Kerala

Idukki

CC/26/2021

Chandi john - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vazhithala co operative bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:K M Sanu

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :04/02/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 19^th day of December 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.26/2021

Between

Complainant                                     :  Chandy John,

                                                             Kavalil House, Kuninji P.O.,

                                                             Vazhithala, Thoduuzha.

                                                             (By Adv.K.M.Sanu)

                                                              And

Opposite Party                      :1 .  Vazhithala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No.908,             

                                                     Vazhithala P.O., Vazhithala,

                                                      Represented by its Secretary.

                                                     (By Adv.Peter V.Joseph & Adv.Anish K.John)

                                                2 . The Manager,

                                                     Vazhithala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No.908,

                                                      Kuninji Branch, Kuninji P.O.

                                                      (By Adv.Peter V.Joseph)

                                                 3 . The Managing Director,

                                                      FACT Ltd., Ambalamedu P.O.,

                                                       Kochi -682 303..

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant is a Senior Citizen and he depends on agriculture for earning his livelihood.  450 number Rubber Trees were cultivated with good care and he was getting income from it.  All these rubber trees were fertilized with good caring under the prescribed manner from Rubber Board.  Thus, it was fertilized for 21 times in a year.

 

(Cont.....2)

 

 

-2-

 

2 . Opposite party 1 and 2 have been running a fertilizer shop near the residing place of complainant, complainant has done many transactions with regard to purchasing of fertilizers for long times with these institution.  Also, these opposite parties are the dealers of 3^rd opposite party.

 

3. For fertilization in the months of May – June, complainant has purchased 125Kg of FACT 20:20 and 50Kg of MO Potash for Rs.3451/- on 11/05/2020 from 2^nd opposite party.  Commonly, the mixture of both of these fertilizers were put 175gm each for each tree.  Thus, it has done twice in a year.  Rubber Board recommends 125gm fertilizer for each rubber tree.  But, if     50 gm extra adds, more income would be getting from it.

 

Despite fertilization in this manner, complainant  got 5 sheet less in the time of season.  Eventhough there was sufficient fertilization with good care and climate factors, yield was very less than in common times.  So, complainant was in a doubt and he has inspected these fertilized soil.  Then he has seen these fertilizers which was fixed in the month of May as insoluble in soil.  Then, first opposite party has visited such place and it was convinced.  Thereafter, complainant made a written complaint to first opposite party with regard to this matter.   Accordingly, first  and second opposite parties informed on 10/10/2020 to complainant that they have intimated to third opposite party and he is to  take action in this matter.

 

But, even after months, opposite parties didn’t take any action about these matter.  This is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of them.  The yield from this rubber cultivation is the main source of income to complainant.  Due to inferior quality of fertilizer supplied by opposite parties, complainant has suffered loss and he got less income from this agriculture.  Therefore, opposite parties are liable.  Hence he has prayed the following reliefs.

 

1. Opposite parties may be directed to pay complainant’s loss  4 Lakh Rupees.

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

 

2. Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

 

3. Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Upon notice, all opposite parties are appeared before the Commission and they have filed detailed written  version.  First and second opposite parties contentions are discussed hereunder.

 

1 . Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  First opposite party is one of the dealers of the third opposite party who is engaged in the production and marketing of fertilizers.  It is true that complainant purchased 125kg of Factamfos 20:20 and 50kg of Potash for Rs.3451/- vide sale bill No.1509/19 on 11/05/2020  from the fertilizer depot of the second opposite party at Kuninji.

 

2  .The allegation that complainant applied mixture of Factamfos and Potash as prescribed by the Rubber Board, which resulted in reduction in yield from his rubber trees is false and hence denied.  The yield from rubber trees  depends on various other factors such as weather, nature of soil, tapping systems, number of tapping days etc.  It cannot be attributed to the use of fertilizer alone as alleged.  On 23/09/2020, second opposite party received a complaint on the allegation that the factamfos he used in the month of June-July 2020 is still there undissolved.  But there is no mention in the complaint regarding any reduction in the yield after the use of the fertilizer as alleged in the complaint.  The first opposite party forwarded the complaint along with the sample produced by the complainant to the sales officer of the third opposite party for redressal of the complaint.  It was duly communicated to the complainant.

