CC Filed on 13.01.2011
Disposed on 19.11.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 19th day of November 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 09/2011
Between:
Sri. Y. Sadananda, S/o. Yerrappa, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Yaramareddihalli Village, Chinthamani Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. R. Raghupathi Gowda) V/S 1. Sri. V. Jayaramareddy, Vijaya Agro Kendra, Chelur Road, Keerthinagar, Chinthamani Town – 563 125. (By Advocate Sri. S.R. Byra Reddy) 2. Namadhari Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Uragahalli, Bidadi Post, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore – 562 109. (By Advocate Sri. N. Balakrishna Raju & others) | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he has purchased Namadari F-1 Hybrid-N.S 295 watermelon seeds from the Opposite Party No.1 shop on 20.06.2010 and has sowed the seeds to the extent of 3 acres. After 15 days of sowing the growth of the plant was not improved. Hence consulted the Opposite Party No.1 and he was advised to use fertilizers to the crop. Hence he purchased the fertilizers from the Opposite Party No.1 shop and after putting the fertilizers the watermelon crop was burnt and damaged. He informed about it to the Agricultural Department Officer and he has given detailed report about it. It is alleged that the failure of the crop was due to defective seeds and there was no other reason for damaging the crop and getting crop with small size of watermelon. Hence he has sustained loss of Rs.1,68,738/-, hence this complaint is filed for awarding compensation accordingly.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 has filed objection and has admitted the purchasing the seeds by the complainant. He denies the allegation about purchasing fertilizers from him or giving any information to put the fertilizers, etc., It is stated that he has not sold any fertilizers to the complainant as alleged. As per the report of the Agricultural Scientists, the complainant has harvested the crop and has removed the entire crop and only small, rotten, rejected fruits were left in the field, that means to say he sold a good fruits. In that report it is stated that there is no variation in crop colour and stripes and it shows there is no variation in genetic purity of the seeds. In that report it is stated that the scorching effect on crop will occur when heavy dosage of fertilizers are used. Hence the loss if any is caused is due to wrong field management and not defective seeds, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 has filed the version and he has stated that the complainant might have used wrong chemical in un-recommended manner and the scorching effect is due to usage of uncleaned sprayer, which is used for weedicide and also due to usage of heavy dosage of pesticides. Hence there is error in field management and not due to any defective seeds.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: To what order?
5. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
6. POINT NO.1: In our opinion the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service for the following reasons: The averment made in the complaint goes to show that the seeds had germinated and the plants had grown for the first 15 days. The only allegation is that the growth of the plant was not proper and because of it, the complainant put some fertilizers and the crop was burnt and damaged. This shows that the damage, if any, that was caused to the crop was for two reasons i.e. due to using fertilizers and due to using excess fertilizers. Anyhow the defect was not due to the seeds, as the seeds had germinated and crop had grown for first 15 days. Hence if the crop is subsequently damaged for any other reason, such as using more than fertilizers, the Opposite Parties cannot be blamed for it. The report given by the Agricultural Department, which is produced by the complainant, shows that at the time of inspection the complainant has removed the entire crop and only few rotted watermelon were observed here and their in the field. This shows that the crop was actually been grown in the land, if has been harvested and removed and at the end the complainant got the land inspected by the Agricultural Department. Hence the allegation that he could not get any crop in the land is patently not acceptable. In the Agricultural Department report it is stated that, however, the size of the fruit appeared to be little lower (small) than potential fruit size of that fruit quality. In our opinion, this cannot be said to be due to defective seeds only. It may be due to improper supply of water, insufficient supply of fertilizers or due to any other diseases, the size of the fruit may be smaller than the normal size. Hence just because the size of the fruit was little smaller, it cannot be attributed to the quality of the seeds. In this report they have stated that “conclusion could not be drawn about genetic purity of the seeds”. Hence this report is not useful to the complainant to prove that the seeds were not of good quality. It is also observed in this report that there was scorching effect on the crop and the scorching effect may be due to over fertilizers, may be due to more fertilizer than required. Hence having any scorching effect or getting fruit of lower size itself cannot lead to inference that the seeds supplied were defective. Hence the complainant has failed to prove that the seeds supplied were defective and there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant does not plead anything against Opposite Party No.2. He dos not plead that he has purchased the seeds from Opposite Party No.2 or Opposite Party No.2 was the manufacturer of the seeds. He does not even plead what was the relationship of complainant with Opposite Party No.2 relating to this transaction. Hence the pleading against Opposite Party No.2 is defective. However Opposite Party No.2 also, in its version, does not say anything about his relationship with the complainant. He also pleads that due to wrong field management such things are possible. Hence taking into consideration, the contentions raised by both the parties and the material produced on record, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient material on record to prove that defective seeds are supplied by Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2. Hence the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service. Hence this point is held against the complainant.
7. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19th day of November 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
