COMMON JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> These two complaints are filed U/s. 12(c) of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainants (in both cases) against three common Respondents for un-fair trade practice. Since the nature and claim in both the complaints being common and the Respondents are common in both cases and in-view of memo filed by the parties for clubbing the two cases so these two complaints/cases are clubbed for common judgment. <br /> 2. The facts leading rise to the complaints in both cases may be summoned up as under:<br /> All the (11) complainants in the first case DCFR No. 32/06 and (4) complainants in the second case DCFR NO. 33/06 are agriculturists by profession and are resident of Virupapur village Tq. Sindhanur holding the lands within their village limits and surrounding places. The Respondent No.1 in both cases is Proprietor of Basaveshwar Beeja Bhandar, Sindhanoor and proprietor Basava Beeja Kendra, Sindhanoor, respectively Respondent No-2 in both cases is Proprietor of Basaveshwara Agro Center, Raichur. and Respondent NO-3 is M/s. Ganga Kavery Hybride Seeds Private Ltd., Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). RespondentNo-1 is Retail Seller, Respondent NO-2 is Distributor and Respondent NO-3 is Producer of Hybride seeds of various kinds. The complainants being agriculturists contacted the Respondent NO-1 at Sindhanoor in the last week of September 2003 for providing good quality of Hybride Jawar Seeds for Rabi season. In the same manner other farmers of the village have also contacted for the same seeds who are not the complainants in these cases. The Respondent NO-1 advised for G.K. 4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds of Respondent NO-3 Company who were available in his shop. Accordingly all the complainants and other farmers of Virupapur village purchased the said Jawar Seeds as per their need by under cash Receipts and sown the said seeds carried-out other works as per the advise and recommendations of Respondent NO-1. The period of sowing was Rabi season. After flowering stage in the month of Janyary-2004 they witnessed about improper setting of seeds in their lands, then few of them approached Respondent NO-1 and orally complained the said problem. But the Respondent NO-1 remained deaf ear and failed to take any action in that regard. Subsequently few of them complained through application dt. 16-01-04 & 17-01-04 to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sindhanoor and to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Ministry of Agriculture, Bangalore, Joint Director of Agricultural Department of Gulbarga, Director of Agriculture Department, Member of Legislative of Assembly, Sindhanoor and Tahasildhar, Sindhanoor. for proper action. But the Respondents did not take any action. However one B.V. Shimikeri representatives for Respondent No-3 replied to the Assistant Director of Agricultural Department, Sindhanoor by narrating as per his letter dt. 16-01-04. In response to letters and complaints of the complainants and other farmers, the Government Investigation Teams were appointed by University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad through Regional Agricultural Research Station, Bijapur consisting of (5) other members as per instruction report dt. 17-02-04 headed by (3) Scientists namely (1) Dr. Biradar Senior Scientist (Sorghum) (2) Dr. R.A. Balikai Antamologist (Sorghum) and (3) Dr. S.Jagirdhar Junior Pathologist (Sorghum) to inspect the fields of Farmers/Complainants and to submit their report. After thorough investigation the Team submitted its report before the Joint Director of Agriculture, Raichur on 21-04-04. This report clearly speaks about the negligence and deficiency in service by the Respondents who have produced and sold the said seeds for Rabi season knowingly that as per their test the said seeds specifically meant for Khariff and summer season only. Otherwise such seeds would not have been released to market and made available for sale in such season to farmers/complainants.<br /> <br /> Respondent NO-3 being producer would have taken precautionary measures for not releasing, and made available in the market for selling to the public in the Rabi season without conducting proper test for the said period over the said kind of seeds. So the non-compliance and following of such practice by the Respondents is a lapse, negligence, un-fair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The Respondents ought to have taken the precautionary measures for avoiding such catastrophe and failure for which they are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant/farmers.<br /> <br /> The complainants have suffered loss of yield to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per acre due to non-setting of seeds properly. If the genuine seeds were supplied by the Respondents for proper season the same G.K. 4002 seeds would have been given yield from 20 to 25 quintals per acre. But due to supply of G.K. 4002 seeds for Rabi season by Respondents the complainants and other farmers have been able to get only 2-3 quintals per acre. The market price of Jawar Seeds per quintals was about of Rs. 400/- per quntl. So by considering the loss of yield per acre and to the average yield as per the assurance of the Respondents for the said seeds the complainants have suffered loss of yield to the tune of 15 quintals per acre. The complainants have spent nearly about Rs. 4,500/- per acre towards expenses for growing said crop. This loss is purely due to unfair trade practice of Respondents. If these G.K. 4002 Jawar Seeds meant for Khariff and summer season were not made for sale to the complainants during Rabi season the question of purchase or incurring loss by them would not have arisen. So all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by them.<br /> <br /> In Para-8 the complainants (in both cases) have furnished loss sustained by each of them as under:<br /> In DCFR.No. 32/06<br /> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Sl.No. Name of Farmers Qty. in Pkts Receipt No. Cost of Seeds Total Loss<br /> & Date in Rupees. Rs. Ps.<br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> 1. Chandrappa S/o. Sharanappa 20 802/29-9-03 4,400=00 2,00.000=00<br /> Beragi<br /> 2. Veerabasappa S/o. Ayyanagouda. 03 803/29-9-03 600=00 30,000=00<br /> 3. Hanumareddeppa S/o. Basanna. 05 804/29-9-03 1,100=00 50,000=00<br /> 4. Amaragundappa S/o. Shiva- 02 805/29-9-03 440=00 20,000=00<br /> basappa Huded<br /> 5. Veerabhadragouda S/o. 06 806/29-9-03 1,320=00 60,000=00<br /> Veerabasanagouda<br /> 6. Ramalingappa S/o Ayyanagouda. 05 807/29-9-03 1,100=00 50,000=00<br /> 7. Marigouda S/o. Basanagouda. 02 808/29-9-03 440=00 20,000=00<br /> 8. Veeresh s/o. Gouranna Hadapad 01 809/29-9-03 220=00 10,000=00<br /> 9. Veerabasanagouda S/o. 03 810/29-9-03 660=00 30,000=00<br /> Ayyanagouda Malipatil<br /> 10. Basanagouda S/o. Goudappa 03 811/30-9-03 660=00 30,000=00<br /> 11. Siddanna S/o. Pampanna. 40 NIL/29-9-03 8,800=00 4,00,000=00<br /> -------------------------<br /> Total: Rs. 9,00,000=00<br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> <br /> In DCFR.No. 33/06<br /> <br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Name of the farmers Qty. in Pkts Receipt No. Cost of Total Loss<br /> & Date seeds in Rupee<br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Shivabasappa S/o. 3 798/30-9-03 660=00 30,000=00 <br /> Amaragundappa Huded<br /> Sharanegouda S/o. 3 521/29-9-03 660=00 30,000=00<br /> Siddalingappa<br /> Amareshappa S/o. Pampanna 3 786/30-9-03 600=00 30,000=00<br /> Basappa S/o. Veerabasappa 2 520/29-9-03 440=00 20,000=00<br /> ------------------<br /> Total Rs. 1,10,000=00<br /> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /> Hence for all these reasons the complainants in the first case DCFR.No- 32/06 have sought for payment of total loss at Rs. 9,00,000/-and complainants in DCFR.No- 33/06 have sought for total loss of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the Respondents and for awarding Rs. One Lakh as compensation with 12% interest there-on for mental harassment suffered by them and for awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceedings (each in both cases). And for imposing heavy penalty on the Respondents and for directions restraining them from such un-fair trade practice in-future.<br /> <br /> 3. Along with these two complaints the complainants had also filed I.A.No-1 U/s. 12(c) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to file the complaint & to represent the case by the complainant No-1 Siddanna in DCFR.No. 32/06 for and on behalf of other (10) complainants in the said case and similar application seeking permission to file the complaint & represent by the complainant No-1 Shivabasappa for and on behalf of other (3) complainants in DCFR.No. 33/06. At the time of hearing of two complaints for admission of complainants the I.As.No-1 U/s 12(c) filed in both cases were heard and allowed accordingly.<br /> <br /> 4. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and have filed common written version as under:<br /> The seeds complained by the complainants do not suffer from any defects and which is also not the allegation of complainants. In-fact the expert committees have opined that the crops expression (of the seeds sown) was good. It is denied that the Respondents had advised for sowing of seeds G.K. 4002 Jawar variety for the Rabi season. The seeds were sold after explaining about their characteristic along with printed package of practices (literature in Kannada) understood by the complainants. It is clear from the literature that the seeds were made for Kharif/summer season only. The allegation of the complainants in para-3 are contradictatory as if at all they had followed the advise of Respondents and followed the package of practices they would not have gone for sowing the seeds for Rabi season.<br /> <br /> It is denied that the Respondents have not cared for the complaints of the complainants and were all deaf ears. In-fact it was brought to the notice of Respondent NO-3 who further referred the matter to the Higher Authorities in Agriculture Department. It is denied that the report speaks of any negligence & deficiency in service of Respondents. It is further denied that the Respondents have sold the seeds for sowing during the Rabi season as the seeds were sold being Hybrid variety along with literature pertaining to it. Having advised about the characteristics of Hybrid variety the use of seeds entirely depends upon the farmers who purchased the seeds. It is very natural that seeds will be stocked & purchased by the sellers and by the farmers respectively ahead the season with the fear of non-availability of seeds at nick-of time. The particular Hybrid of variety seeds G.K. 4002 was tested and released to the market along with its package of practices for following the guidelines stated therein and also the particular seasons when the seeds are to be sown. That being so there is no negligence, lapse, unfair-trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of Respondents. Once the seeds sold the use of the seeds will be entirely in the hands and discretion of the farmers and violation of guidelines stated in the package of practices does not lie with in the control of Respondents. Therefore the Respondents cannot be held liable for negligence of the complainants.<br /> <br /> The complainants who had purchased the seeds of the variety had sown in paddy fields which were irrigated under T.B.P. with an intention to raise Second crop as the water for irrigation purpose was not provided for summer crops. Being paddy fields and cold season the crops suffered cold stress during flowering stage which is confirmed by the Expert Report. The report of Experts did not state any other reason about the defectiveness of seeds in the seeds formation. The findings of Experts clearly speaks the seeds were not defective and non-setting of seeds was not due to any defective in the seeds. The particulars of loss sustained by each complainants are subject to proof and the total loss as shown is wrongfully claimed to gain illegally. There is no cause of action as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 5. When the case was at the stage of enquiry, the Respondents filed I.A.No-2 in both cases regarding maintainability of the complaint and sought for hearing the same as preliminary point. After hearing both sides this I.A.No-2 in both cases were dismissed vide order dt. 24-07-06. Thereafter during the course of enquiry the complainant No-1. (Siddanna) in DCFR.No-32/06 filed his sworn-affidavit for and on behalf of other complainants by-way of examination-in-chief and got marked in all (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-12. Similarly the complainant No-1 (Shivabasappa) in DCFR.No. 33/06 filed his sworn-affidavit for and on behalf of other complainants by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-9. In-rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-3 as examination-in-chief for and on behalf of Respondents in both cases and got marked (55) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-55 in the DCFR.No-32/06 and (35) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-35 in DCFR.No- 33/06.<br /> <br /> It is significant to note here that when this case was at the stage of rebuttal-evidence by Respondents, it was submitted by both counsel regarding chance of settlement of the two cases. Even after granting a few adjournments they submitted no chance of settlement and the case proceeded further. This is also one of the reason for the delay in disposal of the case besides preferring of Revision Petition against order on Interim Application. <br /> 6. Heard the arguments of both sides in addition to written arguments filed by both parties in both cases and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:-<br /> 1.Whether the complainants in both cases have proved un-fair trade practice by the Respondents, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2.Whether the complainants in both cases are entitled for the reliefs sought for?<br /> <br /> 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 :-( in both cases)<br /> 8. There is no dispute regarding purchase of G.K. 4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds by the complainants in both cases. So also Investigation/Inspection Report submitted by the Investigation Team of Scientists appointed by University of Agricultural Science Dharwad through Regional Agricultural Research Station, Bijapur after thorough inspection/investigation of the fields of the complainants and other farmers. The complainants in both cases have filed Investigation/ Inspection Report of Scientists Team which is marked as Ex.P-6 & P-5 respectively in both cases and Respondents have also filed the same which is marked as Ex.R-2.<br /> <br /> 9. It is the case of the complainants in both cases that when they along-with other farmers of their village contacted Respondent No-1 in the last week of September-2003 for providing good quality of Hybride Seeds for Rabi season, Respondent No-1 advised for G.K-4002 Hybride Seeds of Respondent NO-3 Company which was available in his shop. Accordingly they purchased the said Jawar Seeds as per their need under Cash Receipts and sown the seeds in the Rabi season as per the advise & recommendations of Respondent NO-1 and that after flowering stage in the month of January-2004 they noticed about improper setting of seeds and then they orally complained the same to Respondent NO-1 and subsequently they complained the same through the application dt. 16-01-04 & 17-01-04 to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sindhanoor, Joint Director of Agricultural Department of Gulbarga, Deputy Director of Agricultural Department and to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, and Ministry of Agriculture, Bangalore etc., and that in the mean-time one Sri. B.V. Shimikeri representatives for Respondent No-3 replied to the Assistant Director of Agricultural, Sindhanoor as per his letter dt. 16-01-04 and thereafter the Investigation Team appointed by University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad who after inspection of fields submitted its report. <br /> <br /> 10. The Respondents in both cases have denied that they had advised for sowing the seeds of G.K.4002 Jawar Seeds for Rabi season. The seeds were sold after explaining about their characteristics along-with printed package of practices (literature in Kannada) understood by the complainants which is clear from literature that seeds were made for Khariff and summer season only. The Respondents have produced pamphlets issued by Ganga-Kavery seeds in Kannada Language at Ex.R-1. From a perusal of this pamphlets at Ex.R-1 we find that on the back side of it there is mention of the characteristic of Hybride Seeds like G.K. 52, G.K. 4010 and G.K. 4002. This Pamphlet also shows the mode of cultivation of these Hybride Seeds “ºÉÊ©æqï eÉÆüÀzÀ ¨ÉøÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀÝwUÀ¼ÀĔ and among-other things it shows for sowing of these seeds as “ªÀÄÄAUÁjAiÀÄ ºÀAUÁ«Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉùUÉAiÀÄ°è”. <br /> <br /> 11. Now let us consider the Investigation Report at Ex.P-6/P-5/R-2 as referred to above which is material for our purpose. This Report a perusal of which shows that a Team of Scientists from All India Co-ordinated (Sorghum) Improvement Project, RARS Bijapur visited the affected sorghum fields in the villages of Sindhanur Tq. from 23rd to 25th January 2004 along with Assistant Director of Agriculture Sindhanur; Distributor-Annadatta Seeds, Sindhanoor and Representatives from G.K. seeds, Paras and Kaveri seeds. The Team of Scientists consists of (1) Dr. B.D. Biradar Senior Scientists (Sorghum) (2) Dr. R.A. Balikai Entomologist (Sorghum) and (3) Dr. S.Jagirdar, Junior Pathologist (Sorghum) and consisting of (5) other members namely: (1) H.Narasimhmurthy Assistant Director of Agriculture Sindhanoor, (2) Sri. Basavanagouda Distributor-Annadatta Seeds (3) Sri. Basalingappa Simkeri Representative G.K. Seeds (4) Sri. Sangamesh Representative Paras Seeds (5) Sri. Mahantesh Representative Kaveri Seeds. Observations made by the Team in different fields of farmers at the time of their visit are stated in the Table at Sl.No-1 to 12 of the Report.<br /> On the last page of this Report we find the conclusion after critical analysis of the observations made by the Team regarding G.K. 4002 vide para-2 which reads as under:<br /> 1)……………………………………………………………………<br /> <br /> 2) “ In the fields where GK-4002, Paras & Kaveri hybrids were sown the crop expression was good and uniform but variation in seed setting was observed (Details are given in Table 1 ). The seed setting problem may due to susceptibility of hybrids to low temperature during flowering (However, temperature data was not provided to the team for verification). After the review, it was reveled that these hybrids have been tested in AICSIP trials during previous years but for kharif season only. Further, the pamphlet published by GK seeds indicated that GK 4002 is recommended for kharif and summer only. It is evident that most of the kharif hybrids are susceptible to low temperature stress during flowering.<br /> <br /> Based on these observations the team strongly felt that the hybrids intended to be sold to the farmers during Rabi should be evaluated for Rabi season over years and location for their yield performance, insect pest and disease reactions and reaction to environment factors either by State Agricultural Universities/ICAR institutions. The private companies should take note these lapses in-future, to avoid such catastrophe”. <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> Dr. B.D. Biradar Dr. R.A. Balikai Dr. S.Jahagirdar<br /> Senior Breeder (Sorghum) Entomologist (Sorghum) Jr.Pathologist (Sorghum)<br /> 12. From a plain reading of this Report it amply shows that the GK-4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds which was recommended for sowing in Khariff season has been sold and sown in the Rabi season and for which the Inspection Team has observed that the private companies should take note of these lapses in-future to avoid such catastrophe. The Respondents as sated above have not disputed sale of G.K.4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds to the complainants in September-2003.However they have denied that they had advised and recommended for sowing G.K.4002 in Rabi season. According to them the seeds were sold after explaining about their characteristic along- with Kannada printed pamphlet of instructions like Ex.R-1 for sowing in Khariff season only. But the Respondents have not produced any documentary evidence to show that such Kannada pamphlets were given to the complainants along-with the sold Hybride Jawar Seeds. Even the Cash Receipts at Ex.P-12 (2) & Ex.P-12 (3) produced by the complainants do not disclose distribution of such Kannada pamphlets of instructions along with the sold seeds. When according to the Respondents they had given instruction for sowing in Kharif season along with the Kannada pamphlets of instructions like Ex.R.1 to the complainants while giving the sold seeds, then the non-mention of this fact in the cash receipts assumes much importance, especially when the instructions for ‘strict’ using of the Hybride Seeds for Khariff season only has been made, then a duty caste on the producer & Seller of such seeds to follow the instructions for distribution of pamphlets to the intended purchasers while selling such seeds. The Respondents have also not disputed the sale of G.K.4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds to the complainants in the month of September-2003. This clearly shows that they have sold such seeds after Khariff season. Of-course the Respondents in Para-6 of their written version have stated that it is very natural that seeds will be stocked by sellers and purchaser/farmers respectively ahead of the season with the fear of non-availability of seeds at nick of time. But this explanation does not hold any water especially when there is clear specific condition for the use of the seeds in a particular season viz., Khariff and summer season only. When this is so at any cost selling of such stocked seeds beyond Khariff season i.e, in the month of September amounts to un-fair trade practice. Had the Respondents not released the seeds to the market and sold to the farmers then such occasion would not have arisen even for explaining for strict use in Khariff and summer season only. So even assuming that they had given instruction for use in the Khariff season, it will not come to the rescue especially when G.K. 4002 Hybride Jawar Seeds meant for sowing in the Khariff & summer season only, have been sold in September i.e, Rabi season. So here the seller Respondent NO-1, Dealer Respondent No-2 and Producer of seeds Respondent NO-3 have clearly committed un-fair trade practice and thereby we hold that the complainants in both cases have proved Point NO-1, so it is answered in the affirmative in both cases.<br /> POINT No-2:- (in both cases)<br /> <br /> 13. The complainants in both cases have sought for awarding Rs. 9,00,000/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- respectively towards loss sustained by them as detailed in para-8 of their complaint. They have also sought for awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation with 12% interest thereon for mental harassment suffered by them along with Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceedings. The complainants have also sought for imposing heavy penalty on the Respondents and restraining them from doing such un-fair trade practice in-future.<br /> <br /> 14. In para-7 of the complaint in both cases the complainants have stated that they had suffered loss of yield to the extent of Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000/- per acre due to non-setting of seeds in properly. If the genuine seeds were supplied by the Respondents for proper season the same would have been given yield to the extent of 20 to 25 quintals per acre. But due to supply of G.K. 4002 seeds in Rabi season by the Respondents they have been able to get only 2 – 3 quintals per acre. The market price of one quintal of said Jawar was about Rs/- 400 per quintal. So in net by considering loss of yield per acre and to the average yield as per the assurance of the Respondents the complainants have suffered loss of yield to the tune of around 15 quintals per acre. Further they had spent nearly about Rs. 4,500/- per acre for growing said crop. This loss is purely due to un-fair trade practice by the Respondents if the seeds were made for sale to the complainants during such odd season which was meant for Khariff and summer season only then the question of purchase or incurring loss by the complainants would not have arisen. So the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained.<br /> <br /> 15. The complainants in both cases have also furnished details of loss sustained by them as detailed in para-8 of their respective complaints. In this statement they have shown the cost of seeds purchased by them and the amount of loss sustained by each of them totaling to Rs. 9,00,000/- and 1,10,000/- respectively in both cases. The Respondents have not disputed purchase of seeds by the complainants in September 2003. Further they have not disputed the statement showing the cost of seeds purchased by each complainants as detailed in para-8 of their respective complaints. The complainants in DCFR.No-32/06 have produced two Cash Receipts at Ex.P-12(2) & Ex.P-12(3). Ex.P-12(2) Cash Bill Bearing No. 802 dt. 29-09-03 shows purchase of (20) packets of seeds at the rate of 220/- totaling to Rs. 4,400/- by one Chandrappa Bergi and Ex.P-12(3) Cash Receipt No. 803 dt. 29-09-03 shows purchase of seeds worth Rs. 660/- by Veerabasappa. The statement of loss as detailed in para-8 of the complaint in DCFR.No. 32/06 shows purchase of seeds worth Rs. 4,400/- under Cash Receipt No. 802 dt. 29-09-03 by Chandrappa Bergi who is complainant NO-2 and purchase of seeds worth Rs. 660/- under Cash Receipt No. 803 dt. 29-09-03 by Veerabasappa who is complainant No-3. As stated above the Respondents in their written statement have not even disputed, regarding cost of seeds purchased by the complainants as shown in para-8 of their complaints. So in the absence of contrary it follows that the complainants have proved the cost of purchase of seeds as detailed in para-8 of their complaints.<br /> <br /> 16. The complainants in DCFR.No-32/06 have produced a letter dt. 02-11-06 of the Secretary APMC addressed to Chandrappa Bergi the complainant No-2 in the case which is at Ex.P-11. This letter shows the prevailing market rates of Hybride Jawar per quintal with Minimum rate, Maximum rate & Moderate rate during January 2004 to May 2004 which reads as under:<br /> <br /> ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÁªÀÅ PÉýzÀ ºÉÊ©æqï eÉÆüÀzÀ zsÁgÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä «£ÀAw ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. <br /> <br /> wAUÀ¼ÀÄ<br /> ºÉÊ©æqï eÉÆüÀzÀ zsÁgÀt ¥Àæw QéAmÁ°UÉ <br /> <br /> PÀ¤µÀÜ<br /> UàjµÀÜ<br /> ªÀiÁzÀj<br /> d£ÉªÀj - 2004<br /> 354<br /> 650<br /> 522<br /> ¥sÉ©æªÀj - 2004<br /> 310<br /> 562<br /> 501<br /> ªÀiÁZÀð - 2004<br /> 364<br /> 570<br /> 504<br /> K¦æïï - 2004<br /> 305<br /> 600<br /> 505<br /> ªÉÄà - 2004<br /> 304<br /> 643<br /> 480<br /> <br /> ¸À»/-<br /> <br /> <br /> PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,<br /> PÀȶ GvÀà£Àß ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¸À«Äw,<br /> ¹AzsÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ. <br /> 17. Of course the complainants in para-7 & 8 of the complaints have stated regarding loss sustained by them and they have also produced Ex.P-11 to show the rate of Hybride Jawar during January to May 2004 showing Minimum, Maximum & Moderate Rates. But the averments in para-7 & 8 of complaint do not whisper the extent of land wherein such seeds were grown and they have not produced the previous yield of their lands in-support of their averments in para-7 & 8. Added to this the statement of loss in para-8 does not show the basis for showing such loss. For example for the loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- by Chandrappa Bergi- complainant No-2 as shown in para-8 of the complaint ( in DCFR.No. 32/06 ) we do not find the basis for showing such loss. Of course the statement shows the quantum of packets of seeds purchased by each of the complainant and the cost of seeds but it does not show the area/extent of the land where such seeds were sown. Further, the complainants have not produced any piece of evidence for having spent Rs. 4,500/- per acre for growing such crops as contended. Hence it follows that except the averments in para-7 & 8 of their complaints, there is absolutely nothing on record to show the quality & extent of the lands and the previous out-put from their lands and cost of cultivation for growing the crops, so as to substantiate the actual loss sustained by them. In the absence of the same it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the complainants have suffered the loss as detailed in para- 7 & 8 of their complaints. But however having regard to our conclusion regarding cost of seeds purchased by them in the light of our finding on Point NO-1, we hold that the complainants are entitled for refund of cost of seeds as detailed in para-8 of their complaints along with a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each complainant in both cases. In this view of the matter we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaints in both cases are allowed in part.<br /> The Respondents jointly & severally shall refund the cost of seeds of G.K.4002 purchased by each of the complainants in both cases as detailed in para-8 of their complaints which has been re-produced in para-2 of this judgment.<br /> The Respondents jointly & severally shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as global compensation including cost of litigation to each of the complainants in both cases.<br /> The Respondents shall comply this order in both cases within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Keep a copy of this judgment in-connected DCFR.No-33/06.<br /> Office to furnish the copy of this judgment to the complainants in both cases and Respondents free of cost. <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri.Pampannagouda <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Smt.Kavita Patil <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br />