L. Jayarama Reddi and Another Vs. Gromore Bio-tech Ltd. and Others

(Both the appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 19.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-)

A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

F.A.No.79/2008

Complainant is the appellant.

F.A.No. 553/2008

1^st opposite party is the appellant.

2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for payment of compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- together with interest and Rs.3,000/- as costs for the damages caused to the crops because of deficiency of service by opposite parties.

3. Complainant purchased 1000 Plantains saplings on 25.3.03 from 2^nd opposite party to raise plantain garden in his land by payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs and another Rs.5,000/- was given as subsidiary and the plantain saplings were supplied through the 1^st opposite party. The complainant spent for the plantain garden Rs.1,24,755/- in all under various expenses and as represented by opposite parties the plantain growth were not fetched at 60 kg of banana for each plantain with the cost of Rs.6/- per fruit. But the complainant even though expected an income of Rs.3,60,000/- and only about 40 trees alone produced the product with very bad quality in size and weight even after 15 months in stead of one year and the product would not fetch even Rs.15,000/- in all. Hence complainant sustained a loss of Rs.3,45,000/- which incurred through bank loan and other sources. Because of bad quality of the saplings the loss was occurred and due to a deficiency of service in supply the complainant filed the consumer complaint claiming above reliefs.

4. On behalf of the opposite parties they denied the allegations of complainant, 1^st opposite party contended the complainant purchased 1000 plantain saplings on 25.3.03 and regarding the non production of good yield which was informed to the 1^st complainant, after the lapse of 6 months from the petition sent by complainant on 13.1.04 and on receipt of the same the Director, Senior Manager and Assistant Manager of the 1^st opposite party visited the complainants land came to know that the complainant did not take care and applied pesticides to the said saplings in proper manner and the plants were attacked by NEMATODE which was prevailed in the lands of complainant prior to cultivate the plantain saplings and the 1^st opposite party in no way concerned with the deficiency of service and the complainant filed the complaint with frivolous nature.

5. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have not filed their written version.

6. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.38,735/- towards the purchase of pesticides and fertilizers and Rs.15,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the 1^st opposite party come forward with the appeal in F.A.No.553/2008 and not satisfied with the award of the District Forum. The complainant has filed the appeal in F.A.No.79/2008 claiming for the entire relief as prayed for in the complaint.

8. Since both the appeals have arisen on the basis of single award/order passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.56/2004 both the appeals are heard in common and the order being passed on merits and a common order being passed.

9. While considering both sides averments, arguments and contentions it is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant purchased 1,000 number of plantain saplings from the 2^nd opposite party being the Government authority by availing subsidiary of Rs.5,000/- for the total value of Rs.10,000/- by paying Rs.5,000/- only as costs, for the cultivation of banana trees in his land and those banana saplings were admittedly supplied by 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party. It is the contention of the complainant that those saplings were supplied on the assurance that the yield would be more beneficial to the extent of 60 kg banana and the value per kilogram at Rs.6/- and thereby even though he has maintained the cultivation in a proper manner the yield was very poor and not even fetched Rs.15,000/- and thereby the complainant sustained Rs.3,45,000/- as loss in this regard. But whereas the 1^st opposite party appellant in F.A.No.553/2008 contended that the complaint regarding the yield of the saplings has not informed immediately and as soon as the report was reached they have deputed their men for spot visit and in enquiry found that land of the complainant before cultivation was prone with Nematode Pathogen and the complainant has not taken care of providing necessary fertilizers and pesticides and thereby the yield may be pure. In those circumstance the 1^st opposite party have no negligence or deficiency of service.

