain variety for cultivation.  Being an expert, 2^nd opposite party one Hybrid variety of plantain grand -9.  The nursery is very much available with 1^st opposite party hereby,  2^nd opposite party explained  the special features of grand – 9, Hybrid High Yield variety.  Which is very much not affected by any disease.   The complainant believing the words of 2^nd opposite party he had purchased 1000 Nos plantain nursery of grand-9 in the month of January 2004 from the opposite party and complainant paid total amount of Rs.9450 and subsidy amount is Rs.3000/-.    As per the recommendation given by the opposite parties,  the complainant planted 1000 Nos. Grand-9, plantain variety at his land by following cultivation process prescribed by opposite parties.  He spend huge amount towards applying manure, labour for cultivating said plantain variety crop in his land, subsequently in the month of June, July, August 2004, first time the complainant find out the nursery variety supplied by 1^st opposite party is totally mixed with other varieties of plantain.     Moreover some of the dead plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.   Hence, the opposite parites committed deficiency in service.   The complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 6.11.04 to the opposite parties for compensation of 3 lakhs.  The opposite party signed acknowledgement card dt.13.11.04 and 2^nd opposite party issued reply notice dt. 22.11.04  Therefore the complainant pray this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- compensation their supplying wrong plantain nursery and loss of income and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of this proceedings.            

2.         The averments in the counter filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

           The 1^st opposite party denies the entire allegations made in the petition save those that are specifically admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party is authorized dealer for the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant had placed order for Grand-9 Tissue culture Banana plants and purchased 1000 plants.    The 1^st opposite parties specifically denies the allegations made in para-6 of the petition that the nursery verity supplied by the 1^st opposite party is totally mixed with other varieties of the plants.  The 1^st opposite parties had supplied the entire 1000 plants are the verity of Grand-9 Tissue culture plants.  Hence there is no question of supply of mixed other verities of the plantains.    If really the complainant sustained any mental agony or loss the complainant would have come forward with an application for appointment of commissioner to note down the nature and verity of the plant.  The entire villagers of the complainant are knew fully well about the verity supplied by the 1^st opposite party and the Horticulture Officer Gudiyattam, the Assistant Horticulture Officer Latheri, and one leading Banana grower Mr.Balarama Reddy who is the neighbor of the complainant.    After receipt of the notice along with the said team inspected the field and it is observed that the complainant had failed to take care of the field there is no uniform irrigational system installed, only because of the poor management of the complainant had sustained loss, for which this opposite party is not liable for the loss derived out of their poor management of the plants, for that the question of deficiency in service does not arise.   The complainant was supplied the plantain only in the month of February 2004.  In December 2003 the plants were not supplied to the complainant which can be reveled from the document filed by the complainant under the document No.6 Plantain Nursery Purchase bill dt. 11.2.04, for this false.   Hence this compalint is to be dismissed with cost.  

3.         The averments in the counter filed by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

            The 2^nd opposite party denies the entire allegations save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party received application from the complainant and  recommended for a suitable plantain variety for cultivation.  Grow more Bio-Tech Ltd. Is an authorized Government dealer.   As per the terms and conditions are obtained from authorized dealer, as an officer the opposite party had discharged his duty.   If any mixed variety of plantain is supplied by the 1^st opposite party and notice has been brought to the 2^nd opposite party and should request for inspection if any mixed variety is supplied, at best the 2^nd opposite party can cancel his dealership.  As per the 2^nd opposite party is concern she had discharged her duty without any deficiency in her service, as per the rules and regulations.  The 2^nd opposite party followed the procedure so the question of deficiency of service does not arise.  Therefore prayed this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the petition with cost.  

4.         Now the points for consideration are:              

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service, on 

                 the part of the opposite parties?

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                reliefs asked for?.

5.         Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the 2nd opposite party have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side.

6.         POINT NO  (a). :

            It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant is  small farmer and got good experience in cultivating crops like Brinjal, Lady’s Finger, Cabbage and Plantain and etc.    The 1^st opposite is the authorized Government dealer of the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party received an application from the complainant and recommended for a suitable plantain variety for cultivation.   As per the recommendation of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had purchased 1000 Nos plantain nursery of grand-9 in the month of January 2004 from the 1^st opposite party and planted the said plantain verity at his land.

7.         The complainant contended that he spend huge amount towards applying manure, labour for cultivating  said plantain variety crop in his land, subsequently in the month of Jun, July, Aug 2004, the complainant find out that the said plaintain nursery variety supplied by 1^st opposite party is totally mixed with other varieties of plantain.  Moreover some of the dead plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.  

8.         The 1^st opposite party contended that the 1^st opposite party had supplied the entire 1000 plants are the verity of Grand-9 Tissue culture Banana plants.  If really the complainant sustained any mental agony or loss the complainant would have come forward with an application for appointment of commissioner to note down the nature of verity of the plantain nursery.    It is further contended that after receipt of the notice Ex.A1 the 1^st opposite party’s team inspected the field and it is observed that the complainant had failed to take care of the field there is no uniform irrigational system installed, only because of the poor management of the plant, the complainant had sustained loss, for which the opposite party is not liable for the loss derived out of their poor management of the plants for that the question of deficiency in service does not arise.    The 2^nd opposite party contended that as per the terms and conditions obtained from the authorized dealer, as an officer the 2^nd opposite party had discharged his duty.   If any mixed variety of plantain is supplied by the 1^st opposite party and notice has been brought to the 2^nd opposite party and should request for inspection if any mixed variety is supplied at best the 2^nd opposite party can cancel his dealer ship.   The 2^nd opposite party followed the procedure so the question of deficiency of service does not arise.  

9.         It is admitted facts of the parties that the 1^st opposite partly is the authorized Government dealer of the 2^nd opposite party.  Being an expert, 2^nd opposite party recommended suitable variety of plantain grand-9 and the said plantain nursery is available with the 1^st opposite party.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, if any mixed variety of plantain is supplied by the 1^st opposite party and should request for inspection if any mixed variety is supplied, at best the 2^nd opposite party can cancel his dealership.  But the complainant did not informed to the 2^nd opposite party about the alleged mixed variety of plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore, it is clear that as an officer, the 2^nd opposite party had discharged his duty.

10.       Based on the recommendation of 2^nd opposite party the complainant had purchased 1000 Nos. grand-9 variety of plantain nursery from 1^st opposite party and planted at his land.   According to the complainant,  in the month of June, July, August 2004 first time the complainant find out the nursery variety supplied 1^st opposite party is totally mixed with other varieties of plantain and also some of the dead plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party that  after receipt of the notice Ex.A1, dt. 6.11.04, the 1^st opposite party’s team inspected the field and it is observed that the complainant had failed to take care of the field there is no uniform irrigational system installed, only because of the poor management of the complainant had sustained loss.   Based on the recommendation of opposite party-2, the complainant had purchased grand-9 variety of plantain nursery from the 1^st opposite party.  Even after find out the nursery variety is totally mixed with other varieties of plantain, the complainant has not informed to the 2^nd opposite party who is expert.      In the month of November 2004 only the complainant sent a legal noticeEx.A1 to the 1^st opposite party for claiming the compensation.  According to the 1^st opposite party, if really the complainant sustained any loss or mental agony he would have came forwarded with an application for appointment of Commissioner to note down the nature of variety of the plantain nursery.  The entire villagers of the complainant are knew fully well about the variety of plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party but no one made any allegation about the variety of plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.  Till this date the complainant did not take any steps for appointment of commissioner to note down the nature of the variety of plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party.  Further, there is no documents or expert opinion on the side of the complainant to prove that the grand-9 variety of plantain nursery supplied by the 1^st opposite party is totally mixed with other varieties of plantain nursery.  Therefore the contention of the complainant that the grand-9  variety of plantain nursery supplied by 1^st opposite party  mixed other varieties of plantain nursery  is not acceptable. 

11.       Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of  both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein.  Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein.

12.       POINT NO : (b)

            In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein.   We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by her, in this complaint.  Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein.

13.       In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 20^th   day of  December 2011.

MEMBER-II                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.

List of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ex.A1- 6.11.04          - X-copy of Lawyer Notice.

Ex.A2- 13.11.04       - Ack. Card opposite party-1& 2  filed on behalf of the complainant.

Ex.A3- 22.11.04       - Reply notice.

Ex.A4-            --          - Plaintain Field Photos and Negatives.

Ex.A5-            --          - V.A.O. Certificate.

Ex.A6- 11.2.04          - Plaintain purchased Bill.

Ex.A7- 15.2.04          - Fertilizers purchased bill.

Ex.A8- 15.3.05          - Fertilizers purchased bill. 

Ex.A9-25.7.04           - Fertilizers purchased bill.

Ex.A10- 15.8.04       - Fertilizers purchased bill.

Ex.A11- 17.8.04       - Fertilizers purchased bill.

Ex.A12- 25.8.04       - Fertilizers purchased bill.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:                      .. Nil ..

MEMBER-II                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT.