By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the loss sustained to the Complainant and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is an agriculturist and he had taken 6 acres of land in lease from one Mr.Gopalakrishnan for cultivation of paddy. The Complainant purchased 150 kgs of seed from the Opposite party on 31.10.2014 by paying Rs.5,700/- for cultivation. The Complainant had spend almost Rs.2,50,000/- as expenses for the cultivation. After 1 ½ months of cultivation, the Opposite party contacted the Complainant and stated that the seed purchased by him is of mixed seed only and not 'UMA' seed. When the Complainant contacted the Opposite party, the Opposite party behaved very badly to the Complainant. The Complainant then waited up to the harvest but seen that the 'Kadir' started in the paddy at different stage. When some paddy was ready for harvest, other not started 'Kadir'. When the Complainant demanded the expense from the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party neglected it. The Complainant cultivated the paddy for his livelyhood but it was totally in loss. The Complainant had to borrow from others to meet the expenses. The act of Opposite party is unfair trade practice and cheating. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3.On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite party and the Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the Opposite party denied the averment in the complaint that the Opposite party had taken 6 acres of land on lease for cultivation and the full seed is purchased from the Opposite party. The Complainant is bound to produce the bill to prove the purchase. No such bill is produced before the Forum. The Opposite Party also denied the averment that the Complainant spend Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the cultivation. The Opposite Party also denied all the material allegations in the complaint. The Opposite Party never have done any unfair trade practice or cheating towards the Complainant. No loss sustained to the Complainant by the act of Opposite party and the Opposite party is not bound to pay any compensation to the Complainant. The Opposite party purchased the UMA seed from recognized institution run by the Karnataka Government ie from “K.A. Agro seeds” 31, Sinduvally, Manjangad, Mysore district, Karnatada State”. The Complainant have to give complaint to the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of purchase if any defect is found. But no such complaint is given to the Opposite party in this case. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay the loss sustained to the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The Complainant's witness are examined as PW2 and PW3. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The Ext.A1 document is the copy of bill alleged to be issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant at the time of purchase of seed. The Opposite Party objected the marking document and it is marked subject to proof. The Ext.A2 document is declaration issued by the Agricultural Assistant One Subhash and is certified by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thirunelly to the Complainant dated 07.05.2015. The Ext.A3 document is the paper news published in Madhyamam daily on 12.05.2015 regarding the loss sustained to the Complainant by cultivating the seed. The Ext.A3 document is objected by Opposite party and is marked subject to proof. On going through the Ext.A2 document, it is stated in Ext.A2 document that the seed is grown well up to the stage of Kadir and after Kadir, a disease called “Kulavattam” started and the paddy got 'Padir' and sustained loss to the Complainant. The person who inspected the cultivation and issued Ext.A2 document is examined as PW3 and in cross examination of PW3, PW3 deposed before the Forum that “in usual situation, if there is any defect in seed, it will not grow up to the level of Kadir”. More over, PW3 do not know in whose property, the Complainant cultivated paddy and the averment in the Ext.A2 document to that effect is only here say from the Complainant. He stated that the inspection is conducted as per the application of Complainant and in that application the Complainant statedthat the Kadir become Padir due to Kulavattam. He again deposed that the 'Kulavattam' disease will affect the paddy due to 'Virus infection' also apart from 'Fungus'. The witness also stated that he cannot deny the version that the Kulavattam will never affect the paddy due to the defect of seed. The witness again stated that at the time of inspection, he found that some paddy is properly harvested from the cultivation of the Complainant. The witness again stated that he do not know whether the Complainant applied 'pesticides' against disease. On perusal of complaint and affidavit of Complainant, there is mention that the Complainant had applied 'peticides' against the disease. The PW2 is a witness produced by the Complainant to prove that the Complainant had cultivated 6 acres of land by using the seed purchased from the Opposite Party. In the cross examination of PW2, PW2 stated that there was an agreement with him and the Complainant to lease 6 acres of land for cultivation. But no document is produced to prove that 6 acres of land is cultivated. The lease agreement is also not produced by the Complainant even if the Opposite party denied the cultivation of 6 acres of land. The PW2 also stated that the Complainant already applied for getting benefits from the state for the loss sustained to the complainant in cultivation of paddy. In the cross examination of Complainant ie PW1, the Complainant deposed before the Forum that he did not produce the original purchase bill and stated that it is lost. He again deposed that he did not produce any document to prove that he had spend Rs.2,50,000/- for paddy cultivation. The complainant deposed that his paddy cultivation did not affect “Kulavattam disease”. He stated that no damage caused to his cultivation due to Kulavattam. He again deposed that he did not take any step to take out a commission from the Forum to inspect and report the matter with an expert. The Ext.A3 document is marked with objection. The Ext.A3 document is not proved by the Complainant by producing the full set paper and by examining the publisher. Like wise, the Ext.A1 document is also not proved by the Complainant by producing the original.
(Contd... 5)
- 5 -
In Ext.A3 document, it is stated that the Opposite Party sold another seed instead of 'UMA' seed and the loss sustained to the Complainant is 4,00,000/-. In the Complaint and affidavit of Complainant, it is stated that the seed sold to the Complainant by the Opposite Party is of a mixed seed and not only 'UMA seed'. The loss sustained to the Complainant is stated as 2,50,000/- in the complaint and affidavit. In Ext.A3 document there is no statement to the effect that the seed purchased by the Complainant is a mixed seed. In Ext.A3, it is stated that the seed sold is another seed instead of 'UMA'. In the Complaint and in the affidavit, the reason for loss sustained is stated as cultivating mixed seed of low quality. But in Ext.A2 report, it is stated that the loss sustained to the Complainant is due to the disease 'Kulavattam' which is affected to Kadir of paddy. The Complainant had no case that the seed is not well grown but on the contrary he had a case that the seed is grown to the stage of 'Kadir” and thereafter damaged. In a ruling reported in 2009 CJ 858(N.C), the Hon'ble National Commission ruled that the report filed by the Agricultural Officer does not prove that the low yield as alleged by the Complainant was due to defective seed supplied by the Opposite party and hence the Complainant is dismissed. In another ruling by the Hon'ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, the Hon'ble Commission ruled that there is no evidence regarding the sub-standard or adulterated quality of seeds, failure for germination may be due to agro-climatic factors, hence there is no deficiency of service. So on an over all evaluation of the case of Complainant, the Forum found that the Complainant does not have specific case regrading the reason for damage. So the Complainant failed to prove his case by cogent and convincing evidence. The Forum found that the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite party is not proved. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant , the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of February 2016.
Date of Filing: 08.05.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Hassain Complainant.
PW2. Gopalakrishnan Agriculture
PW3. Subhash. Agriculture Assistant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Renuka. Secretary, Wayanad District Fruits & Vegetable
Marketing Co-op. Society, Sulthan Bathery.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Bill No.3979. dt:31.10.2014.
A2. Certificate.
A3. Madhyamam News Paper (Page No.3). Dt:12.05.2015.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party.
Nil.
