BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.50/2019

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th JULY 2022

      Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri MARUTHI VADDAR,

MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been preferred by the complainants Smt.Padmamma, M.Purushotham, M.Keerthish, M.Ravish (since deceased), resident of Kesthur Koppal Village, Mysuru District, against the opposite party – VNR Seeds Pvt. Ltd., directing the opposite party to award the compensation as per the assessment of 50% of the loss sustained by the complainants put loss from 17-18 quintal. As per the present Government rate, per quintal of paddy seeds will be Rs.1,750/-, in all the complainants have put loss from 5 acres of paddy land estimated about Rs.1,57,500/-. Thereby, the complainants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency in service with litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-, in all Rs.6,07,500/-, award court cost and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-

It is alleged in the complaint that the complainants are the agriculturists by professions, they purchased paddy seeds from opposite party on 06.07.2018 under subsidy rate of Karnataka Government vide seed No.VNR2233 in total 10 bags containing 3 kg. each bag vide bill No.12201 dated 06.07.2018 bill No.113300 dated 06.07.2018. The complainants transplanted the said paddy seeds to the extent of 5 acres as per the instructions of the Agriculture Department properly maintained the paddy field by giving manure and pesticides from time to time.

It is further submitted that when the paddy crops was ready for harvest, the complainants found the paddy crops was not in the uniform, in one tiller two types of paddy i.e. one ripe and another one is not ripe.Thus the paddy crop is dropping, waiting for non-ripe paddy crop.Thereby, the complainants sustained loss of paddy due to defective supply of the 2232 seeds of opposite party.Therefore, the complainants lodged the complaint with the Assistant Director of Agriculture, K.R.Nagar Taluk, Mysuru District.The authority visited the paddy field 4-5 times and they also admitted that there is a mistake crept in the supply of seeds.

It is submitted that the Assistant Director of Agriculture, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru District told that he has referred the matter to the Agriculture Scientist and will get the report and settled the issues and pay compensation if really sustained loss due to the defective seeds supplied by opposite party.But, the authority has not taken any action in this regard colluded with the opposite party and simply dragged the matter by giving one or the other reasons by postponing the settlement.Hence, the complainants have lodged the complaint to the Scientist, V.C.Farm with the Assistant Director of Agriculture seeking remedy with regard to the loss and the Scientist visited the paddy field and gave the report on 25/29-11-2018.Scientist noticed that there is different seeds supplied by the opposite party, for that the complainants sustained 50% loss.Thereafter, the complainants lodged the complaints to various departments of Government of Karnataka to take proper action against the supplier of seeds i.e. opposite party.As per the report of the Agriculture Department, the complainants put loss 17-18 quintals per acre and for the loss in 5 acres of paddy land estimated about Rs.1,57,500/-, thereby complainants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency of service with litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- in all they claim Rs.6,07,500/-.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of the complaint, the notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party and in response to the notice, opposite party did not appeared and not filed version and subsequently appeared and filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file version and the same is allowed on costs.  But, opposite party failed to tender costs and not appeared hence, the version of opposite party is taken as not filed.       
4. The complainant No.4 has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. 
5. Heard the arguments of complainant’s counsel and perused the documents produced by the complainants.
6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as here under:-  

1. Whether the complainants prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thereby they are entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.       Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainants that the complainants being the agriculturists by professions had purchased paddy seeds from opposite party on 06.07.2018 under the subsidy rate of the Government of Karnataka vide seed No.VNR 2233 in total 10 bags containing 3 kg each bag vide bill No.12201 dated 06.07.2018 and bill No.113300 dated 06.07.2018 and transplanted the same to the extent of 5 acres as per the instructions of the Agriculture Department and properly maintained the paddy field by giving manure and pesticides from time to time.  When the paddy crop was ready for harvesting, the complainants found that the paddy crop was not in the uniform, in one tiller two types of paddy i.e. one riped and another one is not riped and thereby complainants sustained loss of paddy due to defective by VNR 2233 seeds of opposite party.  To substantiate this aspect, complainant No.4 was examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit on behalf of himself and other complainants and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.  The complainant No.4 reiterated the averments made in the complaint in his affidavit.  Ex.P.1 is the receipt for having purchased the defective seeds from opposite party.  Ex.P.2 is the VNR hybrid seeds variety 2233.  Ex.P.3 is the 8 numbers of RTC extracts.  Ex.P.4 is the application given by the complainants on 29.10.2018.  Ex.R.5 is the yield certificate issued by Agricultural Assistant Director of K.R.Nagar Taluk, dated 13.12.2018.  Ex.P.6 is the report issued by Scientist of V.C.Farm Mandya dated 25/29.11.2018.  Ex.P.7 is the complaint dated 20.11.2018 lodged by the complainant No.1 to the Agriculture Minister.  Ex.P.8 is the letter issued by Scientist.  Ex.P.9 is the Genological tree of the family of the complainants.  Ex.P.10 is the 11 photographs.  After filing the affidavit of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments and also submitted oral arguments. During the pendency of the complaint, counsel for the complainants has filed a memo along with death certificate stating that complainant No.4 died on 26.11.2020, but thereafter no steps have been taken to bring the LR’s of the deceased complainant No.4 within the stipulated time.  Hence, the complaint filed in favour of the complainant No.4 is abated and order to be deleted from the complaint and not proceeded with the complainant No.4.
9. After carefully perusing the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 documents, it is crystal clear that the complainant Nos.1 to 4 are none other than the mother and her children.  They have purchased the defective seeds from opposite party on 06.07.2018 under bill No.113300 as per the Ex.P.1.  The complainants have purchased the said defective seeds to transplant the same in their paddy field as per Ex.P.3.  They have provided necessary manure and pesticides for growing of crop. When the said crop was came for harvesting, the complainants found that paddy crop was not in the uniform, in one tiller two types of paddy i.e. one ripe and another one is not ripe.  Hence, the complainants has given the complaint to the Agriculture Department as per the Ex.P.4 stating therein regarding the non-growing of the seeds.  Thereafter, the complainants obtained necessary yield certificate as per Ex.P.5 from the Agriculture Department.  The Agriculture Scientist has issued certificate as per Ex.P.6. The complainants have complained to the Agriculture Minister and Secretariat of Government as per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8.  The photo copies of the defective crop are produced as per Ex.P.10.  After carefully perusing the exhibits and the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainants, it is crystal clear that the complainants purchased the defective seeds of opposite party and the same are transplanted in their field and during the harvesting season, it is noticed by the complainants that the crop was not yielded properly and hence, the complainants filed the complaint and necessary applications to various departments and when they did not seek the remedy from the concerned departments, the complainants finally approached this Commission by filing this complaint. Even after, the service of the summons, the opposite party remained absent and placed exparte. But, later appeared through the counsel and filed necessary application for filing version and the same was allowed by imposing cost. But, later the opposite party does not appeared and submitted his version even after granting sufficient opportunities.  Hence, the version of the opposite party is taken as not filed. It is the specific case of the complainant that from the defective seeds, they sustained loss of 17-18 quintal per acre and the rate is Rs.1,750/- per quintal as per Government rate. Hence, they sustained 85-90 quintal loss in 5 acres.  If one quintal price is Rs.1,750/- and then 17 quintals per acre x 5 acres = 85 quintals; Rs.1,750/- per quintal x 85 quintal = Rs.1,48,750/- and further the complainants claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses.  The said compensation claimed by the complainant is very exorbitant and it is minimized to Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  Hence, the complainants proved their case and hence, we are of the considered opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the opposite party is to be directed to pay the compensation to the complainants. Hence, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainants is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,48,750/- for 85 quintals of Rs.1,750/- each quintal to the complainants from the date of loss of the crop till its payment within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,48,750/- with interest at 10% interest p.a. from the date of loss of crop till its payment.
3. The opposite party is also hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service suffered by the complainants and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding within 2 months from the date of this order.  Failing which, the entire amount of Rs.25,000/- +  Rs.5,000/- = 30,000/- will carry 10% interest p.a. from the date of the order till its realization.
4. The complainant is at liberty to take action against the opposite party under Section 72 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for non-compliance of this order
5. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 29^th July, 2022)