State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri A. Uppalaiah vs 1. The Manager, Reliance Life Sciences ... on 22 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/164/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/04/2016 in Case No. CC/551/2013 of District Hyderabad) 1. Sri A. Uppalaiah S/o. Kotaiah, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village K.V. Banjara Thanda, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Dist. Having come down to Hyderabad. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. The Manager, Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division, Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor, D Block, 8-2-626, Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 034. 2. 2. Reliance Life Sciences pvt Ltd., Rep by its Manager, Admn. Off Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R282, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai 400 701. 3. 3. Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture, Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001. 4. 4. Assistant Director of Horticulture I, Khammam 507 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 22 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD F.A.No. 163 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.550 OF 2013 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM -I HYDERABAD Between Korra Deva S/o Jaithya Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Village Korra Thanda Khammam Urban Mandal Khammam Dist. Having Come down to Hyderabad Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 164 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.551 OF 2013 Between Sri A. Uppalaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, Age : about 50 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Village K.V.Banjara Thanda, Khammam, Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Having comedown to Hyderabad Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 165 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.552 OF 2013 Between Smt. Bibi Nancharamma, W/o. Janakraj, Age: about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village - MACHKONDA, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 166 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.553 OF 2013 Between Sri P.Ramaswami, S/o. Thirupathaiah, Age: about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village Earlampudi, Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 167 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.554 OF 2013 Between Smt. Nunawath Chitti, W/o. Dasru, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village BADYA THANDA (RAMKYA THANDA), Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 168 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.555 OF 2013 Between Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Bhikshmaiah, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Village Earlampudi, Khamam Urban Mandal, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 169 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.556 OF 2013 Between Sri B.Hussain, S/o. Bahusingh, Age: about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village K.V.BANJARA THANDA, Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 170 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.557 OF 2013 Between Sri I.Yellaiah, S/o. Goipaiah, Age: about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village K.V.BANJARA THANDA, Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 171 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.558 OF 2013 Between Sri G.Manohar Reddy, S/o.G.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, Age: about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village K.V.BANJARA THANDA Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 172 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.559 OF 2013 Between Lal Singh, S/o. Biccha, Age: about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village BADYA THANDA (Ramkya Thanda), Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 173 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.560 OF 2013 Between Sri Dalapathi Subramaneyeshwara Raju, S/o.Kesava Raju, Age: about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village MACHKONDA Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 174 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.561 OF 2013 Between Sri Gogulath Kishan, S/o. Golak, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village PUTHANI THANDA Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 175 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.562 OF 2013 Between Sri Korra Veeranna, S/o. Sakram, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village KOORA THANDA Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties F.A.No. 176 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.563 OF 2013 Between Sri G.Venkateswarlu, S/o. G.Ramaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Village K.V.BANJARA THANDA Khamam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, Appellant/complainant A N D The Manager The Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Plants Tissue Culture Division Reliance Majestic, 3rd Floor D Block # 8-2-626, Road NO.11 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-034 Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Admn Off: Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, R-282, Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai-400701 Mission Director & Commissioner of Horticulture Public Gardens, Nampally, Assistant Director of Horticulture-I Respondent/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant/complainant M/s Gopi Rajesh Associates Counsel for the Respondent/opp.parties No.1 and 2 M/s A.P.Suresh QUORUM : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) ***
1. These appeals FA Nos.163 to 176 of 2016 are preferred by the complainants dissatisfying with the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad in CC No.550 to 563 of 2016. Since the opposite parties are common and facts as well as points in question are common we have decided to dispose of all these appeals by this common order. F.A.No.163 of 2016 is taken as lead case.
2. The complainants were farmers having agriculture fields and they used cultivate till then cotton, chilies and papaya and used to earn net income of Rs.1,50,000/-. One of the complainants' viz. Korra Deva is having 1 acre 24 guntas of agricultural field. 4 F.A.No.:769 to 773/09 The opposite party no.2 M/s Reliance Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. is a registered company who supply tissue culture banana plantlets to the farmers through its outlet, the opposite party no.1. According to complainants, the opposite parties no.1 to 4, through its representative guides the farmers for cultivation of banana plantlets and sale the banana plantlets through its outlet, the opposite party no.1 and assured them that they would get good profits. In the year 2011-2012 the opposite parties made publicity of tissue culture banana plantlets within the vicinity of Putham Thanda, Earlampudi of K.V.Banjara Thanda, Khammam Urban Mandal, District Khamma etc. Therefore complainants on the representation and assurance of the opposite parties purchased 2000 tissue culture Banana plants/saplings from the opposite partyno1 at the rate of Rs.14/- per each plant/sapling. The opposite party no.4 paid the subsidy amount to the complainants by collecting the invoices from the complainants. The following table shows the details of each case regarding appeal no., CC no., total number of purchase of plants, date of purchase, amount spent, loss and compensation claimed:
Sl.No. F.A.No. CC No. No. of Plants Dt. Of Purchase Amount Spent Loss & Compensation Amount awarded by DF
1.
163/2016 550/2013 2000 23.06.2011 28,000/-
5,04,240/-
60,000/-
2. 164/2016 551/2013 1500 24.06.2011 21,000/-
3,59,680/-
60,000/-
3. 165/2016 552/2013 3600 18.06.2011 50,400/-
7,26,832/-
60,000/-
4. 166/2016 553/2013 7300 18.07.2011 1,00,400/-
17,52,664/-
60,000/-
5. 167/2016 554/2013 2600 20.06.2011 2,08,000/-
5,86,712/-
60,000/-
6. 168/2016 555/2013 3600 16.07.2011 50,400/-
12,51,832/-
60,000/-
7. 169/2016 556/2013 2800 24.06.2011 39,200/-
06,90,536/-
60,000/-
8. 170/2016 557/2013 2800 25.06.2011 39,200/-
06,90,536/-
60,000/-
9. 171/2016 558/2013 4000 24.06.2011 56,000/-
10,07,480/-
60,000/-
10. 172/2016 559/2013 7200 20.06.2011 1,00,800/-
17,89,664/-
60,000/-
11. 173/2016 560/2013 3600 18.07.2011 50,400/-
07,26,832/-
60,000/-
12. 174/2016 561/2013 3000 18.07.2011 42,000/-
07,18,360/-
60,000/-
13. 175/2016 562/2013 7600 23.06.2011 1,06,400/-
18,08,312/-
60,000/-
14. 176/2016 563/2013 3600 25.06.2011 50,400/-
08,76,832/-
60,000/-
3. It is further submitted by complainants that they grown/planted banana plants in their respective fields by cultivating their fields by applying adequate fertilizers including minor elements providing sufficient water and also praying suitable pesticides as per guidance and instructions of opposite party no.4. They also invested huge amount towards fertiliser and pesticide. However, the complainants found that the crop was shown poor performance. When these facts came to the notice of complainants they contacted the opposite party no.4 and lodged a complaint about the off type plants supplied by the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.4 when addressed a letter to the Director of Research, Dr.YSR Horticulture University about the poor performance of the crop, it deputed a Senior Scientist for field inspection who visited their fields and verified all the facts and gave the following report:
"As a whole I feel that even though 30 percent of plants are off types with poor quality as per as visual symptoms are concerned. And the main reason for poor performance is due to poor nutrition only 40 percent of bunches are of poor quality and unfit for marked"
4. On the basis of the said report the opposite party no.4 had addressed letter dated 12.06.2012 to the opposite partyno.1 for contacting the effected farmers to pay compensation for the loss sustained by them. Thus according to complainants opposite parties are 5 F.A.No.:769 to 773/09liable to pay them compensation. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed separate consumer complaints claiming compensation towards loss in their agriculture income and cost of the proceedings.
5. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed their written version contending that as per the dispute clause of delivery challan all issues/disputes arising in connection with the sale of Banana Plants is subject to jurisdiction of Courts at Mumbai. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 further contended that it is one of the most reputed company engaged in the tissue culture production for the last several years. Before the sale of its products, the opposite partyno.2 get them tested for quality checks at its laboratory and after that the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India gave its certification. Since all plantations and cultivation crops are subject to vagaries of weather and also involves maintenance of crops by providing crop with required manure and cultivable soil and proper irrigation facility, opposite party No.2 particularly cautions its users on vagaries of weather and the manner in which saplings would have to maintain in order to get good yield from the crops. Further, it expressly informs its users that to achieve good results / yield proper irrigation practice timely feeding the plants and its maintenance etc., on the part of the farmers has very essential. As such, the opposite party No.2 is not only known are providing good quality Agricultural products but also undertakes to explain with the farmers/ customers the manner in which its product should be used.
6. It is further submitted that sometimes off types variants or virus/diseases may occurred due to various factors which may include filled / soil condition or a wrong cultivation practice may yield bad results. Further the growth and the yield of plant is strictly subject to prevalent agro-climate conditions and it primarily depends on the manner in which the farmers maintains and cultivated the crop by adopting good practice of cultivations and negligence of any sort on the part of the farmers in cultivating these crops may results of off type variant. In such event opposite party No.2 doesn't accept any liability in regard to any loss or damage caused if any due to in the negligence on the part of the farmers in cultivating the crops in accordance with the stipulations mentioned above.