10. While considering both sides contentions even though the complainant has filed certain receipts to prove expenses relating to the cultivation of banana plantain as per Exhibit A2 series and in the letter sent to the opposite parties as per Exhibit a3 he had stated clearly that he has purchased 1000 number of banana saplings for his own and another 300 saplings for his brother and by spending Rs.1,00,000/- towards the fertilizers and pesticides for the cultivation of the complaint, those plants were affected by virus disease for the last one month and thereby the 1^st opposite party and the other parties having taken any place for the stay. From this letter it is admitted that as alleged by the 1^st opposite party the land in the cultivation was made on the plantains suffering from the virus disease and there may be possibility of Nematode (Soil Born Pathogen) prevailed in the land due to which virus disease was spread. Further as per Exhibit A4 the letter sent by the Horticultural Assistant Director to the complainant with the report of the Horticulture Officer regarding the inspection made in the lands of the cultivation in which he found those plantains were defects in growth and the yield to the extent of 60% and requested the Assistant Director to take necessary steps and in that enclosure he had given the details that those plantain saplings were supplied by the 1^st opposite party and in the report nowhere it is stated that only due to the bad quality of saplings supplied by the 1^st opposite party, the yield was not achieved. But the District Forum held as per Exhibit A4 already soil test were made and in those circumstances no need for any further soil test and only because of bad quality of saplings the complainant sustained loss which finding in our view was wrong, since the 1^st opposite party contended that various factors are depended regarding the yield of the plantain like soil condition, use of fertilizer, pesticides etc., and n this case when the complainant has not proved that he has not properly maintained all those things in the cultivation except to produce certain bill for the purchase of fertilizer and expenses towards labour we cannot say that only because of the bad qualities of saplings supplied by the 1^st opposite party he had sustained loss.

11. Further there was no certificate was obtained regarding the quality of the saplings supplied by the 1^st opposite party at the time of purchase issued either by 1^st opposite party or 2^nd opposite party in this regard.

12. The learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party relied upon the rulings reported in 2005 (II) CTC page 687 para 9 in which it is held as follows :-

“On Appeal Supreme Court set aside order and allowed appeal holding that report of expert committee that Seeds were not substandard and were of good quality and poor germination of Seed is due to various other conditions relatable to land ought to have been accepted and complaint should have been dismissed.”

“According to the counsel, the report which was placed on record clearly revealed that variation in the condition of crop could not be attributed to quality of seeds but to other factors, viz. high salt concentration, brackish water, moisture content at the time of sowing, long dry spell, etc. It was also submitted that neither the District Forum nor the National Commission considered the said report keeping in view the fact that it was prepared by an Expert Committee. The National Commission was in clear error in observing that the report was ambiguous. The counsel, therefore, submitted that all the orders deserve to be set aside by dismissing all the complaints.”

13. In view of the above ruling and in view of the reasons and discussions made above we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish that only because of the poor quality of plantain saplings alone, he had sustained loss in the cultivation of 1000 plantain saplings supplied by the opposite parties and thereby the 1^st opposite party cannot be considered as deficiency in supply or deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not proved. Whereas the District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint which is liable to be set aside.

14. As far as the appeal filed in F.A.No.79/2008by the complainant regarding the relief sought for as prayed for in the complaint. The complainant claimed Rs.3,45,000/- with interest for the loss of crop due to the bad supply of saplings by the opposite parties 1 and 2. But he has not produced the relevant documents to prove the same except for the purchase of plantain saplings for Rs.5,000/- as Exhibit A1 and other bills relating to the purchase of fertilizer and expenses towards labour etc., in Exhibit A2 series in which also the District Forum found certain bills are not related to the complainant and came to allow only a sum of Rs.38,735/- towards purchase of pesticides and fertilizers and directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs. To prove the extent of loss and the extent of cultivation made the complainant has not filed any document or certificate either from the revenue authorities or from the agricultural department of opposite parties 2 and 3 who are encouraging the cultivation of plantation by supplying subsidiary seeds saplings etc. Except to the pleadings of the complainant there are no other document to show that he had sustained loss to the extent of Rs.3,45,000/-. But however the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.38,735/- towards the expenses for fertilizer and pesticides etc., and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for which the complainant was not satisfied and come forward with the appeal and in view of the appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in F.A.No.553/2008 which is to be allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum and thereby the appeal filed by the complainant in F.A.No.79/2008 deserves to be dismissed and in view of the findings in F.A.No.553/2008.

15. In the result in both the appeals the order of the District Forum, Krishnagiri in O.P.No.56/2004 dated 30.11.2007 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. F.A.No.553/2008 is allowed. F.A.No.79/2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs in both the appeals.