Date of Filing: 04.08.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraj, Member
C.C. NO.170/2011
(1) Smt.Sharadamma,
W/o. late N.Narasimha Gowda,
Aged About 73 years,
Occupation Agriculturist.
(2) M.N. Babu,
S/o. late. N.Narasimha Gowda,
Aged About 48 years,
Occupation Agriculturist.
Both are R/at: Mothakapalli
Village, Tayalur Hobli,
Bangalore Taluk.
(Rep. by M.K.Veeregowda, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) The Manager,
Optima Agree Seeds Private Limited,
No.604/B, Shivakumar Swamy Badavane,
Chennagiri Road, Davanagere-577 005.
(Rep. Sri.K.V.Shankarappa, Advocate)
(2) The Proprietor,
Sri. Vinayaka Traders,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Circle,
M.C. Road, Mulbagal.
(Rep. Sri.K.V.Shankarappa, Advocate)
(3) S. Suresh Reddy,
S/o. Srinivasareddy,
Aged about 39 years,
The proprietor,
Sri. Sai Krishna Agro Hi-Tech Farm,
Mindahalli Village, Mothakapalli Post,
Tayalur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk.
(Rep. Sri.K.V.Shankarappa, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,00,000/-, are necessary :-
The complainant wanted to grow tomoto crop in their land in October-2010. Accordingly he purchased 8,000 seedlings from opposite party No.3 on 01.10.2010 and planted the seedlings after the said purchase. A small quantity of fruits were yeilded, but it was not marketable. Hence the complaiant made representiation to the Tahasildar to provide government benefits, but no such thing was provided. On representation of the complainant the Assistant Director of Agriculture on 15.01.2011 visited the field and took samples to detect the failure of the crops. The requested the opposite party No.1 to send true traits of original hybrid but they did not send it to oppsoite party. It is unable to send the said samples to the officials.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parites are:-
The complainant has purchased the seedlings “Druva Tomato F-1” on 10.10.2010 and subsequent to that date he might have transplanted the seedlings. The complainant never disclosed when the seedlings have transplanted in their land. The inspecting team repoted that the date of transplantation was 03.09.2010. The inspecting team has seen on the date of inspection the age is of 110 days old from the date of transplantation it clearly goes to show the seedlings that has been purchased from the oppsoite parites have not been transplanted but it is the other seedlings of some other thing that has been transplanted that has not yielded good result for which the oppsoite parites are not responsible. Even the seedlings purchased on 15.09.2010 is not the one that has been planted on 03.09.2010. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substatiante their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. As the complainant was absent the oppsoite parites were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. The case of the complainant is that he has produced the “tomoto seedlings F-1” 8000 seedlings on 01.10.2010 from the oppsoite parties and planted it in his land subsequently and that did not yield result this has been denied from the opposite party. The receipt that has been produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that he has produced the said seedlings from the opposite party on 10.10.2010 and not on 01.10.2010. It is further seen regarding this the complainant had given a complaint to the concerned authorities on 13.01.2011. In that regard the assistant director of Horticulture on 14.01.2011 went to the spot and found that the tomoto plants are 3 to 4 feet height and it was healthy plants and regarding the damage it was sent to the University of Horticulture science have been asked to conduct investigation and give report. The said authority have gone to the spot and verified, investigated and submitted the report. The relevant portion of the report reads thus:-
-0-0-0-
That is to say the seeds were transplanted on 03.09.2010 the age of the crop was 15 days from the date of its transplantating. The complainant fails to produce the original bills. The tomoto crop was 110 days old. The true traits of the seeds were not produced hence they could not decide the matter. That means the transplantation was made was on 03.09.2010 this is not challenged by the complainant. The complainant has produced the seedlings on 10.10.2010 long after he has transplanted the seedlings that means the seedlings purchased from the opposite parites are not the one that has transplanted the seedlings purchased on 03.09.2010 is not attributable to the oppsoite party. Merely the oppsoite parties or anybody have not given the samples of the seedlings it will not change the thing. Even otherwise the complainant has produced another receipt dated: 15.09.2010 for having purchased 100 grams of Druva Tomoto F-1 seeds. Even if this is the seedlings that has taken in to account after the complainant has transplanted on 03.09.2010. Hence it is established that the complainant has not transplanted the seedlings that has been purchased from the opposite party and it is some other seedlings for which he has to blame himself and he cannot blame the oppsoite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