7. The plants were supplied under a valid delivery challan and subject to the terms and conditions (Capturing general payment terms and delivery terms mentioned overleaf of challan, which are read over and explained to the complainant, it was only after his acceptance of the terms and conditions were the plants supplied to the complainant. Though the alleged report of the Scientist reads that at least 30% of saplings was of off-type that too on account of the improper nutrition for which the opposite party No.1 & 2 cannot be held liable, the complainant remains silent as regards the income derived on account of sale of the rest of sole of Tissue Culture Bananas. Similarly the complainant does not refer to any of the contentions incorporated in the opposite party No.1 & 2 reply notice given to the Legal Notice dated 13.03.2013 of the complainant and nor does he meet any of the contentions set across by the opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply notice. Due to defective in cultivation only is damage occurred but not the poor quality of material supplied by the opposite parties. Hence, complaint may be dismissed.
8. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 resisted the case contending that these opposite parties never visited the village of complainant and other villages before the purchase of tissue culture banana plants. The officials of opposite parties gave positive reply of payment of subsidy and adequate supervision if the complainants ready to adopt the tissue culture and further they told the farmers that it is the farmers to opt the company who sell the saplings. The field staff of opposite partiesno.3 and 4 have guided the complainants on planation which includes good management practices and nutrition. After the representation dated 30.03.2012 received by these opposite parties addressed a letter to Director of Research Dr. YSR. Horticulture University, Vekataramannagudem, West Godavari with a request you to depute a Scientist and accodringly the Senior Scientist M. Ravindra Babu has visited the affected fields along with H.O., ADH., and farmers and gave report. After receiving the report from Scientist and representations from the complainant and other farmers this opposite party informed the opposite party No.1 & 2 to solve the issue in consultation with the effected farmers and also submit to opposite party No.4 but the opposite party No.1 & 2 didn't take any action. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties and prayed for its dismissal.
9. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A19 marked, while on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 and 2, the authorized signatory, Ms. Monali Pati, filed her affidavit and the got Exs.B1 to B3 , and on behalf of the opposite parties no.3 and 4, Sri J.Marriyanna, the Assistant Director of Horticulture filed his affidavit and got Exs.B4 to B12 marked.
10. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the purchase of seeds by the complainant was not in dispute and equally inspection by the Mandal Agricultural Officer. He had given report stating that 30% of quality of seed was sub-standard, and therefore awarded Rs.41,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum together with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/-
11. Dissatisfying the said decision the complainants preferred appeals contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. Though the complainant filed all the documentary and oral evidence the District Forum did not consider the same and failed to grant the reliefs as prayed for. The District Forum dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 ignoring the fact that the officials of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 have represented and persuaded the farmers to grow the tissue culture banana plants. Despite report of the expert that 30% of plants are off types with poor quality and also 40 percent of bunches are of poor quality and unfit for market the District Forum did not award the damages accordingly. Therefore they prayed that the complaints be allowed by awarding the amounts claimed by them.
12. We heard learned counsel for both side at length and perused the written notes of arguments submitted by them. We have also perused the copies of impugned orders and also copies of complaints, written versions, copies of report of Senior Scientist and other documents including copies of evidence affidavit etc.
13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
14. It is an undisputed fact that the complainants are agriculturists own lands wherein they raised cotton, chillies and papaya till they grow banana plants. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party no.1 is the supplier of the banana saplings while opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of banana saplings. The complainants purchased the banana saplings evidenced under receipts Ex. A1 by paying its value. It is also not in dispute that when the complainants could find that crop did not grow nor the yield as romised by the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The complainants and farmers gave complaint to the opposite party no.4 and on the request of the opposite party no.4 , the Director of Research Dr.YSR Horticulture University deputed the Senior Scientist, Dr.YSR Horticultural University, Aswaraopet. Sri M.Ravindra Babu inspected the fields on 15.05.2012 and opined that " As a whole I feel that even though 30 percent of plants are of off types with poor quality as per as visual symptoms are concerned. And the main reason for poor performance is due to poor nutrition only. 40 percent of bunches are of poor quality and unfit for market." The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are registered units with the Department of Horticulture for 2011-12 i.e., opposite parties no.3 and 4 in the complaint which is evidenced under Ex.B4. The opposite party no.4 addressed letter to the opposite party no.1 for contacting the affected framers to pay compensation for the loss sustained but the opposite party no.1 failed to take any steps to compensate the complainants.
15. The complainant and other farmers stated that they spent Rs.80/- on each plant for purchase of manure, pesticides and medicines as suggested by the staff of the opposite parties no.3 and 4. Though they followed the instructions of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 the complainant and other farmers could not get yield as promised by the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
16. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 contended that the opposite party no.2 company is one of the reputed company and is engaged in the business of tissue culture products. Their products entered into open sale only after they tested the products in their laboratory and after the certification of Director of Biotechnology Ministry of Science and Technology of Government of India. They also stated that the poor performance of the plants are due to poor and improper nutrition. If the complainants/farmers provided proper nutrition, follow technical guidance and property irrigation practice it should have been different and the yield might have been good. Therefore, the poor performance and yield is not due to inferior quality of plants but of not following the guidance of the opposite parteisno.3 and 4 and hence there was no deficiency of service on their party.
17. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 also disputed that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and contended that in delivery challan it was mentioned that all disputes will be subjected to Mumbai jurisdiction only. For determining the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, the Consumer Foras are bound by the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In Associated Road Carriers Ltd., Vs. Kamlender Kashyap & Ors.-I (2008) CPJ 404 (NC), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Commission, was to the effect, that a clause of jurisdiction, by way of an agreement, between the parties, could not be made applicable, to the Consumer Complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras, as the Foras are not the Courts. In Ethiopian Airlines Vs Ganesh Narain Saboo, IV(2011)CPJ43(SC)=VII(2011)SLT 371, the principle of law, laid down was that the restriction of jurisdiction to a particular Court, need not be given any importance in the circumstances of the case. In Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. Vs Sameer Saksena & another I(2013)CPJ31(NC) and Radiant Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs D.Adhilakshmi & Anr I(2013) CPJ 169 (NC) the agreements were executed, between the parties, incorporating therein, a condition, excluding the jurisdiction of any other Court/Forum, in case of dispute, arising under the same, and limiting the jurisdiction to the Courts/Forums at Delhi and Hyderabad. The National Commission, in the aforesaid cases, held that such a condition, incorporated in the agreements, executed between the parties, excluding the jurisdiction of a particular Court/Forum, and limiting the jurisdiction to a particular Court/Forum, could not be given any importance, and the complaint could be filed, at a place, where a part of cause of action arose, according to Section 11 of the Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. Under these circumstances, anything written in the delivery challan could not exclude the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Hyderabad, where a part of cause of action, accrued to the complainants, to file the complaint.
18. For the limitation the point raised by the opposite parties no.1 and 2, the Senior Scientist inspected the lands and gave report on 15.05.2012 and the complaint was filed on 23.08.2013 therefore the complaint is within limitation.
19. It is therefore clear from the material available that the opposite parties totally failed in showing the seeds in question were free from defect. This deficiency smacks both the defect in seeds as also deficiency in service of supply of seeds. The complainants are agriculturists who own lands could find that crop did not grow nor the yield as promised approached the agricultural authorities in fact gave a complaint to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Khammam, who in turn addressed letter to the Director of Research Dr.YSR Horticulture University who in turn deputed the Senior Scientist of their University. The Scientist who visited the crop categorically stated that as a whole 30 percent of plants are off type and the main reason for poor performance is due to poor nutrition and 40 percent of bunches are of poor quality and unfit for market. Due to this, there was poor growth, less productive plants and more poor productive plants were observed. In the report of the Senior Scientist it is observed that the poor performance was due to poor nutrition.
20. Obviously the agriculturists do not have wherewithal to conduct tests etc. as that of a manufacturer. What all they could do is obtain an opinion of the agricultural officer and expert in the subject.
21. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainants did not follow the guidance of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 and that they did not provide proper nutrition and proper irrigation process. The manufacturer did not mention the manner in which the cultivation has to be made particularly in regard to these saplings. The fact remains that the Scientist observed that 30% of the plants are off type and 40% of bunches are unfit for market. The complainants have used the fertilizers, pesticides etc. evidenced from bills. These contentions have no place more so, when the manufacturer itself did not take any steps to show that the saplings that were sold were in conformity with all the standards etc.
22. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainants have proved their cases beyond doubt. The manufacturer did not send the saplings that were released to the market under the said batch in order to prove that the saplings were not of inferior in quality. It did not even file the laboratory test reports that were conducted before releasing the saplings to the market. The questions in regard to nature of land, irrigation facilities etc., were of general nature. There could not have been total loss of crop only 40% of them were poor quality and unfit to market and this was partly due to poor nutrition, not following the technical guidance and irrigation facility. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that 30% of plants were off types and due to the said fact there was low yield. Therefore it is proved by the report of the scientist that 30 percent of the plants were off types and due to that they have sustained some loss.
23. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the complainants have raised the banana saplings in an extent of land as mentioned in the complaints. The District Forum though rightly held that opposite parties no.1 and 2 has committed deficiency in service by supplying defective tissue culture banana plantlets to the complainants and therefore opposite parties no.1 and 2 are responsible for the loss sustained to the complainants. The scientist in his report Ex.A3 stated that 30 percent of plants are off types and the reason for poor performance was due to poor nutrition and due to that there was 40% of the bunches were of poor quality and unfit for market. The complainants nowhere stated in their complaint how much amount from rest of the yield they were received and there is no evidence to show that how much yield they would get for banana plantations per acre. The saplings supplied by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are not totally inferior quality as per the report only 30% are off type plants. Further, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 gave subsidy to the complainants on the saplings purchased by them and not only that they supplied manure, DDVP, urea, SSP etc., free of cost. Since the complainants could not prove that they sustained loss @ Rs.80/- per plan the District Forum calculated the compensation by taking the amount spent by the complainants towards the purchase of banana saplings, potash and boron. Since as stated above, the complainants failed to prove that how much loss they sustained, how much income they got from rest of the crop. The complainant did not file any affidavits of the neighbouring land owners to prove that the complainants sustained such a loss as well as income derived from each acre. The complainants did not file any authenticated statement to show the loss and earnings from the rest of the crop. In the absence of such details we take the amount spent by the complainants as evidenced under the bills of purchase of saplings, potash and boron to calculate the compensation. Apart from that the District Forum awarded Rs.15,000/- towards charges of coolies for cultivation of the banana saplings. The District forum also awarded lease amount of Rs.10,000/- by stating that if the complainants leased out the land to the tenants they may get some amount. For the amounts awarded towards coolie charges and lease charges there is no modification. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, physical suffering etc. to this we enhance the same from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
24. Therefore, we feel it is just and reasonable to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay the following amount as mentioned in the table towards purchase of Tissue Culture Banana plants / saplings, cost of the manure and pesticides etc, and towards cultivation by engaging coolies or by personally attending by the complainant and his family members together with compensation and costs.
Sl.No. F.A.No. CC No. Cost of plants -Subsidy Given on plants+ Cost of plants, fertilizers, pesticides Lease amount + coolies charges Compensation and costs Total
1. 163/16 550/13 28,000-10,800 24,180 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,03,180
2. 164/16 551/13 21,000-07,200 23,980 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,02,980
3. 165/16 552/13 50,400-10,800 46,770 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,25,770
4. 166/16 553/13 1,08,000-NIL 1,19,480 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,98,480
5. 167/16 554/13 36,400-14,400 27,655 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,06,655
6. 168/16 555/13 50,400-NIL 62,608 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,41,608
7. 169/16 556/13 39,200-14,400 30,830 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,09,830
8. 170/16 557/13 39,200-14,400 30,470 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,09,470
9. 171/16 558/13 56,000-18,000 45,224 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,24,224
10. 172/16 559/13 1,00,800-18,000 92,604 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,71,604
11. 173/16 560/13 50,400-10,800 48,506 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,27,506
12. 174/16 561/13 42,000-NIL 59,396 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,38,396
13. 175/16 562/13 50,400-28,800 29,870 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,08,870
14. 176/16 563/13 50,400-18,000 38,710 10,000+15,000 50,000+4000 1,17,710 In the result this appeal F.A.No.163/2013 is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.49,180/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 164/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.48,980/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 165/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.71,770/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 166/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.1,44,480/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 167/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.52,655/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 168/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.87,608/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 169/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.55,830/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 170/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.55,470/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 171/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.70,224/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 172/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.1,17,604/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 173/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.73,506/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 174/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.84,396/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 175/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.54,870/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
F.A.No. 176/2016In the result this appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay cost of Banana Saplings, Fertilizers and pesticides, lease charges, coolie charges of Rs.63,710/- together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Time for payment four weeks from the date of order, failing which the amount so awarded, shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of failure, till realization. The complaint against the opposite parties no.3 and 4 is dismissed without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated: 22.03.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER