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.34,498/- towards loss sustained to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased 50 kgs of seeds named 'uma' for paddy cultivation from the Opposite party in July 2014 at the rate of Rs.38/- per kg. The total value for the seeds is Rs.1,900/- and the Opposite party issued receipt for the same. The Opposite party promised that the seed is high breed quality. The Complainant spend Rs.30,000/- as expenses for cultivation. The paddy cultivation was conducted in 1 ½ acres of land owned by the complainant in R.S 465/5, the complainant was getting 2500kg of yield from the field in earlier years. But the Complainant got only 365 kg of yield from 1 ½ acres of land by cultivating the seeds purchased from the Opposite Party. The Complainant got only Rs.5,402/- by selling this paddy. The Complainant may have received Rs.19 per kg from supplyco and if he received 2100 kg yield from the cultivation. The Opposite Party supplied only seeds having low quality yield and when complaint is raised, the Opposite Party gave a permit to the Complainant to supply seeds worth Rs.1,900/- to the next cultivation. The Agricultural Officer inspected the field and reported the actual facts. The Opposite party sold mixed seeds having low quality and the Complainant understood it while it was growing. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite party and Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite party admitted that the sale of 50 kg of Uma seed to the Complainant at the rate of Rs.38/- and the total sale price is Rs.1,900/-. The Opposite Party denied all other allegations in the 3rd para of complaint. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant approached the opposite party after 4 moths of purchase and Complaint that there is black colour seen on 'Kadir' and the 'Kadir' was grown in different times. There was no complaint of low quality of the seeds purchased by him. The Opposite Party who admitted to give seeds worth Rs.1,900/- to the Complainant during the next cultivation on mutual consent. If there is any change in quality, it will be revealed after 30 days of cultivation . There was no such complaint within 30 days. The Opposite party denied all other allegations in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Party. There is non-joinder of necessary parties in the case. The Complainant got the seeds from “K.A. Agro seeds” 31 Sinduvally, Nanjangod, Mysore District, Karnataka State” that firm is not impleded as party in the complaint. The Complainant is not a member of the Society.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of
Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complaint filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. The Ext.A1 is the paper news published in Malayala Manorama on 30.12.2014. The Ext.A2 is the inspection report of Agricultural officer, Krishi Bhavan, Mananthavady. Ext.A3 is the photograph of Paddy field with cultivated paddy about to Harvest. The Ext.A4 is the pass issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Ext.B1 is the original bill issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant at the time of purchase. When the Ext.A4 pass is issued to the Complainant, the Opposite Party collected the Ext.B1 bill from the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that the seed sold by the Opposite Party is of low quality and mixed one and it grown in different time and some become ready to harvest and some not. Because of this, the complaint got low yield from the production and sustained loss. But in Ext.A1 News report it is stated that when the paddy started “Kadir”, this Kadir becomes damaged and becomes “ Padir” in the whole area of cultivation. The photographs produced by the Complainant shows that the 'Kadir' is damaged due to unknown reason. On verification, it is found that the paddy grown is in same level and not in different level. The case of Complainant is different from paper news report and photos. As per Ext.A2 report, the Agricultural Officer reported that the cultivation is done in RS No.465/4 and the seed used for cultivation is mixed seed so that the paddy grown is in different manner. Some paddy is ready for harvest and some not. And in the report, the Agricultural Officer directed the Complainant to report before the Agricultural office regarding the yield he gets from the cultivation. The inspection is done on 23.12.2014. The reason for the damage of paddy is different in inspection report and paper news. In Ext.B1 bill, there are 5 condition are stated in it and 2nd condition is that if there is any complaint regarding seeds, that may be forwarded to the Secretary in writing along with the bill of seeds within 30 days from the purchase date. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party after 4 months of its cultivation and complaint about the black colour of 'Kadir' and difference in growing and becoming 'Kadir'. Regarding the issuance of Ext.A4 pass, the Opposite party explained that it is issued upon a settlement and it does not mean that the seed is of poor quality. The Opposite party raised non joinder of plea in the version. But the Complainant did not take any steps to impled the company who supplied the seeds to the Opposite party. The Opposite Party challenged the Ext.A2 report since it is prepared by inspecting the property without giving notice to the Opposite Party and in the absence of Opposite party. The Complainant did not give any explanation regarding the non giving of notice to the Opposite Party before inspection. The survey number of property where in paddy cultivated is different in the complaint and in the Ext.A2 report. There is clear doubt regarding the actual reason for damage to the cultivation and low yield from the cultivation. So by analysing the entire evidence, the forum found that the Complainant failed to prove this case.
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 14th day of September 2015.
Date of Filing:19.01.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Kuriakose. Complainant.
PW2. Vinod. P.J. Agricultural Officer, Mananthavady.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Renuka. Secretary, Wayanad District Fruits and Vegitable
Marketing Society Ltd., Sulthan Bathery.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Malayala Manorama News paper dt:30.12.2014.
A2. Report. dt:01.01.2015.
A3. Photo.
A4. Pass issued by the Opposite Party.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party.
B1. Bill. dt:17.07.2014.
