National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. vs M.B.Malipatil & Anr. on 11 July, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.932 OF 2007 (Against order dtd. 14.02.2007 in Appeal No.917 of 2006 of the State Commission, Karnataka) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. ....... Petitioner (s) Vs. M.B.Malipatil & Anr. ........ Respondent (s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Narain, Ms.Shalu Lal, Advocates For the Respondents : Ms.Kiran Suri, Ms.Aparna Matto, Advocates Pronounced on 11th of July, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed by Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which had decided Appeal No.917/2006 in favour of M.B.Malipatil and another (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) who were the original complainants before the District Forum.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that after seeing an advertisement of the Petitioner/Company that tissue culture plants of G-9 variety have a very high yield of bananas, Respondent had purchased 4500 tissue culture banana seedlings for planting the same in his agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 30 guntas in Hydernagar, District Koppal by paying a sum of Rs.60,000/-. The Respondent, thereafter, planted the seedlings carefully and nurtured the plants strictly in accordance with the instructions of the Petitioner/Company and also took due precaution to use the correct pesticides, manure and fertilizers for optimum results and to prevent disease to the plants. However, Respondent found to his utter dismay that most of the seedlings failed and the plant growth was stunted with weak stems and eventually the bunches dried up. Respondent, therefore, immediately informed the Petitioner/company about these facts through letters and telegrams but there was no response. Respondent also made a complaint to the Dy.Director (Horticulture) whose experts after field inspection confirmed that 65% of the plants had failed because of defective and diseased seedlings supplied by the Petitioner/Company. It was also noted that the remaining 35% did not yield any flower nor any banana bunches.
Since the loss suffered by the Respondent was over Rs.8 lakhs because of the defective seedlings, he made several requests to the Petitioner/Company to make good the loss but there was no response.
Respondent, thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and requested that the Petitioners be directed to compensate the loss incurred by the Respondent to the tune of Rs.8,45,000/- which included payment of Rs.60,000/- as cost of the same and on account of compensation and mental agony.
Petitioner denied the above contentions and stated that there was no deficiency in the banana seedlings supplied to the Respondent. In fact, the stunted growth of the plants in the farm of the Respondent was caused due to adoption of wrong agronomy practices which included over-flooding the fields with excessive water instead of using drip irrigation methods, planting of virus infected water-melons simultaneously with the banana seedlings which spread to the banana seedlings, planting the seedlings in sandy soil with poor water holding capacity and with less nutrient and potassium content than required etc. No efforts were made by the Respondent to supplement these deficiencies. It was further stated that the Report of the experts relied upon by the Respondent did not state or conclude that there was any deficiency in the seedlings sold by the Petitioner/Company.
In fact, it confirmed adoption of poor agronomic practices by the Respondent.
The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint relying essentially on the Report dated 15.12.2005 of the Sr.Assistant Director (Horticulture) that the growth of the plantations was not good, that the bananas plants did not bear flowers and that some of the plants were diseased. The District Forum, however, also observed that there was a lapse on the part of the Respondent in not installing the drip irrigation etc. required for these crops and, therefore, it gave a lesser compensation than sought by the Respondent and directed the Petitioner/Company pay Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation cost within 60 days failing which Respondent will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above from the date of complaint till payment.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal.
The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:
Drip irrigation is not a must, if there is any other source of water for Banana Plantation. The OPs have not produced any evidence to show that there was no alternative source for supply of water to the Plants. Therefore, in our view the failure of Banana Plantation was because of defect in the Plants. Hence, in our view, the District Forum is justified in awarding compensation in favour of the complainant. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.
Learned counsel for Petitioner stated that the learned fora below failed to appreciate the fact that no evidence had been produced by the Respondent on whom the onus was to do so that the Tissue Culture Banana Seedlings which were developed by the Petitioner/Company and sold to the Respondent were in any way defective. Even the reports relied upon by the Respondent do not state that the seedlings were defective. In fact, one of these reports had clearly listed out the various deficiencies on the part of the Respondent in tending to the crops. Apart from this, the seedlings were not sent to Seeds Test Laboratory by the Respondent in support of his case. On the other hand, Petitioner is a renowned and well-established company with has an ISO 9001 certification and has supplied more than 70 lakhs tissue culture banana seedlings all of which were free from any defects. In view of this, the revision petition deserves to be accepted.
Counsel for respondent on the other hand reiterated that the field inspection Report dated 15.12.2005 of the Sr.Asstt.Director(Horticulture) was correctly relied upon by the fora below which had confirmed beyond doubt that growth and development of the banana seedlings was not satisfactory and there was also evidence of disease.
We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have considered the evidence on record. We have also carefully perused the field inspection Report dated 15.12.2005 of the Sr.Asstt.Director(Horticulture). This report, we note, only states that the crop development and growth was not satisfactory and some plants were disease infected. It neither quantifies the extent of the disease and unsatisfactory growth nor does it give a specific finding that the unsatisfactory growth was because of any defects in the tissue culture banana seedlings. We further note that Inspection Report dated 21.12.2004 prepared in the presence of Respondent clearly states adoption of poor agronomic practices, planting of virus infested water-melon crops alongside the banana seedlings, deficiency in irrigation as well as use of fertilizers as well as the soil being sandy with low fertility and thus not conducive for sowing banana seedlings. No mention is made even in this report that there was any defect in the seedlings per se. It is also not denied that the seedlings were never tested in a laboratory. From the above facts, it is clear that no evidence whatsoever is available as per the reports of the Horticulture Department or any other credible evidence that the crops failed because of defective seedlings. On the contrary, poor agronomic practices on the part of the Respondent are estabilshed.
As per various judgments of Honble Supreme Court e.g. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Vs. Sadhu & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2023, as well as this Commission, it is now well settled that the onus to prove that the seeds are defective in such cases lies on the complainant. In the instant case, Respondent has failed to lead or produce any evidence to prove his case. The learned fora below erred in not appreciating the above facts and gave their decisions in support of the Respondent based on a somewhat vague Report of the Horticulture Department dated 15.12.2005.
Keeping in view these facts, we have no option but to set aside the orders passed by the learned fora below. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/