State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ganesh Tukaram Patil vs Jain Irrigation System Ltd on 14 June, 2022
1 CC/53/2017
Date of filing :20.09.2017
Date of order :14.06.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. : 53 OF 2017
Ganesh Tukaram Patil,
R/o Gondegaon, Tq.Soygaon,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Jain Irrigation System Ltd.,
Through Executive Director,
Jain Agri Park, Jain Hills,
Shirsoli Road, Post Box No.70,
Jalgaon 425 002.
2. Chetan Laxman Gulave,
Jain Irrigation System Ltd.,
Jain Agri Park, Jain Hills,
Shirsoli Road, Post Box No.70,
Jalgaon, 425 002.
3. Patil Thibak and Hardware,
(Patil Thibak) Through its Proprietor,
Sunil Ramdas Patil,
Gondegaon, Tq.Soygaon,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...OPPONENTS
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.P.Choudhary for complainant,
Adv.Ajinkya Reddy for opponents.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 14/06/2022) Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
1. It is the case of complainant that he is from village Gondegaon in Soygaon Tahasil of Aurangabad district and is having agricultural land Gut 2 CC/53/2017 No.14 admeasuring 1 H. 22R at village Wakadi in the Soyagaon Tahasil. The land is having irrigation facility through well. He has been taking crops as cotton, maize, and getting good income. The opponents are involved in manufacturing and sale of irrigation system and preparation of tissue culture saplings of banana and grafted saplings of pomegranate and mango. The opponent No.1 runs the business through agent/representative, opponent No.2 and opponent No.3 is the legal distributor. The opponent No.2 approached complainant and informed that the pomegranate variety Bhagwa plants of opponent No.1 manufacturer gives fruiting at 9,11,18 months and trees last for 15-20 years. Each plant bears 150-300 number of fruits having average weight of 200 grams. Each plant gives 40 Kgs fruits and at the rate of Rs.30/- per Kg., income of Rs.1200/- per plant is expected. Believing the words of opponent No.2, the complainant placed order for purchasing 1105 plants at the rate of Rs.32 per sapling/plant from opponent No.3 on 07.01.2014. Some 20 plants were given extra. Payment was made in cash. Opponent supplied the saplings on 26.02.2014. The complainant planted the saplings in the same month under guidance of expert of opponent No.2. Before plantation of the saplings, he incurred expenditure of Rs.1.50 lacs towards soil improvement and Rs.2 lacs for drip irrigation, labour, pipelines and fertilizers. The complainant was expecting good crop as assured. But even after lapse of 30 months the plants failed to bear the fruits. The opponents have provided defective saplings. The complainant was informing the opponents No.2 and 3 regarding the status of plantation. The opponent did not take any action but simply kept on assuring the complainant for good fruiting. The opponent No.2 visited the 3 CC/53/2017 field on 04.01.2017 and 04.02.2017. The photographs of his visit are on record. The complainant made complaint to SDO, Agriculture Department on 28/01/2017 and 30/11/2017. The expert committee of the officers visited the field on 14.02.2017 and observed that 85 to 90% plants failed to bear fruits. The plants were having more male flowers and which affected 70% fruiting . The complainant gave notice to opponents on 05/07/2017 claiming that he has sustained loss of Rs.2 lacs per year for 2 years. For 8 years he was expecting future income of Rs.9,94,500/- at Rs.900/- per plant. He spent Rs.35,200/- for the purchase of saplings and Rs.3.50 lacs towards land development. The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards the cost of litigation. He filed consumer complaint claiming Rs.87,69,200/- in total.
2. The opponent company filed it's written statement and denied the allegations. The contention of complainant of getting good income by taking some crops as cotton & maize, irrigation facility available in the field and agriculture only the source of income to complainant denied for want of knowledge . It is denied that the opponent No.2 approached complainant for purchase of pomegranate saplings and any assurance given as regards to expected yield and income. The flowering and fruiting depends upon many factors including cultivation practices adopted, mannuring and weather conditions, pollination through bees etc. Therefore, opponents cannot be held responsible for less yield to complainant. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the agreement. The clauses 14.1.1 and 14.1.2 reads as, 4 CC/53/2017 "Pomegranate is perennial horticulture crop. Its flowering, fruit setting and fruit development depends upon bahar treatment ,pruning, artificial and natural stress to the plants.
The pomegranate crop is also very sensitive to water management and nutrient management; hence any failure in crop or non flowering and yield of plants is beyond the control of company management. Hence for such issues company will not be responsible."
It is also denied that the complainant planted the saplings under the guidance of opponents. It is admitted that the opponents sold 1100 tissue culture pomegranate plants to complainant and denied that the saplings supplied were defective . It is contended that the complainant did not avail the expert opinion and guidance from the expert of opponent company while planting and not followed the instructions of representative of opponent company. He has not substantiated evidence for his allegations that he complied instructions of opponent company. It is contended that the complainant appointed private consultant and relied on his advice. It is also contended that the complainant is not covering under the definition of consumer as he planted the saplings with intention of making huge profit and which is not for livelihood purpose. The allegations of expenditure incurred towards irrigation , fertilizers, labour work is denied in the absence of substantial evidence. It is denied that the complainant informed on the status of the growth of plants to opponents. It is contended that the complainant planted the saplings in the black cotton soil, which is also admitted by him. It is contended that the black soil the growth of the plants is healthy but there is poor fruiting and there requires 1-2 months 5 CC/53/2017 water stress to the plants. It is contended that the complainant is greedy and hasty in getting yields and not waited for the expected period. He wanted to take bahar within 28 months. In fact bahar requires to be taken after maturity of 3 years of crop. There is no complaint of other farmers who purchased the saplings of same batch. As per the communication of Taluka Takrar Niwaran Committee, the opponents supplied the list of farmers who purchased the saplings of the same lot, complainant purchased saplings. It is admitted that the opponent No.2 visited complainants field on 04.01.2017 & 04.02.2017 but denied that the plant condition was poor. It is contended that the mismanagement of the plantation was observed during the visit and complainant was instructed for improvement. However , he has not followed the instructions. There is no evidence to fortify contention of complainant that his land was suitable for pomegranate plantations and he has followed instructions and guidance. He has kept 10-12 stems/trunks on the plants and not followed instruction of keeping 2-3 stems on the plants. It was also advised to apply liquid jiggery on the plants to attract honey bee population for better pollination and fruiting. The complainant has not come with evidence of report of authorised Govt. Laboratory showing defects in genetic purity and quality for his allegations of manufacturing defects or supply of adulterated saplings . The alleged loss of crop is not due to adulterated defective plants used. The expert committee has not attributed loss to the defectiveness in the plants solely. The Committee observed that the complainant opted for hasta -bahar (flowering in october).which requires water stress to the orchid during the period. However ,there was rainfall of 185 mms in the Gondegaon circle which affected the yield of flowers. There 6 CC/53/2017 are less female flowers fruits. The Agriculture University have not recommended plantation of tissue culture plants. There is research findings of one Dr.R.K.Pal that excess soil moisture causes droppings of flowers. Water supply and excess/less nitrogen supply also results in flower drop. The allegations of expected loss of Rs.2lacs per year for last 2 years and future is also denied.
(3) Adv.Chaudhary appeared for the complainant and advocate Shri.Ajinkya Reddy appeared for opponent.
(4) After submissions of the parties ,following points/ issues arise for our determination. We have noted them answered with reasons to follow.
POINTS ANSWERS (1)Whether the complainant established case of deficiency against the opponent? ...Partly yes. (2)What order? ...As per final order REASONING
(5)(i) It is argued by the ld. Advocate Chaudhari for the complainant that the inspection report of expert committee is stating that 90% plants failed fruiting. There were less female flowers and 70% loss occurred in production and complainant could not get the assured income. The agriculture is the only source of income to complainant. The complainant earlier used to take crops as maize and cotton and was getting good income. However ,he believed the words of opponent No.2 and purchased the 7 CC/53/2017 pomegranate saplings of tissue culture of Bhagwa variety and was expecting good yield and income .It was assured that the tissue saplings bear fruits earlier than the regular grafts within two years. The complainant has not planted the saplings to earn huge profit but plantation is done for livelihood purpose and not for commercial purpose. The complainant is a retired army person but not getting the pension as he has left the service in between and not completed the eligible service required for pension. Therefore , complainant is a consumer of the opponent. The opponent is not genuine in their submissions. The bill of sale of saplings do not bear batch and lot number. The complainant took every care in raising the plantation. His soil is light, the expert committee observed that. However, the opponent expert saying that the complainant soil is deep soil which is not justified as against the report of expert committee of Government.
(ii) He spent for soil preparation, fertilizers, pesticides ,insecticides. The weeding was done to remove gajar gawat. The opponent wrongly contending that the garden is not maintained and abundant weeds were in the field. In spite of all due care, the plantation/saplings failed to bear female and hermaphrodite flowers (having male and female organs in the same flower).There were observed more male flowers ,which are not useful for fruiting .The proper water stress during the season was also given as recommended for hasta bahar. The opponent has wrongly contended that the heavy rainfall affected the flowering. The Failure to bear the hermaphrodite flowers and female flowers is due to genetic defect in the saplings. He has not deployed any private expert. The adjacent farmer also 8 CC/53/2017 sustained with the same problem but he could not file complaint due to unavailability of documents. The opponent has adduced affidavits of the persons but they are not from the area of complainant. The opponent is wrongly contending that the complainant is under liability to test the saplings for genetic defects. It is not possible for the farmers .The opponent shall furnish the data in that regard that they sold the material of proper quality to complainant.
(iii)The ld.Advocate relied on the following Citations to support his case.
(i) In N.S.C. Ltd. -Vs- Guruswamy and anr., as reported in Docid#IndiaLawLib/866860: 2002 1 CPJ 13 , the Hon National commission while maintaining the order of lower fora accepted the arguments of the counsel of original complainant and observed that that it is very unbecoming of a leading public sector seeds company to expect that the complainant is expected to keep seeds for inspection .The ld. Advocate further argued that therefore the farmer is not expected to go for genetic analysis.
(ii) In Shri Rama Enterprises vs Venkat Reddy , as reported in Docid#IndiaLawLib/861702: (2003 )3 CPJ 14 ,the Hon. National Commission observed that the commission in several cases held that seed is a is a expensive commodity and farmer uses the last grain of it in the field. The farmer is not obliged to keep any part of it foreseeing such a contingency.
(iii) In National seeds corporation Ltd vs M.Madhusudan Reddy , C A 7343/2094 and ors decided on 16/01/2012 ,the Hon Apex court in 9 CC/53/2017 observed that the report submitted by the expert can certainly be taking into consideration even if there was no analysis of seeds from a laboratory. Non examination of seeds from the laboratory is not fatal to the case of complainants whose fields were inspected by Dr.P.Shesha Reddy regarding which he gave opinion as an expert .Nothing stopped the petitioner from sending the sample seeds for analysis to a laboratory. There is no explanation why it could not be sent the sent for analysis.
(iv) In Ajeet Seeds vs Trimbak ,reported in AIR 2008 (NOC)104 (NCC)::2007(6)ALJ 5 ,the Hon.National Commissin observed that the expert committee conducted field tests and male sterility was observed in all samples of hybrid cotton and deficiency against the seed company is proved.
6.(i) The learned advocate Shri Ajinkya Reddy argued for the opponent that the complainant has to prove his case .Though it is alleged that the defective saplings are provided to him , however ,no technical/scientific report is adduced to show that the saplings sold to the complainant are genetically defective in nature. Though , it is alleged that there were less hermaphrodite flowers .However, less emergence of hermaphroidite flowers are not attributable to genetic character .In fact many other factors are attributable for the same.
(ii) The ld.advocate relied on the Pomegranate manual published by National Research Centre on Pomegranate by Ram Chanra and ors wherein it is stated that the percentage of hermaphrodite flowers out of total number 10 CC/53/2017 of flowers depends on cultivar, the flowering season and other unknown environmental factors, the bahar treatment and proper fertigation is also stated to cause the flowering and fruiting.
(iii) The ld.advocate further argued that the complainant was never assured for early production in two and half years and for quantitative expectations. The complainant attempted to raise plantation in heavy soil. The heavy soils are not recommended for Pomegranate orchads.He has not properly maintained the garden. No maintenance of limited stems of 2 to 3 stems were kept.No weeding was done in the field. The jaggery was not applied to attract honey bees for better pollination. He did not follow the instructions of the opponent . However, preferred to rely on the advise of the private expert. The complainant has taken the hasta bahar , but there was no water stress to the plants .There were heavy rains of 185 mms during the period which badly affected the flowering and fruiting. The expert committee also observed the same as reason attributable for less number of hermaphrodite flowers. Other farmers to whom the opponent sold the plants of the same batch and lot, could get better yield. They have filed their affidavits .
(iv) (i) The ld.Advocate further argued that the Hon.S.C. in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs Sadhu, (2005)3 SCC 198 as well as in Mahyco Seeds Co Ltd. V Basappa Channappa Mooki (civil Appeal No.2427/2008) has held that variation in condition of crop need not necessarily be attributed to the quality of seeds but to other factors unless there is specific mention of in the concerned report about the inferior quality of seeds .The 11 CC/53/2017 Apex Court has held that the onus to prove that there was defect in the seeds was on the complainant.
(v) The same ratio is considered by the Hon.National Commission in deciding Revision Petition in (1) In M/S Mahyco Vegetable Seeds vs G.Sreeniwasa Reddy and In M/S Mahyco Vegetable Seeds vs ors (RP 4280/2007) and in In M/S Mahyco Vegetable Seeds vsC.C.Yerikala Reddy (RP 4281/2007)2007),A Naglaxmi and ors (RP 4282/2007) decided on 20/03/2012 ,2012 as reported in SCC On line NCDRC 132:(2012)NCDRC 132:(2012)2COJ297 (NC).
While allowing these Revision Petitions, the NCDRC relied on their earlier judgment in R.P.3525/2007 in which the Commission concluded as follows.
"Initial burden to prove that the seeds were defective was on the complainants. Except for producing the report of Asst. Director of Agriculture reproduced above, the respondents did not lead any evidence to prove that it nowhere states that the seeds were defective. Variation in the condition of crops is not and can not be attributed to the quality of seeds but to some other factors. Inferior quality of seeds is not a factor for failure of the crops. The report of agricultural officer does not mention that the seeds supplied were of inferior quality. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that there was any genetic impurity in the seeds supplied by the petitioner.
(vi) NCDRC in R.P.3800 to 3804/2096 and R.P.2920/2097, in M/S Mahyco Vegetable Seeds -Vs- Doddabasappa as reported in 2012 SCC
12 CC/53/2017 online NCDRC 178;[2012]NCDRC 178 :(2012)NCDRC 178:2012)2CPJ 436 (NC):2012)3 CPR 203 (NC)
(vii) In Maharashtra Hybreed Seeds co Pvt Ltd Vs Jagdish Kumar and ors., reported in 2017 SCC online NCDRC 642 observed that ,the report of field officer not showing the loss to the complainant happened on account of defective seeds having been sown in his field .In the absence of such finding, the report of field officers did not prove any defect in the seeds.
(viii) In Mahyco Seeds Ltd Vs Venkat Subba Reddy And ors reported in 2011 SCC online NCDRC 245 ;[2011]NCDRC 244 In any case , the genetic defect in seeds can not be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in scientific laboratory.
(ix) State Consumer Redressal Commission , Maharashtra , main bench in Regional Manager National Seeds Corporation Vs Dadaso Baburao Burge and ors, in FA No. RBT /A/15/509 in A A/03/1948.
(7) Discussions-
(i) It appears that the complainant is relying on the inspection report of the Committee, where the committee observed that the saplings/plants were having more male flowers, were deficient in having male-female flowers. The advocates explained that the flowers having both male-female organs are called hermaphrodite flowers and there is 70% loss to the complainant. The report is at page 24-28 of complaint. It is contended by the complainant that he was assured of production from 9 months-11 months-18 months and the plants will have life of 10-15 years. It is on record that the complainant purchased the saplings on 26.09.2014. It is contended that he 13 CC/53/2017 planted the saplings in the same month. It is contended that complainant followed instructions, applied fertilizers and taken hast bahar (for flowering) during Aug-Sept_Oct 2016 and expected flowering for fruiting in January/February 2017. The period from purchase/plantation to contended expectations comes 29 months/2 & ½ years. It can be expected that after 1 or 2 months after flowering, flowers would give fruits. Relying on panchanama /inspection report, the complainant is contending that the opponent company did not provide him good quality saplings. Thus it appears that the allegation pertains to genetic defectiveness in the saplings sold to complainant.
(ii) Per contra, the opponent in written version , their affidavit of evidence and written notes of argument contended that the factors responsible for fruiting and the yield are selection of right soil ,rainfall, adoption of good agronomic practices, implementation of instructions, maintenance of garden by weeding, proper irrigation, promoting honey bees production for pollination, fertilizers. The emergence/production of male-female hermaphrodite flowers depends both on cultivar, flowering season and of the unknown environmental factors. In the beginning of the main flowering season, this percentage is higher than at the end of season in several cultivars .In several cultivars 25 to 60% hermaphrodite flower, 20 to 47 % male flowers and 14 to 24 intermediate flowers are reported in India depending on type of cultivar. It is contended that the less number of hermaphrodite flowers cannot be attributed to genetic nature of plants alone , instead it is attributed to environmental factors. The opponent in their arguments also relied upon certain citations, wherein the court relied 14 CC/53/2017 upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Seeds Corporation - Vs- Sandhu's case. It was observed that it is well settled through a catena of judgments that the onus to prove the genetic defect in the seeds is on the complainant. The failure to the crop is not attributable to the genetics of the seeds but other factors also involved. In the case in hand it reveals that 185 mms rains occurred during stress/ bahar treatment which resulted in poor flowering and fruiting. Also it revealed that the complainant failed in maintaining his garden as regard to maintaining 2-3 number of stems, application of jaggery to attract honey bees for proper pollination.
(iii)The learned advocate of the complainant placed reliance on the various judgments of Hon.Apex Court and Hon'ble National Commission referred in para 5 in this judgment and argued that the plea of sending samples to laboratory is held not tenable. Instead it is the liability of opponent to get samples tested in the laboratory. Thus apparently it was not possible or expected for the complainant as a farmer to send the samples for genetic testing due to limitations of his knowledge, financial conditions and spending for laboratory testing. Instead it was possible for the opponent to bring such report on genetics of the plants. It is true that the contention of opponent cannot be discarded in toto that the other factors can be attributed in non production of hermaphrodite flowers.
(iv) Secondly, if the written statement is looked into, it is contended that the soil of the complainant's field is deep black cotton soil. For this the opponent is relying on their visit report of their expert at page 21. However 15 CC/53/2017 the expert committee report at page 25 observed that the soil is light. Therefore the defence of opponent that the complainant planted saplings in deep black cotton soil is not acceptable.
(v) It is contended by opponent that the complainant attempted to take the flowering in short span of life of sapling of 2 ½ years when it is expected that the bahar to be taken after 3-4 years. The opponent at page 71 in their written version also relied on the extract in the article of Dr.Sandip Kadam. The advocate of complainant submitted that these are the tissue culture plants are already hardened in the laboratory for 8 to 11 monts. Though the opponent is contending that complainant opted for bahar at early period, However, the opponent himself produced affidavits of some farmers showing that they could get good flowering and fruiting from the same saplings of the same lot or batch. Therefore it cannot be said that the complainant attempted to take bahar at early period.
(vi) However ,the expert report refers that there were rains in October when the garden was left for water stress for taking hast bahar affecting emergence of /production of hermaphrodite flowers. Therefore ,there is no harm in accepting the opinion of the expert committee. (8) However, the complainant relied upon the agreement clause 6.1.0. wherein it is stated that the tissue culture plants are maintained in the laboratory and further hardened in the green house and shade net. The saplings/plants are ready for supply to the farmers after 8 to 11 months . The complainant has pleading that he has not gone for early bahar 16 CC/53/2017 treatment. The question is what is the recommendation of the opponent for taking the bahar treatment. What is the minimum period for which the farmers would wait for taking bahar for fruiting. It is mentioned in the Clause 12.2.0 of the agreement that the growth of saplings and production is as similar to other seeds and dependent on various factors as soil, climate, irrigation, fertilizers etc. The clause 12.1.0 is also stating that there is no guess as to growth, yield and production. The opponent in their written version also stated that there was no assurance for flowering and production within 2 years. It reveals that after submitting complaint redressal committee asked opponent to submit data on the list of farmers whom the saplings are sold. The opponent filed affidavits of some farmers that they could get good flowering & yield. However, these farmers are from Karnool district(Telangana) and Pune district from Maharashtra and not from the area of complainants. These affidavits are not helpful to opponent to defend the case because there is no lot/batch number mentioned in the bill given to the complainant. It is stated in the expert committee report that the Agriculture University do not recommend plantation of saplings of tissue culture type. Thus it reveal that the opponent is adopting a technology, i.e. tissue culture technology which is not recommended by the Agriculture University. The opponent has not come with any evidence showing that the tissue culture technology is a established technology for raising the pomegranate saplings. Thus the authenticity of Technology adopted by opponent is also in question. No lot Number or Batch Number is mentioned in the sale receipt given to complainant. It would have helped the expert committee during their inspection. The opponent is also contending that 17 CC/53/2017 they have not assured for production. The opponent is also not assuring that the complainant that in future one will definitely get the expected yield, if management practices ,rains ,weather is satisfactory. The opponent has not brought on record any data of their laboratory studies that the tissue culture plants in their experiments gave satisfactory flowering, fruiting and yield to them and in spite of this they sold the tissue culture plants to complainant and other farmers. There reveals there are no clauses stating expected flowering, fruiting etc. in the agreement. The Indian farmers are already passing through drought, high costs of ingredients ,problems of marketing etc. The farmers rely upon the seed companies for supply of seeds/saplings for better crop ,better yield etc. It reveals that the opponent company in the present case sold their saplings without any assurance of expected fruiting, and without recommendation of tissue culture Technology by the agricultural Universities. Also when the farmers are believing the opponent for tissue culture plants for raising the gardens, there requires providing proper and timely guidance to the farmers by suppliers. The guidance is also required to be mentioned in the agreement also. The farmers are required to be informed on the point of expected fruiting along with recommendation /guidance for taking bahar treatment , fertigation , application of pesticides, weedicides etc. at initial stage and growth. It reveals that no guidance or recommendation is appearing in agreement or no special brochure is provided by the opponent . It appears one sided agreement benefitting the opponent only. Therefore there reveals adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opponent. Therefore , on that 18 CC/53/2017 account and with aforesaid discussion complaint deserves to be allowed to some extent.
(9) The complainant has made the complaint and prayed for compensation of Rs.87,69,200/-.This includes loss of 4 lacks of income during last two years of maintaining the garden , Rs.79,56,000/-towards 8 future years at the rate of Rs. Rs.900 per plant from 1105 plants expecting yield of 30 kg per plant and at the market rate of Rs.30 per kg. The complainant has also come with a claim that he spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards betterment of land and Rs.35,200/- towards purchase of saplings. He is seeking Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/-towards cost of litigation. In view of our discussion in para 8 the complainant needs to be given some relief due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of opponent. However , In our opinion the complainant can not be compensated as prayed in the complaint for future income ,expenditure towards land development and drip of Rs.3.5 lacs totally in absence of evidence on it.
The complainant has produced receipts of purchases of fertilisers and pesticides to the tune of Rs.79,500/-. It can be assumed that for the area of complainant of 1.22 H.R., that the complainant would have spent Rs.1.0 lac towards land preparation, labour and drip .He spent Rs.35,200 for purchase of saplings. These amounts come to total of Rs.2,24,700 (say Rs.2.25 lac for convenience ). The complaint conteded that he lost income of Rs.4 lacs during the last 2 years. We do not agree to this amount in absence of evidence. However, rational compensation for it requires to be given. In our opinion 1.00 lac for loss of income deserves to be given. Thus in total 3.25 19 CC/53/2017 lacs be given totally with 9 percent p.a. interest from filing of the complaint within 45 days. And as prayed by the complainant deserves to awarded for mental agony of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- for cost of litigation.
Hence the order.
O R D E R (1) The complaint No.53/2017 is allowed partly.
(2) Opponent No.1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs 3.25 lacs (Rs.3,25,000/-) with interest of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint to complaint towards his loss of income and expenditure within 45 days. The opponent No.1 is further directed amount of Rs.25,000/-toward mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards cost on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice rendered towards complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
MBM