State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.K.Sukumaran vs Md Sds Ramcides on 30 October, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/16/804 ( Date of Filing : 15 Dec 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/331/14 of District Idukki) 1. T.K.SUKUMARAN .. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MD SDS RAMCIDES .. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 30 Oct 2023 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.804/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED: 30.10.2023 (Against the order in C.C.No.331/2014 of the CDRF, Idukki) PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT: T. K. Sukumaran, S/o Kuttan, Thekkedath House, 20 Acre, Pottancaud, Bisonvally P.O., Adimaly, Idukki (by Advs. Laiju Ram Kallida & C.P. Jagadeesh) Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Managing Director, M/s SDS Ramcides Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., 47 & 48 Bazullah Road, 7th Floor, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 (by Advs. C. K. Vidyasagar & Thomson Joseph) 2. Sibychan Jacob, Proprietor, Agro Park Marketing System, Central Junction, Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki - 685 553 3. Jose Abraham, Kootiyanickal House, Mankuva P.O., Idukki (by Adv. Rajmohan C. S.) JUDGEMENT
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER This appeal is filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant in C.C.No.331/2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 27.04.2016 the District Commission dismissed the complaint. The complainant is challenging the said order of the District Commission.
2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a cardamom planter. The complaint pertains to alleged loss of cardamom plants consequent on the application of the fertilizer/medicine called BACT 805 manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party and third opposite party is their representative. The complainant owned cardamom plantations having 5000 numbers of high yielding Njallani Variety of cardamom plants planted in 2012. After two years of its plantation the flowers and berries of the plants started drying in the plantation which showed a symptom of a bacterial disease with blights which would finally result in detached cardamom plant. K-cycling is the usual medicine sprayed for a disease like this. But the 2nd and 3rd respondents recommended that BACT 805 is the better and superior product. Accordingly, the appellant purchased 53 packets on 06.09.2014 and applied on the cardamom plants. But after three weeks the flowers and berries of the plants started to decay and 2900 plants were damaged. The District Level Officer of the 1st respondent visited the plantation and admitted that damage to the plants was due to the application of BACT 805. The Scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra and Spices Board also inspected the plants and confirmed the damage caused to the plants. The matter was reported to the respondents who initially agreed to pay damages. But as they did not give the compensation complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming compensation of Rs.18,88,180/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eight) and also Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) for mental agony and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as litigation costs for deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
3. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the product BACT 805, 2nd opposite party is the distributor and the 3rd opposite party is the agent. They appeared before the District Commission and filed their version. The 1st opposite party contended that they did not persuade the complainant to use their medicine for their cardamom plants. The 1st opposite party has clearly stated on the packet that BACT 805 is not to be used to the crop other than the crops specified in the pouch. Nowhere on the pouch of the product was it stated that the same was suitable for cardamom. The 1st opposite party contended that complainant has not produced any proof to establish the loss suffered by him. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties also filed similar version denying their liability. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Expert Commissioner as PW2. Purchase bill was marked as Exhibit P1 and Commission report was marked as Exhibit C1. BACT 805 pouch was marked as MO1. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed this appeal.
5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint was dismissed without properly considering the evidence adduced by him before the District Commission. He purchased and used BACT 805 in his plantation because of the advice of the second and third respondents. Damage to plants occurred only because of its use and they were convinced about the loss when they visited the plantation along with District level officer of the first respondent. Scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Santhanpara and Spices Board officials, Nedumkandam also visited the planation and confirmed the loss. The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Senapathy who was the Expert Commissioner, has a reported a loss of Rs.17,55,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand). The yield the appellant would have obtained from the damaged 2,900 cardamom plants for a year would be Rs.18,85,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand) (i.e. 2900 x Rs 650 per kg =18,85,000 plus Rs.3180/- towards price for BACT 805, totalling 18,88,180) which should be compensated by the respondents. The appellant submitted that he sustained heavy loss only because of the usage of BACT 805 and the District Commission erred in not properly appreciating the evidence adduced by him. He prayed to set aside the order of the District Commission and remand the case for taking fresh evidence including conducting of chemical analysis.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have not advised the appellants to use their product BACT 805 for the alleged disease to their plants. It is clearly stated on the packet that BACT 805 was not to be used to the crop other than the crops specified in the pouch. It is for the user to read the instructions on the pouch carefully before using it. There is nothing in evidence to prove that the damage to the plants of the appellant caused because of the usage of this product. The Expert Commissioner (PW2) who was an Agricultural Officer deposed that chemical analysis report was essential to ascertain whether the damage to the plants occurred due to the application of the medicine. But no action was taken from the side of the complainant to conduct any lab test. There is no purpose in remanding the case back to the District Commission long time after the damage of the plants had occurred. There is no meaning in conducting the lab test of the product after its expiry date. They submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable to compensate the appellants. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. It is evident from Ext P1 (retail invoice) that the appellant has purchased the product 'BACT 805' from the second respondent. According to the appellant, the cause of damage to plants was the use of this product. The crucial point in the complaint is whether the loss suffered by the complainant can be attributed to the usage of the said product.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that it is specifically stated in the instructions on the cover of 'BACT 805' (Exhibit MO1) the purposes for which it can be used. There is no mention that it can be used for cardamom plants. Complainant should have taken an attempt to know the instructions before using it. The respondents cannot be held liable for the lapse on the part of the appellants in not understanding the use of the product before applying it to the plants
9. The Agricultural officer, Krishi Bhavan, Senapathy (PW2) was the expert Commissioner. He deposed that MO1 is used for bacterial disease and there was no bacterial disease in the plantation he inspected. Plants of the appellant were afflicted with fungal infections. He further deposed that a lab report was required to ascertain the cause of damage to the plants. In his report (Ext C1) though he has reported about the loss, he has not stated that the loss to plants was because of the use of MO1. The report of the expert Commissioner and his depositions do not corelate the use of the MO1 and damage to the cardamom plants. So it does not support the claims of the appellant/complainant.
10. The appellant has stated that scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Santhanpara and officials of Spices Board, Nedumkandam visited the plantation to inspect the damages. However, neither any of them were examined nor their reports are produced before the District Commission. Spices Board office and Cardamom Research Centre are situated within a short distance from the planation and no effort is taken by the appellant to take a report from them. The appellant failed to utilise expertise of these organisations to ascertain and prove the cause of damage to the plants.
11. We observe that no effort was taken by the appellant to conduct a lab test of MO1 to prove their allegations. Needless to say, that no lab test or other test is possible at this length of time. There is no purpose in doing it after several years. We agree with the contention of the respondents that no purpose will be served if the chemical analysis is done after the expiry date of the product.
12. The loss alleged by the complainant can be due to various reasons. The appellant failed to prove that the damage to the cardamom plants occurred because of the usage of BACT 805. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties.
13. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission as sought for by the appellant. We concur with the finding of the District Commission that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that the damage of the plants were caused consequent to the use of the fertilizer/medicine BACT 805.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 27.04.2016 of the District Commission in C.C.No.331/2014 is confirmed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN :
PRESIDENT K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN :
MEMBER SL [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D] JUDICIAL MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER