Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/101/2018

C.B. Thippeswamy S/o Byanna, Rudrammanahalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Sri Sai Agro Fertilizers. - Opp.Party(s)

P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

12 Nov 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:29/06/2018

DISPOSED      ON:12/11/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:101/2018

DATED: 12^TH November 2019

PRESENT :-     Smt. C.M.Chanchala.                     …. President

B.A.L.,,LL.B.,               

                            

                        SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N    :              MEMBER

                     M.Com., LL.B.,

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	C.B. Thippeswamy s/o ByannaRudrammanahalli, Hirehalli Post, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep., by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Managing Director, Sri. Sai Fertilizers, Hirehally, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (Rep by Sri. Jayasheelareddy,  OP No.1 Advocate) 2. The Managing Director, Sri. Basaveshwara Fertilizers, Hirehally, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (Rep by Sri. N. Thippeswamy,  OP No.2 Advocate)   3. The Managing Director, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, ReshamBhavan, 4th Floor, #78, Veera Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020. . (Rep by Sri. MallikarjunaKanavi  OP No.3 Advocate)

Pronounced on 12^thNovember  2019  .

Written by C.M.Chanchala, President.

ORDERS

1.    This is a complaint of alleged deficiency of service filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by the Complainant against the 4,50,000/- towards crop loss with interest at the rate of 12 % pa  and compensation towards mental agony and cost of the proceeding - etc.

The Complaint:

2. Complainant is an agriculturist and owned land in Sy.No.173/4 measuring 4-8guntas, situated at Hirehalli Village, TalukuHobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District and he visited the Op No. 1 for purchasing the MahycoJawar seeds which is manufactured by OP No.2. At the time of purchase the Ops represented that the seeds are of very best quality and will give produce about 25  quintals per acre. Accordingly, brother of complainant purchased the seed of 15 Kgs of MSH 51 from OP 1 having 5 packet of 3 Kg each with lot No. FRA 100134 and FRA 102015 for Rs. 3,375/- from Op No. 1 on 17/12/2017 and 06/12/2017.  Complainant had sown the above said seeds in their above said land and take care of the crop and used recommended fertilizers/pesticides as recommended. Even on the directions of the Ops, they sprayed the crop as per their instructions but the complainant suffered a great mental humiliation and harassment when he noticed that the crop has failed to give any produce, which was totally against the assurance given by the Ops. Aggrieved from the results of the produce the complainant gave one application to Agricultural Officer, regarding selling of duplicate / sub standard seeds of MahycoJawar seeds and less produce of their crop. The concerned Agricultural Development Officer visited the spot accompanied and they conducted the survey and told that due to supply of defective and sub-standard seeds, crop has failed. The Op supplied sub standard seed, which resulted in no produce after the ripening of the crop. Accordingly, this complaint was filed by the complainant against Ops for seeking claim of Rs.4,50,000/- as loss to the crop, Rs. 25,000/- for mental tension and harassment, Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      After hearing on admission the complaint was admitted and  notice were ordered to be issued to the OPs  to file their written versions under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (  in short “the Act) . The OP 1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed written version.

Defense:

4. The Ops in their written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant the complainant has concealed the material fact; there is no defect in the seed. The complaint has been filed without any technical expert report, in the absence of such report inference cannot be ascertained that seeds are defective, further the Ops contended that in the RTC produced by the complainant it is mentioned that there is no crop, hence the complainant not cultivated any land and further the complainant has not mentioned the date of sowing. Further they have contended that the infestation of aphids on the crop is not seed borne but it is external factor which has not nexus with the quality of seeds and the report of the Agricultural Officer, if any, is not legal and genuine report, therefore, is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their part. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.

5.  After completion of evidence of both the parties, at the time of arguments, the advocate for the Ops Sri. MK proposed for settlement of the case by stating that the Ops are ready to pay Rs. 17,000/- per acre as a compensation to the complainant subject to production of proper documents. The complainant and his advocate also agreed for the proposal of the Ops advocate. Accordingly, in view of the submission made by both the parties, we pass the following order.

                                                  Order.

The complaint is partly allowed with the direction to opposite parties to pay Rs. 17,000/- compensation per acre to the complainant subject to verification of documents, within 1 month from the date of this order.In case of non-compliance of the order the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum till its realization.

The assistant registrar is directed to send free copies of this order to the all the parties free of cost within a week from today.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 12^th November 2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

                                     

MEMBER             PRESIDENT      

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined for the complainant side:

 

Complainant- Sri. C.B. Thippeswamyhas examined-in-chief by filing affidavit as PW1.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri.MahendraChavan, the of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1	Original 2 Bills
02	Ex-A-2:-	RTC.

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

Nil

 

MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

kms