CC Filed on 06.01.2010
Disposed on 19.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 19th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 03/2010
Between:
Sri. Sriramareddy. V., S/o. late. Venkataswamy, Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist, R/o. NallaralapalliVillage, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. C. Kodandappa & others) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Manager/The Marketing Officer, CADILA Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Farm and Nurseries Division), Kenkeri, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. P.M. Shankara Prasad & others) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with costs and interest.
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is an agriculturist. He owned 2 acres 03 guntas of land in Sy. No. 90 of his village which totally measuring 4 acres 06 guntas. The OP has been running nursery farm and supplies seed, tissues, pesticides and manures, etc., to the farmers. The OP published that they would supply tissue culture banana plants of G9 variety and informed that farmers would get more profit by cultivating such banana plants and they would also guide and assist the farmers in cultivation of banana crop. It is alleged that the complainant was persuaded to cultivate banana crop on seeing the publication of OP and approached him in the month of November 2005. The OP assured that he would supply banana plants of the above said variety and he would also guide and assist the complainant in cultivating the crop. As such on 03.11.2005 the complainant purchased 1300 TC banana plants of G9 variety at the rate of Rs.9/- per plant by paying Rs.11,700/- to OP.
The complainant planted the banana plants in his land Sy. No. 90 as per the specification stated by OP. It is alleged that the OP used to send his Field Officer by name Srinivas to supervise and to guide the cultivation by complainant. The complainant followed the procedure stated by OP while giving manure, fertilizers, medicine, water, etc., He alleged that he spent Rs.1,70,625/- towards the total cost of cultivation and that he expected Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- income per year for a period 3-4 years.
However unfortunately at the time of flowering itself the banana crop failed due to bad and unhealthy tissue culture banana plants supplied by the OP. The complainant made efforts to ascertain reasons for failure of crop and approached OP. But the OP failed to give any reason and asked the complainant to approach Horticulture Department. Accordingly the complainant approached Horticulture Department and a team of experts visited the land of complainant and inspected the banana plants and gave their report after field inspection on 19.12.2006. After receipt of the said report the complainant approached the OP requesting for compensation. But the OP failed to compensate the complainant. Thereafter the complainant issued notices in the year 2007 and in March 2008 and in June 2009 and also got issued legal notice dated 03.12.2009. But the OP did not respond to any of these requests. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint on 06.01.2010.
3. The OP appeared and contested the proceedings. The OP contended that he has provided good yielding banana plants with instruction how to cultivate the banana plant but the complainant has not provided water properly to the said crop and he has not followed the instructions of OP in planting the banana plants and he also failed to use proper pesticides in proper time and he did not give the manure as instructed. Therefore it is contended that the failure of crop is due to the negligence of complainant in cultivating the crop but not due to the plants supplied by OP.
The OP also contended that the report prepared by Agricultural Staff was a false report and they had not visited the field of complainant. Further it is contended that the complaint is filed with a view to harass the complainant by filing concocted documents. The OP has also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and the same may be dismissed on this ground also.
4. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties. The Counsel for OP also filed written arguments.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that the OP
had supplied defective tissue culture banana
plants of G-9 variety?
Point No.2: Whether the failure of crop was due to the
supply of said defective banana plants?
Point No.3: Whether the complaint is barred by time?
Point No.4: To what order?
6. After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1& 2: These points are inter-related, therefore we have considered them at the same place. There is no direct evidence to hold that the banana plants supplied were defective. This fact should be ascertained from other evidence produced by the complainant.
The supply of tissue culture banana plants of G9 variety to complainant on 03.11.2005 is not in dispute. This fact is also evidenced by the dispatch note dated 03.11.2005 issued by OP. It is properly established that the team of officers of Agricultural Department visited the land of complainant to ascertain the reason for failure of the banana crop. The relevant paras in the said report are as follows:
“On the written request of Sri. Anand, SADH, Chintamani Taluk, a field visit to the problematic banana plot belonging to V. Srirama Reddy, Nallaralapalli, Iragampalli Panchayath, Chintamani Taluk on 19-12-2006. The visiting team consisted of Sri. Anand, SADH, Sri. H. Manjunatha, and Mis. V.H. Prathibha Training Associates KVK, Chintamani, under the leadership of Dr. V. Shankarnarayana, Training Organizer, KVK, Chintamani. The inspection report is as under..
The banana plot was raised using tissue culture plants (1300) supplied by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, Kenkare, Gouribidanur Taluk, Kolar District on 3-11-05. The variety used was G-9, it was found that garden is infected with Bunchy top diseases to an extent of 70-80%. Some of the bunchy top infected plants have also born the bunches which are undersized, unhealthy with cracking and splitting of fruits. Many of the infected plant haven’t fruited.
The crop loss is expected to be almost 80%, the farmer is advised to approach the suppliers of tissue culture plants for future course of action.”
The complainant has also produced the Expert Opinion of Programme Coordinator, KVK, Chintamani. This Expert Opinion is as follows:
TO WHOM SO IT MAY EVER CONCERN
The bunchy top disease of banana is caused by a virus and it is spread through insects vector known as Aphids. The primary source of infection is through infected planting material called as suckers and explants in case of tissue culture Plants (if explants developed from virus infected callus). The Disease is carried and spread through other banana plants through a vector known as Aphids as a secondary source of infection. The infected plants generally bear under developed weak bunches and in extreme cases don’t bear bunches at all.
The field report prepared after inspection of the crop on 19.12.2006 shows that the banana plants were infected with Bunchy Top Diseases to an extent of 70 to 80% and the crop loss is expected to be almost 80%. The Expert Opinion stated above establishes that the Bunchy Top Disease of Banana is caused by a virus and it is spread through insects vector known as Aphids and the primary source of infection is through infected planting material called as suckers and explants in case of tissue culture plants. Therefore this Expert Opinion establishes that the primary source of infection is through infected plants developed from virus infected callus. As we can ascertain from the evidence that the complainant has followed the required procedure for cultivation of banana plants. Therefore we think the cause of disease was the infected tissue culture plants supplied to complainant.
The OP contended that the proper procedure for cultivation was not followed and that was the reason for failure of crop. The complainant has alleged that there was representation by OP that the tissue culture banana plants of G-9 variety would give very good yield and that he would guide the cultivation of the crop and that even OP has sent his Field Officer by name Srinivas to supervise and guide the cultivation. This part of the allegations made in the complaint is not denied by OP. It is told that the nursery of OP is not far away from the land of complainant where he raised banana crop. Therefore it is quite possible to believe that OP used to send his persons for supervision of cultivation. In that event, we cannot say that the complainant failed to follow the proper steps and procedure while cultivating the crop. Hence we hold point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.
Point No.3: The OP contended that the complaint is barred by time. The failure of crop came to the notice of complainant in December 2006. Therefore according to OP the cause of action starts by the end of December 2006 and the complaint should have been filed within 2 years from that date. The complaint is filed on 06.01.2010, therefore according to OP the complaint is barred by time. On the other hand the complainant stated that he went on making demand for payment of compensation and the OP went on postponing the demand and he did not reply and finally notice was issued in December 2009, but the OP did not comply with it. Therefore the complainant stated that the cause of action has arisen in the month of December 2009. The complainant has produced legal notice and also the postal acknowledgement of service of the said notice. The OP has not replied the said notice. Therefore we think the cause of action extended even in December 2009 the date on which the legal notice was finally issued. Hence we think the complaint is within time. Accordingly point No.3 is held in negative.
Point No.4: The complainant stated that he incurred Rs.1,70,625/- for cultivation expenses. His claim is not supported by proper documentary evidence. He has produced bills for purchasing manure from one Veerabadraswamy Traders. These bills may not be the genuine bills and the bills might have been obtained for the purpose of filing this complaint. We can see that bill No. 374 for Rs.24,690/- is dated 03.03.2006 whereas the next bill No. 375 for Rs.5,300/- is dated 07.02.2006. The discrepancy of these dates shown in the bills creates doubt regarding these bills. The complainant has not led reliable evidence to establish the cultivation expenses and also the net profit that can be derived from the cultivation of banana crop on 2 acres of land. He claimed Rs.18,00,000/- without giving any particulars. The complainant has purchased the banana plants by paying Rs.11,700/- to OP. The OP has also supplied pesticides and manure worth Rs.2,125/- as per the bill dated 17.03.2006. The brochure containing the procedure for cultivation of banana crop is produced by OP. Considering the above records and evidence, we think the cultivation expense may be taken at Rs.1,00,000/-. In that event one can expect that the complainant will get income of Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- for a crop. That is also the estimation stated by complainant in para.7 of the complaint. The complainant stated that he could have got the same crop for a further period of 3-4 years. This fact is not properly established. Therefore we can at best estimate that the total worth of crop was about Rs.3,00,000/-. The report issued by agricultural staff shows that the crop loss is almost 80%. Hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, we think a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- may be awarded as compensation to complainant. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP shall pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) to complainant within 6 weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
