National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Banadeshwar Agro Agencies vs Smt. Bassamma on 28 October, 2010
The factual matrix of this case is that the respondent who was the
complaiant in the consumer dispute is a owner of a processo
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3698
OF 2009
(From the order dated
17.08.2009 in Appeal No.579/2009
of the State Commission,
Karnataka)
1. The Proprietor ........
Petitioner (s)
M/s Banadeshwar Agro Agencies
12-1-40,
Rejendra gunj
Raichur,
Karnataka
2. Mr. Sameer P. Mulay
Managing Director
Ajeet Seeds Ltd.
2nd Floor, Tapadia Terraces,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad
Maharashtra
3. Mr. Ravi Kumar C.
Zonal Manager
Ajeet Seeds Ltd.
Blcok No.204
Doshi Chambers, No.2-4-327
Hyderaguda, Hyderabad, A.P.
4. Mr. G.
Nagesh
Regional Manager
Ajeet Seeds Ltd.
C/o M/s Gurudatta Enterprises
No.211/3-C, N.r. Road
Davangera, Karnataka
Vs.
Shivarudrappa (d) Through
Lrs
1. Smt.
Bassamma
W/o
Late Shivarudrappa
R/o
Bagalawad, Tq.-Manvi,
Distt.
Raichur
Karnataka
2. Sri Sharanappa ........Respondent
(s)
R/o
Bagalawad, Tq.-Manvi,
Distt.
Raichur
Karnataka
3.
Sri Basavaraj
R/o
Bagalawad, Tq.-Manvi,
Distt.
Raichur
Karnataka
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. SURESH
CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners : Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Advocate for
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. J.P. Mishra, Advocate
Pronounced on : 28th October, 2010
ORDER
PER MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The factual matrix of this case is that the respondent who was the complainant in the consumer dispute is the owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing survey no.362 measuring 12 acres 31 guntas situated at Bagalawad village, Taluka Manvi, District Raichur. On 13.10.2007, he purchased 3 packets of Sorghum Hybrid Ajeet 333 seeds (Jawar seeds) for Rabbi season each containing 3 Kgs. from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill no.375. Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 are the producers/manufacturers of the Hybrid seeds in question. He sown the seeds in the month of October 2007 but at the time of semi maturity stage of the said Jawar crop, he noticed that there was no proper setting of the seeds. Similar was the fate of some other farmers who had also grown the same brand of Jawar seeds in their lands. Eventually, the respondent could not harvest the crop due to its complete failure. The other farmers who had used Jawar seeds of other brands got good yield like 35 quintal per acre and sold the same at an average price of Rs.1700 to 1800 per quintal. During the stage of setting of the seeds of Jawar crop, the complainant and the other similarly placed farmers brought the matter to the notice of the respondents requesting them to visit their field to make spot inspection but they did not turn up. During the first week of January 2008, the respondents and other farmers requested the Inspector of Seeds, Agricultural Department, Manvi and Raichur in the matter but they also did not give any response. The respondent and others also requested Director of Agricultural Sciences, Gulbarga for necessary action but there was no response. Thereafter, they sent a requisition to the University of Agricultural Sciences and Assistant Director of Research, Raichur who visited the field of the complainant and other similarly placed farmers and gave a report in the matter to the complainant and also to the Joint Director of Agricultural Sciences Raichur. Led by the publicity given by the opposite parties regarding their Jawar seeds in question, which would give high yield about 34 to 38 quintal per acre, the respondent and some other farmers had purchased such seeds but their crop failed. Besides the purchase price of the seeds, the respondent had also spent substantial amount in his field in regard to the crop in question but sustained loss of more than Rs.80,000/- in the process. Treating this act on the part of the opposite parties in supplying defective seeds as an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raichur (District Forum for short) for awarding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- including the cost. Notices were issued by the District Forum to the opposite parties and based on the submissions made by the parties and evidence produced, the District Forum held the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 liable for deficiency in service and hence directed vide its order dated 27.01.2009 jointly and severally to pay a total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- towards loss and damages including the cost to the complainant within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The opposite parties challenged this order before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short) who, after hearing the parties, vide its impugned order dated 17.08.2009, upheld the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite parties. It is against this impugned order that the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.
2. After the preliminary hearing, limited notice came to be issued by us regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent who is now represented through his legal representatives because of his death. The main ground on which the impugned order in respect of the quantum of compensation is assailed by the petitioners is that the award of compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- directed by the fora below is arbitrary and on the higher side. According to them, the average yield of Jawar is about 10 quintal per acre and since admittedly seeds in question were sown on only three acres of land by the respondent, the total yield would not have been more than 30 quintals in the case of the complainant. Since the average price of Jawar per quintal is less than Rs.1,000/-, according to the respondent, the total loss, if any, would not have been of more than Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. It is not the case of the respondent that there was total loss rather only the expected yield is not achieved and as such, the compensation to be awarded should not have exceeded Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the fora below committed grave error in accepting the submission of the respondent without any basis and hence the conclusion drawn by them which is not supported by any documentary evidence deserved to be set aside and the quantum of the compensation reduced suitably. On a specific question by us, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no documentary evidence to support this submissions made on behalf of the petitioners regarding the average yield of 10 quintal per acre as also the price of Jawar being less than Rs.1,000/- per quintal.
4. Having considered the submissions made before us, we find that there is concurrent finding made by the fora below regarding the total loss of crop to the respondent. As regards the amount of compensation, the District Forum has given its finding after considering the facts of the case, report of the representative of Agricultural University and the submissions made by the two parties. Since nothing has been produced by the petitioners before us in support of their claim regarding the average yield and average price of Jawar, we do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fora below which is based on the facts before them. There being no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error on the part of the fora below in passing the impugned order, we are unable to give any relief to the petitioners against the impugned order and hence the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
.......Sd/-................
(SURESH CHANDRA) PRESIDING MEMBER SS/