The Proprietor,Sri Gurukrupa Krishi kendra, V/S Mallikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 77/07

Mallikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Sri Gurukrupa Krishi kendra, - Opp.Party(s)

P Basavaraj

20 Mar 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 77/07

Mallikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda Smt. Rajeshwari W/o Shankaragouda, Shivashankrappa @ Shivappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Proprietor,Sri Gurukrupa Krishi kendra, The Managing Director, The Regional Officer,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Satish V 2. Satish V

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the three complainants against three Respondents for deficiency of service and seeking for compensation of Rs. Five Lakh. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The Three complainants namely Mallikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda S/o. Shivashankarappa @ Shivappa and Smt. Rajeshwari W/o. Shankargouda who are the residents of Konachapli village, Tq, Deodurga are well experienced agriculturists by profession for their livelihood. The Respondent NO-1 Proprietor Sri. Gurukrupa Krishi Kendra Near Bus-Stand at Deodurga is the dealer/retail seller of PHI 27PO4 paddy seeds which are produced by Respondent NO-3. The Respondent No-3 is the Managing Director Pioneer Hybride Seeds Ltd., Rajbhavan Road, Somayajiguda, Hyderabad. Respondent NO-2 the Regional Officer Pioneer Hybride International INC Regional Office, Gokul Road, Hubli is the Regional office of Respondent NO-3 company in Karnataka. On 02-12-06 complainant No-1 Mallikarjunagouda had purchased (16) packets of pioneer 27 PO4 paddy seeds complainant NO-2 Shivashankarappa had purchased (2) packets of said paddy seeds and complainant NO-3 Smt. Rajeshwari had purchased (8) packets of said paddy seeds under receipt No. 243, 241 & 242 respectively by making payment of Rs. 14,400/-, 1,800/- and 7,200/- respectively. The complainant No-1 had sown said paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 30/3, 30/1, and Sy.No. 38 and Sy.No.37/1 in all measuring 15 acres of land. Complainant No-2 Shivashankarappa had sown paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 30/2 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas and complainant No-3 Smt. Rajeshwari had sown paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 34 measuring 8 acres situated at Konachapli village. The complainant No-1 being poor agriculturist had taken land Sy.No 30/1, 30/3, 38 and 37/1 totally measuring 16 acres 15 guntas on oral lease basis from one Suresh S/o. A.Linganna R/o. Deodurga and A. Basavaraj S/o. A Chandrashekhar R/o. Deodurga for growing paddy crops to the extent of 15 acres of land. The complainants 1 to 3 in all had purchased (26) paddy seeds each packet weighing (4) Kgs of seeds in the first week of January 2007 the plants of seeds were planted in their respective lands. Apart from these complainants, large number of farmers purchased the paddy seeds of the Respondents and sown in their respective land. All of them suffered failure of crop due to improper setting of seeds as the defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. As per the advise of one Gangaraju representative of Respondent NO-3 company all the three complainants have followed in carrying out irrigation agricultural operation namely fertilizing and application of pesticides and removal of weeding etc., and during the crop period normal weather condition were prevailed as usual. It was in the last week of March 2007 at the stage of setting of seeds all the complainants have noticed about improper setting of seeds the same was complained before Respondent No-1 and to Sri. Gangaraju over phone, but both have dodged the matter under one or the other pretext of consulting Respondent NO- 2 & 3. No action were taken by them on 26-05-07 hence the matter was represented before the Assistant Director of Agriculture Department, Deodurga by addressing to Chief Minister of Karnataka for proper action and copies to Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka Bangalore, MLA Deodurga, Deputy Commissioner Raichur, Tahasildar Deodurga and Joint Director of Agriculture Raichur etc., In response to the said representation dt. 26-05-07 Ministry of Agriculture, Director, Agriculture Department Bangalore and copy of which has been sent to complainant NO-1. Thereafter the officials of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department Deodurga came to the complainants and without inspecting anything they have taken their signature on blank formats by telling that they would report to the higher authorities about the loss. However nobody has paid loss to the complainants but Gangaraju the representation of Respondent orally offered an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of some seeds which was denied by the complainants. The yield to be secured per acre as per assurance given by Gangaraju representative of Respondents is about 32 quintals per acre. But actually they secured yield by the complainants in their lands about 10-12 quintals only. So in net around 20 quintals of loss of paddy crop per acre suffered by the complainants only due to defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. The complainants have incurred expenses about 10,000/- to 15,000/- per acre excluding cost of seeds in growing and crop. So in all they have suffered around 15,000/- to 20,000/- loss per acre due to supply of defective seeds by Respondents, but not any other reasons as the failure of seeds crop in massive is not only in the lands of complainants but in the entire Raichur, Gulbarga, and Bellary districts which is evident from scientist investigation report. As the Respondent No-1 and agricultural Department officials failed to arrange for compensation to the complainants they got issued legal notice to all the Respondents on 06-07-07 for which Respondent No-2 replied on 13-07-07 by seeking information further from the complainants. Again the complainants provided information to Respondent NO-2 through their representation dt. 18-09-07 for which no steps were taken to compensate the complainants. Hence they are the knocking the doors of this Forum. Hence for all these reasons complainants have sought for a total award of Rs. Five Lakh to the complainants and for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation at 12% interest there on for mental harassment suffered by them and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent N-1 appeared through counsel and filed his written version and Respondent NO-2 & 3 appeared through another counsel and filed common written version. In the written version Respondent No-1 has admitted that this Respondent No-1 is the retail seller of Hybride paddy seeds produced by Respondents NO-3 and the Respondent NO-2 is the Regional Office of Respondent NO-3 and that all the complainants have purchased in all (26) packets of Pioneer 27PO4 paddy seeds on 02-12-06 from this Respondent. But he has denied that all the agriculturists are well experienced agriculturists etc., The averments regarding Survey Number of land and total amount of loss shown by the complainants are false. The allegation regarding quantity of yield said to have been assured by the representative of the Respondent Company and that the complainants have suffered loss of crops due to defective seeds supplied by Respondents. It is further denied that the complainants have incurred Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre excluding cost of seeds as expenses per acre and they suffered loss of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre due to defective seeds are all false. The claim of the complainants are very excessive and exorbitant. This Respondent being retail seller of Respondent NO-3 product and has sold Hybride Paddy Seeds produced and marketed by Respondent NO-3 so there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent and he has sought for dismissal of the complaint against him. 3. Respondent NO-2 & 3 in their common written version have contended that the complainants have not provided any evidence to prove that they had sown the same seeds alleged to have been supplied by Respondent NO- 2 & 3 regarding alleged defective in the quality of the seeds the crops grown there from the alleged losses sustained by them. The complainants have not supported with any cogent evidence. Apart from letters written by the complainants they have not brought any objective or scientific evidence to substantiate their allegations. The claim for Rs. Five Lakh is arbitrary, without any basis with ulterior motive to derive unfair financial advantage/gain. The allegation regarding alleged lesser yield of paddy crop and incurring loss due to defective and poor quality seeds supplied are all false and baseless. The seeds released/supplied by Respondents confirm to the yield standards and information on the packaging and labels subject to the farmer following correct agronomic practices and subject to the availability of correct soil quality, climatic condition, correct time of sowing, correct planting rate, and other factors. It is submitted that no lease can be created after the enforcement of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974. Therefore there arises no question of leasing the lands by Suresh and A.Basavaraj in favour of complainant NO-1 as contended. According to the provision of Karnataka Land Reforms Act the land will automatically vasts with the Government. The lands shown by the complainants are not irrigated for paddy crops and the complainants are put to strict proof of their ownership and regarding nature of the land etc., No representative of Respondent NO-3 has advised the complainants in carrying out irrigations agricultural operations as contended by them. The allegation that the complained before the Respondent NO-1 and Gangaraju over phone and both have dodged the matter as one or the other pretext etc., are all false. The contention regarding visit of the Assistant Director of Agricultural are not within the knowledge of these Respondents and that the representative of Respondents Gangaraju offered orally an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of same seeds etc., are all false and baseless. Nobody including the said Gangaraju have made any offer to the complainants. The complainants Agricultural Department after a detailed survey has made no adverse finding in-respect of quality of seeds which was found that deficiency was due to environmental factors. The lands of the complainants are not localizes for growing paddy seeds. The seeds produced by the Respondent meet all the standards laid-down in the seeds act. Performance of seeds is greatly influenced by other equally importance factors such as appropriate period of sowing, soil condition, vagaries of climatic conditions, soil moisture, regularity of irrigation, pests and diseases, application of fertilizers and nutrient availability in the soil. Grain yield from paddy crop is also dependant on pollination, fertilization, grain formation and development which are greatly influenced by atmospheric temperature during flowering and pollination. Variation of temperature from the normal condition also effects pollination and grain formation. There is no assured water supply to the alleged lands of the complainants. The Respondent company is over a 30 years old company and is a part of international company committed to work closely with the farmers and for the benefit of Indian Agriculture. The cause of action shown is imaginary. Hence for all these reasons Respondents 2 & 3 have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant No-1 Mallikarjun Gouda has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and submitted no further evidence. In-rebuttal Respondent NO- 1 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief. On behalf of Respondents 2 & 3 sworn affidavit of Respondent NO-2 has been filed by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant (17) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. On behalf of Respondent No-1 one document at Ex.R-1 was got marked. On behalf of Respondent NO- 2 & 3 (4) documents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 were got marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainants prove supply of defective seeds by the Respondents and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of Respondents, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that complainants 1 to 3 had purchased about 26 packets of Pioneer 27PO4 paddy seeds of Respondent NO- 3 product on 02-12-06 from Respondent No-1 who is the dealer/retail seller and the Respondent No-2 the Regional Officer of Respondent No- 3 in Karnataka. However the complainants have produced cash bills of purchase of paddy seeds dt. 02-12-06 at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. 8. It is the case of the complainants that they had sown paddy seeds and planted in the first week of January-2007 and that in the last week of March 2007 at the stage of setting of seeds they noticed about improper setting of seeds. The same was complained before Respondent No-1 and to one Sri. Gangaraju representative of Respondents over phone, but both have dodged the matter under one or the other pretext of consulting Respondent No- 2 & 3 and no action was taken by them. Hence on 26-05-07 they represented before the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Deodurga by addressing to Chief Minister of Karnataka for proper action and copies to Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka Bangalore, MLA Deodurga, Deputy Commissioner Raichur, Tahasildar Deodurga and Joint Director of Agriculture Raichur etc., In response to the same, the Ministry of Agriculture, directed the Director of Agriculture Bangalore and copy of which has been sent to complainant NO-1. Thereafter the officials of Assistant Director, Agriculture Deodurga came to the complainants and taken signatures on blank formats without inspecting anything by telling that they would report to the higher authorities about the loss. However nobody has paid loss to the complainants. But Gangaraju the representative of Respondent orally offered an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of same seeds which was denied by the complainants. The assurance of yield given by said Gangaraju, is about 32 quintals per acre. But actually the secured yield by them was about 10-12 quintals only. So in net around 20 quintals of loss of paddy crop per acre due to defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. The complainant No-1 who has filed his affidavit-evidence for self and on behalf of complainant No- 2 & 3 has reiterated the contents of complaint averments. The Respondents have denied all the allegation of the complainant and Respondent No-2 in his affidavit-evidence has reiterated the contents of the written version. 9. The complainants have produced in all (17) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are the cash bills of purchase of paddy seeds. Ex.P-4 is the Application/Representation dt. 26-05-07 of complainant. Ex.P-5 is the copy of Legal Notice issued to the Respondents. Ex.P-6 is the Reply Notice. Ex.P-7 is another Legal Notice dt. 18-09-07. Ex.P-8 is the Attested Copy of Final Report regarding visits to paddy hybride 27PO4 fields at Raichur, Gulbarga and Bellary District by the team consisting of Dr. B.T. Pujari Associate Director of Research RARS Raichur with (4) others, Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 are Water Permit Certificates issued by the V.A. Konachapalli. Ex.P-14 is the copy of letter dt. 31-05-07 of Ministry of Agriculture Department Bangalore sent t the complainant. Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 are the two pamphlet of Respondent No-2 depicting the expense and cultivation of paddy crop. Ex.P-17 is the Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper dt. 04-05-07 flashing the news regarding failure of paddy crops on the use of the paddy seeds of the Respondents. 10. The Respondents have produced (5) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. Ex.R-1 is the Original bill dt. 30-10-06 in-respect of supply of seeds issued by Respondent No- 2 & 3 to Respondent No-1. Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 are the Record of Rights of land Sy.No. 30/3, 30/1, 37/1, & 38 for the year 2007-08. 11. It is pertinent to note here that when the arguments of both sides were heard in part and the case posted for further arguments, on 30-09-08 on that day the LC for the complainants filed IA-No-2 U/s. 13(4) of CP Act for appointment of Forum Commissioner for inspecting the lands to ascertain whether the lands of the complainants are irrigated lands or not. After perusal of the objection filed by the Respondents and on hearing, this Forum rejected IA.No-2 and the case again set down for arguments on 05-11-08. Again after seeking some adjournments the LC for the complainants on 26-12-08 filed IA-3 for re-opening of the case of complainants and filed (8) documents along with two affidavit-evidence as PWs 2 & 3. The Respondents filed objection to IA-No-3 on 23-01-09. During the course of hearing on IA.N-3 on 06-02-09, both the counsel submitted that I.A.No-III be heard along with main case so the case again set down for arguments on 10-02-09. On 10-02-09 the L.C. for contesting Respondents 2 & 3 submitted that they have no objection for accepting the two affidavit-evidence filed as PWs- 2 & 3 along with IA.No-III but they objected for production and marking of (8) documents filed with IA.No-III. The L.C. for the complainants submitted that appropriate orders be passed along with main case regarding admissibility of (8) documents in evidence as sought for in I.A.No-III and if they are admissible they may be marked as documents for complainant and if not they be ignored and it is left to the discretion of the Forum. Thus I.A.No-III came to be allowed in part for accepting the filing of affidavit-evidence of PWs 2 & 3 and regarding the 2nd part of IA.No-III for production of (8) documents & for marking of the same kept opened for considered at the time of Order on the main case. 12. The (8) documents filed by the complainants through IA-III are:- (1) True copy of GESCOM Receipt bearing No. 29214 dt. 18-07-03. (2) True copy of water lifting permission certificate issued by Executive Engineer KBJNL, UKP Canal Division No-4, Deodurga dt. 16-07-03. (3) Duplicate water tax paid receipt dt. 27-02-07. (4) Duplicate water tax paid receipt. (5) True copy of water lifting permission issued by KBJNL, UKP Canal No-4 Deodurga dt. 19-05-03. (6) Loan scard issued by TGB Branch Koppar pertaining to complainant No-3. (7) True copy of power sanction certificate N. 5860-61 dt. 01-12-04 to the complainant No-3. (8) True copy of order passed by the District Consumer Forum Gulbarga in Sy.Nos. 106/07 to 116/07 & 152/07. 13. It is the case of the complainants that they had sown the hybride paddy seeds of the Respondent No-3 product in their lands and they had followed advise of said Gangaraju the Representative of Respondent No-3 in carrying- out irrigation, agricultural operation viz; in-fertilizing and application of pesticides and removal of weeds etc., by incurring expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per acre. As per the assurance of said Gangaraju the yield to be secured per acre was about 32 q uintals per acre but actually they secured yield of 10-12 quintals and suffered loss of about 20 quintals per acre. In their affidavit-evidence the complainants have reiterated the same. 14. The Respondents have contended that according to complainant No-1 he had taken land Sy.No. 30/1, 30/3, 38, & 37/1 totally measuring 16 acres 15 guntas on oral lease basis from one Suresh S/o. A. Linganna R/o. Deodurga and A.Basavaraj S/o. A. Chandrashekhar R/o. Deodurga for growing paddy crops. But no lease can be created after the enforcement of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974 and therefore there arises no question of leasing out the lands by Suresh or by A.Chandrashekhar in favour of complainant No-1 as contended. This Suresh S/o. Linganna who has filed his affidavit-evidence as PW-2 has stated that he is the owner and possessor of above said agricultural lands and he has let out these lands to the complainant No-1 Malikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda for cultivation on oral lease and on cash basis per year for every crop and said lands are irrigated under UKP water through lift irrigation on permission by Executive Engineer UKP Division No-4 Deodurga. The said permission certificates have been given to complainant No-1. 15. In this case we have to see whether the paddy seeds of the products of Respondent NO-3 was sown by the complainants in their lands. Under such circumstances whether the lease is illegal and it is hit by Karnataka Lands Reforms Act etc., are beyond the scope of the matter in issue the affidavit-evidence of PW-2 discloses that the complainant No-1 had taken his land on oral lease for plantation of paddy crops and the complainant No-1 has stated that he had sown paddy seeds. Hence the allegation that the lease of the lands taken by the complainant No-1 is illegal etc., are beyond the purview and scope of this case. 16. Nextely it is contended by the Respondents 2 & 3 that the complainants 1 to 3 have not produced any piece of evidence to show that the lands are irrigated and they used to take the water under lift irrigation. Further the Water Permission Certificates at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 said to have been issued by the Village Accountant have no evidentiary value since Village Accountant is not competent to issue such certificates by surpassing the powers vested with Irrigation Department. More-over the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands to show that the lands are irrigated and that they are raising paddy crops. On the contrary the Record of Rights of their lands produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 do not whisper about the lands being irrigated and that paddy crops was raised during the year 2007-08. Admittedly the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of the lands. The Record of Rights for the year 2007-08 produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 in-respect of the land Sy.Nos. 38, 30/3, 30/1 shows the name of PW-2 A. Sureshbabu S/o. Linganna in column No-9 & 12(2) of Record of Rights. The mode of cultivation is shown as Personal. Ex.R-5 the Record of Rights in-respect of land Sy.No. 37/1, shows the name of A.Basavaraj S/o. A.Chandrashekhar in column No-9 & 12(2) for the year 2007-08. The mode of cultivation is shown as Personal. These Record of Rights do not show the type of lands as irrigated or even it does not show the types of crops raised in the lands. The column meant for source of irrigation is kept blank. The complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands and that the Record of Rights produced by the Respondents do not show the lands as irrigated and source of irrigation. So in the absence of the same the Water Permit Certificate issued by the Village Accountant at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 do not inspire confidence regarding the genuineness. Of course, if the source of irrigation was shown in the Record of Rights Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 then same weight could have been attached to these certificates. In the absence of the same the certificates at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 are of no relevancy. It would be more-so when the competency of the Authority of the Village Accountant in issuing such certificate is at stake. 17. As stated above through IA-III the complainants have produced Xerox copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate issued by Executive Engineer KBJNL (Krishi Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd.) UKP Canal Division No-4 Deodurga dt. 16-07-03 in-respect of land Sy.No. 38, 30/1, 30/3 belonging to Sureshbabu and another certificate dt. 19-05-03 in-respect of land Sy.No. 34 belonging to Smt. Rajeshwari (complainant No-3) and the two duplicate water tax paid receipts dt. 27-02-07. As seen above the L.C. for the Respondents 2 & 3 has objected for marking of these documents as they are not certified copy or original documents but they are Xerox copy. The complainants have failed to produce the original or certified copy of the same or even they have not applied for summoning the original from the concerned office, in-order to over come the objection of the Respondents 2 & 3. No explanation is coming forth for non-production of originals or certified copy of the same. When the complainants have produced Xerox true copy then what prevented them from not producing the original or certified copy of the same and what prevented them from not applying for summoning the original from the concerned office who had issued such certificates, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the Respondents. At the cost of repetition when the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands to show that their lands are irrigated and showing the source of irrigation and that when they have failed to produce either original or certified copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate said to have been issued by KBJNL Canal Division No-4 or even by summoning the said Authority for producing the original, so in the absence of the same, the Xerox copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate said to have been issued by KBJNL UKP Canal Division No-4 Deodurga are of no avail to the complainants. Hence the documents filed through IA-III cannot be admitted in evidence. 18. Thus the complainants have failed to prove that they had sown and planted the hybride paddy seeds in their lands as alleged. Even Ex.P-8 the Final Report submitted by the Team headed by Dr. B.T. Pujari Associate Director of Research RARS Raichur does not show specifically their visit and inspection made by them to the lands of the complainants. It only shows that paddy hybride 27PO4 of Pioneer Hybride Seeds was grown widely across the districts of Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary during Rabi/Summer season. So it cannot be said that all the lands in Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary districts were sown paddy hybride seeds especially when in this case the complainants have failed to establish their lands are irrigated one to grow paddy crops. Even they have not produced Record of Rights to show their lands are irrigated by any source of irrigation and the paddy crops raised in the lands. In the absence of these material particulars the Report of the Team headed by dr. BT Pujari Associate Director Research RARS Raichur will not come to their aid that there was no improper setting of seeds. Even the complaint averments at Para-7 shows that the complainants are definite that the Team officials of director of Agriculture Department came to them and took their signature on blank formats without inspecting the land and they took their signatures by telling that they would report to the higher Authority about the loss. These averments in their complaint go to show that their lands were not at all visited by the team of RARS Raichur. Hence the report at Ex.P-8 is of no avail to the complainants. Therefore it follows that the complainants have failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO. 2:- 19. In view of our conclusion and finding on Point No-1, the complainants are not entitled to reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainants is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. On leave Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the three complainants against three Respondents for deficiency of service and seeking for compensation of Rs. Five Lakh. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The Three complainants namely Mallikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda S/o. Shivashankarappa @ Shivappa and Smt. Rajeshwari W/o. Shankargouda who are the residents of Konachapli village, Tq, Deodurga are well experienced agriculturists by profession for their livelihood. The Respondent NO-1 Proprietor Sri. Gurukrupa Krishi Kendra Near Bus-Stand at Deodurga is the dealer/retail seller of PHI 27PO4 paddy seeds which are produced by Respondent NO-3. The Respondent No-3 is the Managing Director Pioneer Hybride Seeds Ltd., Rajbhavan Road, Somayajiguda, Hyderabad. Respondent NO-2 the Regional Officer Pioneer Hybride International INC Regional Office, Gokul Road, Hubli is the Regional office of Respondent NO-3 company in Karnataka. On 02-12-06 complainant No-1 Mallikarjunagouda had purchased (16) packets of pioneer 27 PO4 paddy seeds complainant NO-2 Shivashankarappa had purchased (2) packets of said paddy seeds and complainant NO-3 Smt. Rajeshwari had purchased (8) packets of said paddy seeds under receipt No. 243, 241 & 242 respectively by making payment of Rs. 14,400/-, 1,800/- and 7,200/- respectively. The complainant No-1 had sown said paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 30/3, 30/1, and Sy.No. 38 and Sy.No.37/1 in all measuring 15 acres of land. Complainant No-2 Shivashankarappa had sown paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 30/2 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas and complainant No-3 Smt. Rajeshwari had sown paddy seeds in land Sy.No. 34 measuring 8 acres situated at Konachapli village. The complainant No-1 being poor agriculturist had taken land Sy.No 30/1, 30/3, 38 and 37/1 totally measuring 16 acres 15 guntas on oral lease basis from one Suresh S/o. A.Linganna R/o. Deodurga and A. Basavaraj S/o. A Chandrashekhar R/o. Deodurga for growing paddy crops to the extent of 15 acres of land. The complainants 1 to 3 in all had purchased (26) paddy seeds each packet weighing (4) Kgs of seeds in the first week of January 2007 the plants of seeds were planted in their respective lands. Apart from these complainants, large number of farmers purchased the paddy seeds of the Respondents and sown in their respective land. All of them suffered failure of crop due to improper setting of seeds as the defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. As per the advise of one Gangaraju representative of Respondent NO-3 company all the three complainants have followed in carrying out irrigation agricultural operation namely fertilizing and application of pesticides and removal of weeding etc., and during the crop period normal weather condition were prevailed as usual. It was in the last week of March 2007 at the stage of setting of seeds all the complainants have noticed about improper setting of seeds the same was complained before Respondent No-1 and to Sri. Gangaraju over phone, but both have dodged the matter under one or the other pretext of consulting Respondent NO- 2 & 3. No action were taken by them on 26-05-07 hence the matter was represented before the Assistant Director of Agriculture Department, Deodurga by addressing to Chief Minister of Karnataka for proper action and copies to Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka Bangalore, MLA Deodurga, Deputy Commissioner Raichur, Tahasildar Deodurga and Joint Director of Agriculture Raichur etc., In response to the said representation dt. 26-05-07 Ministry of Agriculture, Director, Agriculture Department Bangalore and copy of which has been sent to complainant NO-1. Thereafter the officials of Assistant Director, Agriculture Department Deodurga came to the complainants and without inspecting anything they have taken their signature on blank formats by telling that they would report to the higher authorities about the loss. However nobody has paid loss to the complainants but Gangaraju the representation of Respondent orally offered an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of some seeds which was denied by the complainants. The yield to be secured per acre as per assurance given by Gangaraju representative of Respondents is about 32 quintals per acre. But actually they secured yield by the complainants in their lands about 10-12 quintals only. So in net around 20 quintals of loss of paddy crop per acre suffered by the complainants only due to defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. The complainants have incurred expenses about 10,000/- to 15,000/- per acre excluding cost of seeds in growing and crop. So in all they have suffered around 15,000/- to 20,000/- loss per acre due to supply of defective seeds by Respondents, but not any other reasons as the failure of seeds crop in massive is not only in the lands of complainants but in the entire Raichur, Gulbarga, and Bellary districts which is evident from scientist investigation report. As the Respondent No-1 and agricultural Department officials failed to arrange for compensation to the complainants they got issued legal notice to all the Respondents on 06-07-07 for which Respondent No-2 replied on 13-07-07 by seeking information further from the complainants. Again the complainants provided information to Respondent NO-2 through their representation dt. 18-09-07 for which no steps were taken to compensate the complainants. Hence they are the knocking the doors of this Forum. Hence for all these reasons complainants have sought for a total award of Rs. Five Lakh to the complainants and for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation at 12% interest there on for mental harassment suffered by them and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent N-1 appeared through counsel and filed his written version and Respondent NO-2 & 3 appeared through another counsel and filed common written version. In the written version Respondent No-1 has admitted that this Respondent No-1 is the retail seller of Hybride paddy seeds produced by Respondents NO-3 and the Respondent NO-2 is the Regional Office of Respondent NO-3 and that all the complainants have purchased in all (26) packets of Pioneer 27PO4 paddy seeds on 02-12-06 from this Respondent. But he has denied that all the agriculturists are well experienced agriculturists etc., The averments regarding Survey Number of land and total amount of loss shown by the complainants are false. The allegation regarding quantity of yield said to have been assured by the representative of the Respondent Company and that the complainants have suffered loss of crops due to defective seeds supplied by Respondents. It is further denied that the complainants have incurred Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre excluding cost of seeds as expenses per acre and they suffered loss of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre due to defective seeds are all false. The claim of the complainants are very excessive and exorbitant. This Respondent being retail seller of Respondent NO-3 product and has sold Hybride Paddy Seeds produced and marketed by Respondent NO-3 so there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent and he has sought for dismissal of the complaint against him. 3. Respondent NO-2 & 3 in their common written version have contended that the complainants have not provided any evidence to prove that they had sown the same seeds alleged to have been supplied by Respondent NO- 2 & 3 regarding alleged defective in the quality of the seeds the crops grown there from the alleged losses sustained by them. The complainants have not supported with any cogent evidence. Apart from letters written by the complainants they have not brought any objective or scientific evidence to substantiate their allegations. The claim for Rs. Five Lakh is arbitrary, without any basis with ulterior motive to derive unfair financial advantage/gain. The allegation regarding alleged lesser yield of paddy crop and incurring loss due to defective and poor quality seeds supplied are all false and baseless. The seeds released/supplied by Respondents confirm to the yield standards and information on the packaging and labels subject to the farmer following correct agronomic practices and subject to the availability of correct soil quality, climatic condition, correct time of sowing, correct planting rate, and other factors. It is submitted that no lease can be created after the enforcement of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974. Therefore there arises no question of leasing the lands by Suresh and A.Basavaraj in favour of complainant NO-1 as contended. According to the provision of Karnataka Land Reforms Act the land will automatically vasts with the Government. The lands shown by the complainants are not irrigated for paddy crops and the complainants are put to strict proof of their ownership and regarding nature of the land etc., No representative of Respondent NO-3 has advised the complainants in carrying out irrigations agricultural operations as contended by them. The allegation that the complained before the Respondent NO-1 and Gangaraju over phone and both have dodged the matter as one or the other pretext etc., are all false. The contention regarding visit of the Assistant Director of Agricultural are not within the knowledge of these Respondents and that the representative of Respondents Gangaraju offered orally an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of same seeds etc., are all false and baseless. Nobody including the said Gangaraju have made any offer to the complainants. The complainants Agricultural Department after a detailed survey has made no adverse finding in-respect of quality of seeds which was found that deficiency was due to environmental factors. The lands of the complainants are not localizes for growing paddy seeds. The seeds produced by the Respondent meet all the standards laid-down in the seeds act. Performance of seeds is greatly influenced by other equally importance factors such as appropriate period of sowing, soil condition, vagaries of climatic conditions, soil moisture, regularity of irrigation, pests and diseases, application of fertilizers and nutrient availability in the soil. Grain yield from paddy crop is also dependant on pollination, fertilization, grain formation and development which are greatly influenced by atmospheric temperature during flowering and pollination. Variation of temperature from the normal condition also effects pollination and grain formation. There is no assured water supply to the alleged lands of the complainants. The Respondent company is over a 30 years old company and is a part of international company committed to work closely with the farmers and for the benefit of Indian Agriculture. The cause of action shown is imaginary. Hence for all these reasons Respondents 2 & 3 have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant No-1 Mallikarjun Gouda has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and submitted no further evidence. In-rebuttal Respondent NO- 1 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief. On behalf of Respondents 2 & 3 sworn affidavit of Respondent NO-2 has been filed by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant (17) documents were got marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. On behalf of Respondent No-1 one document at Ex.R-1 was got marked. On behalf of Respondent NO- 2 & 3 (4) documents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 were got marked. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainants prove supply of defective seeds by the Respondents and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of Respondents, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for. 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that complainants 1 to 3 had purchased about 26 packets of Pioneer 27PO4 paddy seeds of Respondent NO- 3 product on 02-12-06 from Respondent No-1 who is the dealer/retail seller and the Respondent No-2 the Regional Officer of Respondent No- 3 in Karnataka. However the complainants have produced cash bills of purchase of paddy seeds dt. 02-12-06 at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. 8. It is the case of the complainants that they had sown paddy seeds and planted in the first week of January-2007 and that in the last week of March 2007 at the stage of setting of seeds they noticed about improper setting of seeds. The same was complained before Respondent No-1 and to one Sri. Gangaraju representative of Respondents over phone, but both have dodged the matter under one or the other pretext of consulting Respondent No- 2 & 3 and no action was taken by them. Hence on 26-05-07 they represented before the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Deodurga by addressing to Chief Minister of Karnataka for proper action and copies to Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka Bangalore, MLA Deodurga, Deputy Commissioner Raichur, Tahasildar Deodurga and Joint Director of Agriculture Raichur etc., In response to the same, the Ministry of Agriculture, directed the Director of Agriculture Bangalore and copy of which has been sent to complainant NO-1. Thereafter the officials of Assistant Director, Agriculture Deodurga came to the complainants and taken signatures on blank formats without inspecting anything by telling that they would report to the higher authorities about the loss. However nobody has paid loss to the complainants. But Gangaraju the representative of Respondent orally offered an amount of Rs. 1,300/- per acre and a packet of same seeds which was denied by the complainants. The assurance of yield given by said Gangaraju, is about 32 quintals per acre. But actually the secured yield by them was about 10-12 quintals only. So in net around 20 quintals of loss of paddy crop per acre due to defective seeds supplied by the Respondents. The complainant No-1 who has filed his affidavit-evidence for self and on behalf of complainant No- 2 & 3 has reiterated the contents of complaint averments. The Respondents have denied all the allegation of the complainant and Respondent No-2 in his affidavit-evidence has reiterated the contents of the written version. 9. The complainants have produced in all (17) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are the cash bills of purchase of paddy seeds. Ex.P-4 is the Application/Representation dt. 26-05-07 of complainant. Ex.P-5 is the copy of Legal Notice issued to the Respondents. Ex.P-6 is the Reply Notice. Ex.P-7 is another Legal Notice dt. 18-09-07. Ex.P-8 is the Attested Copy of Final Report regarding visits to paddy hybride 27PO4 fields at Raichur, Gulbarga and Bellary District by the team consisting of Dr. B.T. Pujari Associate Director of Research RARS Raichur with (4) others, Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 are Water Permit Certificates issued by the V.A. Konachapalli. Ex.P-14 is the copy of letter dt. 31-05-07 of Ministry of Agriculture Department Bangalore sent t the complainant. Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 are the two pamphlet of Respondent No-2 depicting the expense and cultivation of paddy crop. Ex.P-17 is the Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper dt. 04-05-07 flashing the news regarding failure of paddy crops on the use of the paddy seeds of the Respondents. 10. The Respondents have produced (5) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. Ex.R-1 is the Original bill dt. 30-10-06 in-respect of supply of seeds issued by Respondent No- 2 & 3 to Respondent No-1. Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 are the Record of Rights of land Sy.No. 30/3, 30/1, 37/1, & 38 for the year 2007-08. 11. It is pertinent to note here that when the arguments of both sides were heard in part and the case posted for further arguments, on 30-09-08 on that day the LC for the complainants filed IA-No-2 U/s. 13(4) of CP Act for appointment of Forum Commissioner for inspecting the lands to ascertain whether the lands of the complainants are irrigated lands or not. After perusal of the objection filed by the Respondents and on hearing, this Forum rejected IA.No-2 and the case again set down for arguments on 05-11-08. Again after seeking some adjournments the LC for the complainants on 26-12-08 filed IA-3 for re-opening of the case of complainants and filed (8) documents along with two affidavit-evidence as PWs 2 & 3. The Respondents filed objection to IA-No-3 on 23-01-09. During the course of hearing on IA.N-3 on 06-02-09, both the counsel submitted that I.A.No-III be heard along with main case so the case again set down for arguments on 10-02-09. On 10-02-09 the L.C. for contesting Respondents 2 & 3 submitted that they have no objection for accepting the two affidavit-evidence filed as PWs- 2 & 3 along with IA.No-III but they objected for production and marking of (8) documents filed with IA.No-III. The L.C. for the complainants submitted that appropriate orders be passed along with main case regarding admissibility of (8) documents in evidence as sought for in I.A.No-III and if they are admissible they may be marked as documents for complainant and if not they be ignored and it is left to the discretion of the Forum. Thus I.A.No-III came to be allowed in part for accepting the filing of affidavit-evidence of PWs 2 & 3 and regarding the 2nd part of IA.No-III for production of (8) documents & for marking of the same kept opened for considered at the time of Order on the main case. 12. The (8) documents filed by the complainants through IA-III are:- (1) True copy of GESCOM Receipt bearing No. 29214 dt. 18-07-03. (2) True copy of water lifting permission certificate issued by Executive Engineer KBJNL, UKP Canal Division No-4, Deodurga dt. 16-07-03. (3) Duplicate water tax paid receipt dt. 27-02-07. (4) Duplicate water tax paid receipt. (5) True copy of water lifting permission issued by KBJNL, UKP Canal No-4 Deodurga dt. 19-05-03. (6) Loan scard issued by TGB Branch Koppar pertaining to complainant No-3. (7) True copy of power sanction certificate N. 5860-61 dt. 01-12-04 to the complainant No-3. (8) True copy of order passed by the District Consumer Forum Gulbarga in Sy.Nos. 106/07 to 116/07 & 152/07. 13. It is the case of the complainants that they had sown the hybride paddy seeds of the Respondent No-3 product in their lands and they had followed advise of said Gangaraju the Representative of Respondent No-3 in carrying- out irrigation, agricultural operation viz; in-fertilizing and application of pesticides and removal of weeds etc., by incurring expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per acre. As per the assurance of said Gangaraju the yield to be secured per acre was about 32 q uintals per acre but actually they secured yield of 10-12 quintals and suffered loss of about 20 quintals per acre. In their affidavit-evidence the complainants have reiterated the same. 14. The Respondents have contended that according to complainant No-1 he had taken land Sy.No. 30/1, 30/3, 38, & 37/1 totally measuring 16 acres 15 guntas on oral lease basis from one Suresh S/o. A. Linganna R/o. Deodurga and A.Basavaraj S/o. A. Chandrashekhar R/o. Deodurga for growing paddy crops. But no lease can be created after the enforcement of Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1974 and therefore there arises no question of leasing out the lands by Suresh or by A.Chandrashekhar in favour of complainant No-1 as contended. This Suresh S/o. Linganna who has filed his affidavit-evidence as PW-2 has stated that he is the owner and possessor of above said agricultural lands and he has let out these lands to the complainant No-1 Malikarjunagouda @ Mallappagouda for cultivation on oral lease and on cash basis per year for every crop and said lands are irrigated under UKP water through lift irrigation on permission by Executive Engineer UKP Division No-4 Deodurga. The said permission certificates have been given to complainant No-1. 15. In this case we have to see whether the paddy seeds of the products of Respondent NO-3 was sown by the complainants in their lands. Under such circumstances whether the lease is illegal and it is hit by Karnataka Lands Reforms Act etc., are beyond the scope of the matter in issue the affidavit-evidence of PW-2 discloses that the complainant No-1 had taken his land on oral lease for plantation of paddy crops and the complainant No-1 has stated that he had sown paddy seeds. Hence the allegation that the lease of the lands taken by the complainant No-1 is illegal etc., are beyond the purview and scope of this case. 16. Nextely it is contended by the Respondents 2 & 3 that the complainants 1 to 3 have not produced any piece of evidence to show that the lands are irrigated and they used to take the water under lift irrigation. Further the Water Permission Certificates at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 said to have been issued by the Village Accountant have no evidentiary value since Village Accountant is not competent to issue such certificates by surpassing the powers vested with Irrigation Department. More-over the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands to show that the lands are irrigated and that they are raising paddy crops. On the contrary the Record of Rights of their lands produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 do not whisper about the lands being irrigated and that paddy crops was raised during the year 2007-08. Admittedly the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of the lands. The Record of Rights for the year 2007-08 produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 in-respect of the land Sy.Nos. 38, 30/3, 30/1 shows the name of PW-2 A. Sureshbabu S/o. Linganna in column No-9 & 12(2) of Record of Rights. The mode of cultivation is shown as Personal. Ex.R-5 the Record of Rights in-respect of land Sy.No. 37/1, shows the name of A.Basavaraj S/o. A.Chandrashekhar in column No-9 & 12(2) for the year 2007-08. The mode of cultivation is shown as Personal. These Record of Rights do not show the type of lands as irrigated or even it does not show the types of crops raised in the lands. The column meant for source of irrigation is kept blank. The complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands and that the Record of Rights produced by the Respondents do not show the lands as irrigated and source of irrigation. So in the absence of the same the Water Permit Certificate issued by the Village Accountant at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 do not inspire confidence regarding the genuineness. Of course, if the source of irrigation was shown in the Record of Rights Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 then same weight could have been attached to these certificates. In the absence of the same the certificates at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-13 are of no relevancy. It would be more-so when the competency of the Authority of the Village Accountant in issuing such certificate is at stake. 17. As stated above through IA-III the complainants have produced Xerox copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate issued by Executive Engineer KBJNL (Krishi Bhagya Jala Nigama Ltd.) UKP Canal Division No-4 Deodurga dt. 16-07-03 in-respect of land Sy.No. 38, 30/1, 30/3 belonging to Sureshbabu and another certificate dt. 19-05-03 in-respect of land Sy.No. 34 belonging to Smt. Rajeshwari (complainant No-3) and the two duplicate water tax paid receipts dt. 27-02-07. As seen above the L.C. for the Respondents 2 & 3 has objected for marking of these documents as they are not certified copy or original documents but they are Xerox copy. The complainants have failed to produce the original or certified copy of the same or even they have not applied for summoning the original from the concerned office, in-order to over come the objection of the Respondents 2 & 3. No explanation is coming forth for non-production of originals or certified copy of the same. When the complainants have produced Xerox true copy then what prevented them from not producing the original or certified copy of the same and what prevented them from not applying for summoning the original from the concerned office who had issued such certificates, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the Respondents. At the cost of repetition when the complainants have not produced Record of Rights of their lands to show that their lands are irrigated and showing the source of irrigation and that when they have failed to produce either original or certified copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate said to have been issued by KBJNL Canal Division No-4 or even by summoning the said Authority for producing the original, so in the absence of the same, the Xerox copy of Water Lifting Permission Certificate said to have been issued by KBJNL UKP Canal Division No-4 Deodurga are of no avail to the complainants. Hence the documents filed through IA-III cannot be admitted in evidence. 18. Thus the complainants have failed to prove that they had sown and planted the hybride paddy seeds in their lands as alleged. Even Ex.P-8 the Final Report submitted by the Team headed by Dr. B.T. Pujari Associate Director of Research RARS Raichur does not show specifically their visit and inspection made by them to the lands of the complainants. It only shows that paddy hybride 27PO4 of Pioneer Hybride Seeds was grown widely across the districts of Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary during Rabi/Summer season. So it cannot be said that all the lands in Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary districts were sown paddy hybride seeds especially when in this case the complainants have failed to establish their lands are irrigated one to grow paddy crops. Even they have not produced Record of Rights to show their lands are irrigated by any source of irrigation and the paddy crops raised in the lands. In the absence of these material particulars the Report of the Team headed by dr. BT Pujari Associate Director Research RARS Raichur will not come to their aid that there was no improper setting of seeds. Even the complaint averments at Para-7 shows that the complainants are definite that the Team officials of director of Agriculture Department came to them and took their signature on blank formats without inspecting the land and they took their signatures by telling that they would report to the higher Authority about the loss. These averments in their complaint go to show that their lands were not at all visited by the team of RARS Raichur. Hence the report at Ex.P-8 is of no avail to the complainants. Therefore it follows that the complainants have failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO. 2:- 19. In view of our conclusion and finding on Point No-1, the complainants are not entitled to reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainants is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-03-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. On leave Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.