 

3 . The first opposite party purchased 4 MT Factamfos from Thodupuzha depot of the third opposite party on 22/04/2020 vide invoice No.KL0031100464.  As per depot records, this consignment is given batch number ie, A4 batch for identification.  Out of the 4 metric tons of Factamfos,

(Cont.....4)

-4-

 

complainant purchased 125kg on 11/05/2020.  So far, this opposite party has not received any complaint from any of the farmers who purchased the remaining quantity factamfos from the A4 batch.  On the basis of the application submitted by the complainant, the agricultural  officer conducted field inspection on 24/02/2021.  A white hard substance was found in the basins of rubber plants in the complainant’s rubber plantation.  The agricultural officer also inspected the plantation of three other farmers who had purchased factamfos from the A4 batch supplied by this opposite party.  But no such white hard substance could be found as seen in the field of the complainant.  The white substance /particles alleged to have been found in the complainant’s property is not part or remainants of the fertilizer supplied by this opposite party.  Absolutely, there is no possibility to appear such hard white substance only in the fertilizer purchased by the complainant.  The allegation that the fertilizer supplied by the opposite parties was inferior quality is false and hence denied.

 

4 . Complainant has not suffered any loss by the use of the fertilizer as alleged.  He is not entitled to realize any amount from these opposite parties by way of loss/compensation.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of these opposite parties. These opposite parties are entitled to get compensatory costs from the complainant for filing this frivolous complaint based on baseless allegations.   The above complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs of these opposite parties.

 

Third opposite party’s averments are as follows.

 

1 .  It is submitted that the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (hereinafter referred to as FACT) is a Central Government Company having its registered Office at Eloor, Udyogamandal.  FACT Fertilizers are also available through the retail network of the Co-Operative Marketing Societies of the southern states. 

 

(Cont.....5)

 

 

-5-

2 .  At the outset, it is submitted that the present  complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of process of this Hon’ble Commission.  That a meaningful perusal of the complaint shows that it is manifestly meritless, and there is no proper cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in –limine.

 

3 .  First opposite party purchased 4 MT Factamfos (CD) vide invoice No.9112011392 dated 22/04/2020 from Thodupuzha ASC.

 

4 . It is submitted that this opposite party is a Central Public Sector  Undertaking having all the quality checking facilities, which are recognized by the authorities concerned.  It is submitted that this opposite party  is manufacturing  fertilizers as per the norms prescribed under the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) and also carrying out the due quality check during manufacturing process and before despatch of the fertilizers.  It is submitted that the Factamfos (Factamfos 20:20:013), supplied to the first opposite party is good in quality and produced as per the specification/norms of FCO and is totally water soluble product.  As on date no complaint is  received from any other farmers who had purchased from the said 4 MT factamfos supplied by this opposite party to the first opposite party.

 

5 . It is submitted that yield from the plant is depended on various factors like sunlight, adequate temperature, proper irrigation, nature of soil, adequate organic and inorganic nutrients, timely attending of pests and diseases, tapping  systems, techniques and plantation management etc., and as such the complaint cannot attribute the reduction in yield only to the Factamfos supplied by this opposite party.  It is submitted that this opposite party examined fertilizer sample received from the complainant and forwarded to us by the first opposite party which were alleged to have applied in his rubber plantation.  On perusal of the sample, it is observed that the said sample looks like small insoluble rocks and that have no way characteristic of Factamfos supplied by this opposite party and consequently, this opposite party requested the first opposite party to provide complete details of the sample as proper source cannot be ascertained.  It is submitted that the sample forwarded to us was not the sample of Factamfos supplied by this opposite

(Cont.....6)

 

 

-6-

party and hence this opposite party cannot take the ownership of that sample.  Further, there is no complaint from any other farmers who had purchased from the said 4 MT Factamfos supplied by this opposite party to the first opposite party.

 

6 . It is submitted that this opposite party is manufacturing the Factamfos as per the norms/specifications prescribed under the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) and also ensuring the quality of the product before despatch.  As such the allegation of the complainant that the Factamfos manufactured by this opposite party is substandard and is the reason for reduction of his yield is not correct and without any substantiating proof.  It is further submitted that  Factamfos supplied by this opposite party  to the second opposite party is good in quality and is totally water soluble product.  FACT, being a Government of India enterprise, has a commitment to serve the farming community with good  quality of fertilizers from couple of decades.  We are the lead fertilizer manufacturer and supplier in Kerala State and substantial percentage of our publicity budget is being utilized for farmer education programmes, jointly with the Department of Agricultural Development & Farmers Welfare, Kerala.

 

7 . It is submitted that there is neither inherent defect in the factamfos nor any deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  Further this opposite parties are not adopted any unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the claims made in the complaint are untenable and unjustifiable.  Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected.

 

8 . Opposite parties are not liable to pay any loss or compensation to the complainant as sought for.  The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for.  The complainant is to be directed to pay the cost of these opposite parties.

 

Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1.  Documents were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 and Commission Report C1,

(Cont.....7)

 

 

-7-

 

MO1 were also marked.  Counsel for opposite parties were absent.  No evidence adduced on the part of opposite parties.  Counsel for complainant was heard.  Therefore it was taken for orders.  Now the points which arise for consideration are:-

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs entitled to complainant?

 

Points are considered together.

 

We have heard the counsel for complainant.  Opposite parties were absent and not represented.  We have gone through the complaint.  Also, we have perused the proof affidavit, marked documents and expert commission report.  It is seen that complainant has purchased the fertilizers such as FACT 20:20 and MO POTASH for Rs.3,451.00 from Vazhithala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No.908 on 11/05/2020.  Complainant alleges that these fertilizers were not dissolved in soil which were planted rubber trees.  We find that complainant has made a written complaint along with the sample of these fertilizer to first opposite party on 23/09/2020.  According to complainant,  mixture of these fertilizers fixed in the soil in months of June –July 2020 were insoluble till the month of September 2020 and therefore, rubber plantation gave less yield in this season.  Second opposite party had replied to complainant and this was marked as Ext.P3.  As per Ext.P3, it was informed that third opposite party is liable to solve the alleged matter.  According to first and second opposite parties, they are only the dealers of third opposite party.  Third opposite party has submitted that Factamfos supplied to first opposite party is good in quality and produced as per the specification or norms of FCO and is totally water soluble product.  Moreover, second opposite party submitted that they have received the sample  sending  from  first  and  second,  but  this  was  not  the  sample of

(Cont.....8)

 

 

-8-

 

factamfos supplied by them.  From that, it is understood that first and second opposite parties have intimated about the complaint and sent the sample received from complainant to third opposite party.

 

However we find that opposite parties were not solving the alleged problems.   Inspection report was marked as C1.  It is reported that a white hard substance was found in the basins of 15 rubber plants which were randomly selected and examined.  A sample pack is enclosed with this report.  The chemical nature of the substance cannot be ascertained by visual examination.  Hence we cannot ascertain that whether it is a residue or adulterant or insoluble factamfos.  Moreover, Expert Commissioner has reported that some of the farmers who had purchased factamfos from the same batch has been traced and inspected by him, but  no residues of fertilizer or white hard substance was found.  Also reports that these farmers reported that they didn’t notice any residue of the fertilizer or white hard substance after fertilization application and they don’t have any complaints regarding the same batch factamfos they have purchased from Kuninji Depot.  The Expert Commissioner also reported that it cannot conclusively say that white hard substance found at the plant basins is a residue or adulterant or insoluble factafos and chemical nature of this substance need to be ascertained.  On the basis of this report, complainant didn’t take any steps for further examination to ascertain whether the white hard substance found is a residue or adulterant or insoluble factamfos.  It is not proved that reason of less yield from the enbbee plantation.  Also, there is no other complaint by anyone who had purchased these fertilizers supplied by opposite parties.  Complainant has not adduced evidence to prove this allegation by any other witness.  The alleged white hard substance was not subjected to any mode of lab test.  It had to be ascertained that it is adultarent of such fertilizer by any analysis test.  Therefore, we cannot consider that fertilizers which were supplied by opposite parties are adulterant or inferior in quality.  No  evidence adduced by complainant to prove that how much yield was less from the rubber plantation  and  the  reason  of  this  less yield was due to the

(Cont.....9)

 

 

-9-

 

use of inferior quality/adulterant fertilizer supplied by these opposite parties.  It is not proved that complainant has suffered huge loss after the use of fertilizers supplied by opposite parties.  Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties are not proved.  Complainant has to be proved that these fertilizers which were supplied by opposite parties are adulterant or inferior in quality.  No such evidence was tendered by complainant.  We are of view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs.

 

Extra copies to be taken back by parties without delay.

 

 Pronounced by this Commission on this the 19^th  day of December, 2022.

 

                                                                                        Sd/-  

                                                                               SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER   

                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                                                   

                                                                        SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                  Sd/-                                                                                                 

                                                                              SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....10)

-10-                                                                                                                                                                     

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1- Chandy John

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1- Sales invoice from GST invoice dated 11/05/2020

Ext.P2 -  The insoluble Factamfos

Ext.P3 – Letter from Vazhithala Service Co-Operative Bank to complainant dated 09/10/2020

Ext.C1 – Inspection Report

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil         

 

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR