State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sea View Prawn Hatcheries (P) Ltd., vs Krishnan. M, on 23 February, 2001
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 917/2001 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District ) The MD,M/s Sea View Prawn Hatcheries(p)Ltd Vs. Krishnan M BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 23 Feb 2011 ORDER Disposed as Dismissed
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 916/01, 917/01, 918/01 & 919/01
JUDGMENT DATED: 23-02-2011
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 916/2001
APPELLANT M/s Sea View Prawn Hatcheries (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. George Patani, Thalikulam P.O, Thrissur District.
PIN - 680 569 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Paul Kuriakose. K) Vs RESPONDENT A. Remani, W/o K. Lakshmanan, 'Remya' Farm, Kovvapram, P.O. Cherukunnu.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.M. Pareeth & Sri. Mohammed Shameel) APPEAL No. 917/2001 APPELLANT M/s Sea View Prawn Hatcheries (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. George Patani, Thalikulam P.O, Thrissur District.
PIN - 680 569 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Paul Kuriakose. K) Vs RESPONDENT Krishnan. M, Mothanga House, Vayalapra, P.O. Payyangadi.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.M. Pareeth & Sri. Mohammed Shameel) APPEAL No. 918/2001 APPELLANT M/s Sea View Prawn Hatcheries (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. George Patani, Thalikulam P.O, Thrissur District.
PIN - 680 569 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Paul Kuriakose. K) Vs RESPONDENT Aril Manjarikandy Sreeja, D/o A. Kunhambadi, Pacha House, Mundapram, P.O. Cherukunnu - 670 301.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.M. Pareeth & Sri. Mohammed Shameel) APPEAL No. 919/2001 APPELLANT M/s Sea View Prawn Hatcheries (P) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. George Patani, Thalikulam P.O, Thrissur District.
PIN - 680 569 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Paul Kuriakose. K) Vs RESPONDENT K. Karthiyani, W/o N.V. Chandran, 'Remya Farm', Koorkkara P.O., Cholakkode P.O., Payyannur - 670 307.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.M. Pareeth & Sri. Mohammed Shameel) COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appeals are filed by the opposite parties over the common order in OPs 318/1998, 09/1999, 320/1998 & 319/1998 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants in Appeal 916/2001 are the opposite parties in OP No. 318/1998 and the appellants in Appeal No. 917/2001 are the opposite parties in OP No. 09/1999 and the appellants in Appeal No. 918/2001 are the opposite parties in OP No. 320/1998 and the appellants in Appeal No. 919/2001 are the opposite parties in OP No. 319/1998. The appellants/opposite parties in OPs 318/1998, 319/1998 and 320/1998 are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- each as compensation for deficiency in service etc to the complainant and Rs. 250/- each as costs and the opposite party/appellant in OP No 09/1999 is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- as costs.
2. The deficiency alleged against the opposite parties/appellants in each of the case is with respect to the alleged different prawn seeds supplied to the complainants and the consequent loss sustained by them. The complainants are traditional agriculturists engaged in prawn farming for their livelihood. They had availed the Janakeeya Matsya Krishi Scheme launched by the Government of Kerala. They approached the approved Government agency Brackish Water Fish Farmers Development Agency (hereinafter to be referred as BWFFDA) Kannur and were asked to undergo 10 days training. The seeds were to be supplied from approved private hatcheries as per the indent of BWFFDA. The complainants approached the opposite parties located at Thalikulam, Thrissur District. The seeds were supplied by the above hatchery. According to the complainants the complainant in OP No. 318/98 obtained 11400 P.Monodon seeds. The complainant in OP No. 319/98 also obtained 11400 prawn seeds from the above hatchery. The complainant in OP No. 320/98 also obtained 11400 prawn seeds. The complainant in OP No. 9/99 obtained 3426. All of them released the prawn seeds in the ponds specially prepared. It is alleged by the complainants that the opposite parties collected excess amount also. The main allegation is that they had spent considerable amounts for preparation of the ponds and feeding of the prawn seeds. Expecting a big crop the officers of BWFFDA visited their farms on 08-05-1998 and found that the seeds supplied by the opposite party are not of P.Monodon variety but are P.Semisulcactus seeds which are not suitable for growing in the area and would be having less growth and weight. A large quantity of the seeds supplied also perished. The average weight of the survived prawns was just 4 gm as against 40 gm that P.Monodon prawn would have weighed. Further 80% of the P.Monodon seeds would have survived. The complainant in OP No.318/98 only got 32.280 kg of prawn worth Rs. 2,023/- whereas had it been P.Monodon prawns 322.8 kg of prawns worth Rs. 1,29,120/- would have obtained. As suggested by the BWFFDA officials the yield were taken as it was stated that there will be no further growth. It is stated that the complainant in OP No.318/1998 has spent a sum of Rs. 83,935/- for preparing the farm and feeding and maintenance. The complainants are from poor families and resorted to the prawn cultivation availing loans. The complainant in OP No. 318/98 has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,77,088/- as compensation. The other complainants in the other OPs have also sought for compensation approximately at the above rate except the complainant in OP 9/99 who has claimed a sum of Rs. 83,186.60 as compensation.
3. The opposite parties in the versions filed have disputed the jurisdiction of the Forum contending that the opposite party hatchery is situated at Thrissur District where from the seeds were purchased by the complainants. It was also contended that there is no evidence that the complainant has properly maintained the farm and started cultivation after destroying unwanted water organisms. It is pointed out that the complainants ought to have immediately notified the relevant agency of Government if it was found that seeds supplied are not of the particular variety which they could have identified in the beginning itself. The opposite parties have denied that they have supplied P. Semisulcactus (flower prawn seeds). According to them they have supplied P.Monodon (tiger prawn) seeds.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 to 8, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P86.
5. The complainants in OPs 318/98 and 319/98 and the brother of the complainant in OP 9/98 and the father of the complainant in OP 320/98 have testified in support of the respective cases. PW5 is the driver of the mini lorry which carried the seeds. PW8 is another prawn cultivator who has testified that he also purchased the prawn seeds from the opposite parties and that he noticed the difference in seeds and he intimated the opposite parties and the opposite parties supplied fresh P.Monodon seeds to him. PW6 is the Assistant Manager of Marine Products Export Development Agency (MPEDA) and PW7 the official of BWFFDA. It was PW6 who inspected the farms subsequently and found that the prawn seeds supplied are not of that of tiger prawns but of flower prawns. PW7 has stated that BWFFDA had imparted training to the complainants in fish farming and issued indent for purchasing seeds from opposite parties. DW1 is the MD of the opposite party.
6. The Forum has dismissed the contention raised by the opposite parties with respect to the jurisdiction and allied matters raised in the version. We find that the same is not liable to be reopened also in view of the fact that the opposite parties have not pressed for a preliminary order as to jurisdiction and took up the matter. Admittedly, the payment for the seeds was made by BWFFDA located at Kannur. Hence we find that the part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of CDRF, Kannur. We agree with the finding of the Forum with regard to the fact that the complainants are consumers as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act.
7. The Forum has held that the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice in insisting for higher amounts although the amount agreed was Rs. 40/- per 100 gm and supplied a less number of seeds so as to adjust the amount as per the intend. As noted above, the payments were made by the governmental agency. The complainants had lodged complaints before BWFFDA. The amounts spent for preparation of the ponds are supported by vouchers. The persons who issued the vouchers were not examined. It is contended by the Counsel for the appellant that it is quite unlikely that such farmers would have obtained receipt for the labour got executed for preparing the farm and hence the entire vouchers are fabricated. We find that whatever be the same, it was not disputed that ponds in brackish water for the cultivation of prawns have to be prepared and certain amounts have to be spent for the same. PW1 the father of the complainant in OP No. 320/98 who is the Secretary of the Malabar Area Prawn Farmers Federation has testified that when he noted that after release of the seeds in the pond and after the required period the same were found to be not of sufficient growth and he informed the same to the officers of MPEDA and got the prawns examined and was advised to harvest the seeds as the above is not fit for cultivation in the area as flower prawns required more intense saline water. He has also proved Exts. P4 and P5 the letters written to the opposite parties and the Assistant Director of MPEDA. The complainants have also testified as to the amounts spent for the preparation of the ponds and as to the amounts obtained on selling the prawns. The complainants have also produced the consent letters ie, Ext.P27 etc. issued by the Chief Executive of MPEDA permitting the complainants to initiate legal action against the opposite parties. PWs 1 to 4 have testified in support of the averments in the complaint and as to the amounts spent for preparing the ponds and as to the amounts obtained on selling the product. PW5 the driver of the mini lorry in which the prawn seeds were carried has deposed as to the sale and release of the seeds in the ponds of 2 of the complainants. PW6 the Assistant Director of MPEDA has testified as to the organisation of the training programme. He has also stated that he visited the farms of the complainants in OPs 318/98 and 320/98. He has stated that on examining the ponds it was found that the same are of the variety of flower prawns and not tiger prawns. He has stated only tiger prawns are suitable for cultivation in Kerala coast. He has also deposed as to the probable cost of cultivation. PW7 the Chief Executive Officer of BWFFDA has testified that it was the above organization that imparted training to the traditional fish farmers including the complainants and has proved the certificates issued to them. He has proved the indents issued to the complainants for purchasing the seeds. On examining the farms he has issued the certificates stating that the seeds found in the ponds are of flower prawns and he issued the permission letters for initiating legal proceedings against the opposite party. He has also stated that the opposite party had replaced the seeds of 5 farmers when they complained about the different variety of seeds supplied. As noted above PW8 another fish farmer has stated that he was also supplied with the flower prawns variety and when he complained the opposite parties supplied him fresh P.Monodon seeds.
8. On the other hand, the evidence of DW1, the Managing Director of the opposite parties is based on just assumptions that the complainants have not properly prepared the farms by expelling the unwanted living organisms. It is also contended that the complainants could have identified by appearance if the seeds were of a different variety. We find that the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 support and corroborate the case of the complainants although the expenses incurred for preparing ponds and the amounts obtained by selling the product may vary to a certain extent as the persons who issued the vouchers etc were not examined. We find nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainants as such as to the allegation that the prawns seeds supplied were not of P.Monodon variety and consequently they have sustained considerable loss. We find that the Forum has meticulously considered the factors with respect to the quantum of compensation and allowed only at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainants in OPs 318/98, 319/98 and 320/98 who had ventured to cultivate in a larger area and purchased a larger number of prawn seeds and allowed Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant in OP No. 9/99 who had cultivated in a lesser area. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum as such is called for. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is sustained.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts of compensation as ordered by the Forum with interest at 6% per annum from 30-10-2000, the date of the order of the Forum. The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants will be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from today, 23-02-2011, the date of this order.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER Sr. [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT