State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri. Ganga Reddy. vs Hugugle Bio Tech Pvt Limited. on 28 June, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/481/2015 ( Date of Filing : 09 Sep 2015 ) 1. Sri. Ganga Reddy. S/o. Venkataravanappa, aged about 70 years, Bychapaura village, Chikkanahalli post, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere taluk, Tumkur District-572121. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. HUGUGLE Bio Tech Pvt Limited. Sr. No. 23, post box No.14, Binnamangala Village, Devanahalli TQ, Bangalore (R) District-562110.Rep by its Director. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 28 Jun 2022 Final Order / Judgement Complaint No.481/2015 Filed on.09/09/2015 Disposed on.28/06/2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2022 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 481/2015 Sri. Ganga Reddy S/o Venkataravanappa, Aged about 70 years, Bychapaura Village, Chikkanahalli Post, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District. ..........Complainant (By M/s R.R.Associates, Adv.,) V/s H U GUGLE, Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Sr.No. 23, P.O.Box, No.14, Binnamangala Village, Devanahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore (R) District - 562 110 Represented by its Director. (By Sri. K.N.P. Adv.,) ..........Opposite Parties :ORDER:
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER The complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Opposite Party pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- towards loss of crops/income and mental agony along with cost and such other reliefs
2. The facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant submit that in the year 2014 the Opposite Party have installed a stall in Krushimela at the GKVK CAMPUS. The Opposite Party company's experts in that stall explained to this complainant that Opposite Party company is a leading plant tissue culture lab in India, well-equipped lab assistance by separate R & D Department. The Opposite Party company's experts further influenced the complainant by stating that Opposite Party company lab is recognized and certified by (DBT) Department of Bio-Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology and Government of India and Opposite Party cop company's major focus is on the promoting cultivating high yield Banana plants a cash crops. The complainant being influenced by the Opposite Party experts and also after seeing the photographs and the broacher's shown to him, the complainant purchased the Elakki Banana Plants 6000 in numbers from Opposite Party by paying Rs.20/- for each sampling in addition to spending the transporting charge in all amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-.
2(a) The complainant further submitted that the complainant after preparing the soils for the plantation of Banana, planted those plants in the land bearing Sy.No.36/2, of Bychapaura Village after bedding the land, leveling it, installing drip irrigation etc., by spending around Rs.1,05,000/- and planted those saplings purchased from Opposite Party, as per the instructions/directions given by Opposite Party experts. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party company/experts/technicians also assured the complainant that he would get an average yearly of 15 Kgs yield of Elakki Banana per plant which will cost normally Rs.600/- per plant and from all 6000 plants an assured minimum income of Rs.36,00,000/- per yield and the complainant can have two yields within 21 months in this way, he can earn Rs.72,00,000/-.
2(b) The complainant further submitted that the complainant planted the sampling carefully, after taking care in accordance with Opposite Party company experts advices, also took due precaution to use the correct manure/fertilizers for optimum results and to prevent disease to the plants by spending huge amount. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party experts visited the complainant's Banana Groove (Bale thota) up to 9th month growth of the plant the experts opined and observed that the plants were growing excellently, irrigation was good, plots were clean, watering was good, and also advised to use some pesticides as some plants were affected by pest. The complainant further submitted that to concentrate the cultivation of Elakki Banana, the complainant's son by name Ravi Kumar B.G. resigned his permanent job (Deutsche Bank), wherein, he was getting a income of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum, all the family member put their man power also for the cultivation of the Elakki Banana. The complainant's son invested all his savings (P.F. Gratuity) in cultivations of Banana plants.
2(c) the complainant furnishes the detail picture of the expenses incurred by the complainant are mentioned below:
Sl.No. Particulars Expenses
1.
Cultivation of land, manure, and plantation expenses for measuring 3 acres 12 guntas Rs.10,30,500/-
2. Drip irrigation expenses Rs.1,05,000/-
3. Total labour expenses at various stages Rs.2,15,000/-
4. Fertilizers and pesticide purchases Rs.5,47,900/-
5. Purchase of plants and its transportation Rs.1,20,000/- + 5,0000/-
2(d) The complainant further submitted that the plants were also grown well till the stage of flowering and the Opposite Party experts visiting the groove opined that banana plants were growing well. But the utter shock to the complainant all the plants failed, with low weight bunches, poor fruit setting and development, the fruits were under developed with a thin receptacle and there was no synchronous flowering though proper irrigation was done as per the guidelines and advises given by the Opposite Party experts and this kind of thin receptacle fruits which have no markets as the banana fruits are small just like small fingers. As such the yield are substantially low due to reasons attributable solely to the defective saplings. In this regard the complainant called the Opposite Party experts and technicians also visited the groove on 21.06.2015 after the field inspection expressed that the defect might be due to calcium deficiency. There after the complainant had gone to the other experts scientists of Horticulture Department and they also inspected the grove, opined and observed that the plants had failed because of defective saplings and genetic variations. In this regard the complainant repeatedly approached Opposite Party company/experts/lab technician/ but they had not given any reply and instructed the complainant to approach the higher officials.
2(e) The complainant further submitted that as he had not received any response from the Opposite Party, the complainant got issued the legal notice dated:20.07.2015 to the Opposite Party, for which the Opposite Party gave some untenable reply. The complainant further submitted that he also made request to the ADH, Department of Horticulture Koratagere Taluk to give expert opinion about the casue for low bunch yield, no inflorescence. The joint team visited the complainant's banana thota and after inspecting the field and opined that "Inspection confirmed that majority of the plants had failed because of varied saplings. It was also noted that 60% did not yield any flower nor any banana bunches" and opined that "in our view the failure of Banana plantation might be due to the defect and variation in the seedlings. Because of defective saplings supplied by the Opposite Party, the complainant incurred heavy loss, mental worries and damages. Hence, with no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint.
3. After service of the notice, the op appeared through counsel and filed his version and admitted that Mr.Ravi Kumar representative of the complainant approached the op and purchased 6000 Banana Variety Elakki Ploybag plants and 500 Banana G-9 polybag plants under the invoice NO.2635 dated:31.07.2014 and denied other averments and allegations of the complaint.
3(a) The OP further contended that the op is not concerned for the amounts spending for the land leveling, installing drip irrigation. The OP further contended that the plants purchased by the complainant were kept in the farmer field without planting as it is in the poly bags during August 2014 and finally planted on 03.09.2014. Moreover, the complainant had planted all the 6500 plants in 3 acres and 14 guntas as against the recommended planting density of 1200 to 1400 plants per acre. Further on Mr.Ravikumar's request on 07.10.2014 the company field officer visited his field and recorded the growth of the plants which was satisfactory, but also observed plants showing mineral deficiency and advised the farmer to apply the same. The OP further submitted that on 08.11.2014 upon the request by the farmer a curtsey field visit was again made by the company field officer and recorded good growth and establishment of the plants and identified the pest incidence and suggested suitable pesticide to spray. On 03.04.2015one more filed visit was made by the company field officer recorded the overall good growth of the plants and the shoot-out of the fruit bunches having 8 t0 11 hands with healthy unripened fruits. Further, 2nd week of April 2015, the complainant called another field officer and lamented about the rainy storm with strong wind destroyed the plants. The field officer advised the complainant to remove the broken portion of the plant and allow side sucker to grow, to give support and correct the lodged plants by earthling up around the plants. Thereafter the farmer has approached SADH, Zilla Panchayat, Department of Horticulture, Koratagere for compensation and the Revenue Department recommends compensation for 2000 banana plants.
3(b) The OP further contended that on 02.06.2015 and 07.06.2015 as per the request of Mr.Ravi Kumar, the Field Officer visited the field and observed that many plants were with broken stem and fruit bunches were seen, most of the plants were started bending due to non-availability of water, no supports were given to the plants, drying of leaves from the margin were observed. The plants having poor growth, leaveas having mineral deficiency, short and stout bunches having few hands with small fingers confirmed poor maintenance of the plantation since two months after that rainy storm incident in April and that too during summer months and during flowering and during bunch formation period.
3(c) The OP further contended that the report submitted by Team of experts along with AHO is not true. The report is completely one sided and prepared on the basis of information provided by the complainant. The joint inspection committee did not take samples to prove variation in the presence of the op and sent the samples to the ATL for DNA finger printing or genetic fidelity tests and no expert report produced by the complainant before the State Commission. Hence, there is no deficiency of service from the OP and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant marked the documents as Ex.C1 to C11 and the OP also marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R22.
5. We have heard the arguments of both parties.
6. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(1) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought? (3) What Order? 7. The findings to the above points are; (1) Affirmative (2) Partly Affirmative (3) As per final Order :R E A S O N S: Point Nos. (1) & (2):-
8. Perused the contents of the complaint, objections of the OP, affidavit evidence of both parties, documents produced by both the parties, evidence affidavit of C3 and interrogatories of C3, it is evident that the complainant purchased 6000 Elakki Banana plants from the OP by paying Rs.20/- for each sapling by spending transportation charges in all Rs.1,25,000/- and has cultivated the land installing the drip irrigation for cultivation of banana plants.
9. The OP has contended in his objection that the complainant has planted all the 6,000/- plants in 3 acres and 14 guntas as against the density of 1200 to 1400 plants per acre. When the officer visited the field of the complainant at request of Mr.Ravikumar, recommended the satisfactory growth of the plants. But also observed mineral deficiency. The OP further contended that during April-2015 there was a rainy storm with strong wind destroyed the plants and after approaching of the complainant to SADH, Zilla Panchayat, Department of Horticulture, Koratagere and the Revenue Department recommended compensation for 2,000/- banana plants. The OP further contended that on 02.06.2015 and 07.06.2015 as per request of Mr.Ravikumar, the OP's Field Officer visited the field and observed that many plants were broken stem and fruit bunches were seen, moist of the plants were started bending due to non-availability of water, no supports were given to the plants, drying of leaves, poor growth, leaves having mineral deficiency, short and stout bunches having few hands with small fingers confirmed poor maintenance of the plantation. When the Company Chief Technical Manager visited the field on 21.06.2015, he observed that the plants were suffering from moisture stress and non-availability of mineral nutrients due to non-availability of sufficient irrigation, mineral deficiencies like calcium and boron, deficiency of water resulted the fruits are badly shaped, A sulpher, Zinc deficiency and its physiological problem happened due to insufficient irrigation. The OP further contended that the report submitted by team of experts along with the AHO is not true to the actual facts and incidences happened during the cropping period. The report is completely one sided and prepared. Moreover, sigatoka leaf infection and plant wilt due to Fusarium or Panama wilt disease are all the after effects of moisture stress on the plants. Moreover, there is no test report produced by the complainant to prove defective seedlings, namely virus indexing tests or genetic fidelity test to prove variation.
10. Perused the field visit report produced by the OP dated:07.10.2014 and 08.11.2014, wherein the Field Officer submitted that "plant growth is excellent, quality is good, irrigation is good. Next report dated:03.04.2015, there is also mentioned that plant growth is good and suggested suitable pesticides. However, in the report dated:07.06.2015, it was mentioned that maintenance is poor last two months, due to wind around 2000 plants damages, bunches are around 3-4 hands only, which shows that up-to April, the growth of the banana plants were good, irrigation was good, but observed mineral deficiency. The Field Officer suggested suitable pesticides and it is evident that the complainant as per the suggestion has purchased the Fertilizers and Pesticides of Rs.5,47,900/- and sprayed on the plants. The plants were growing well till the stage of flowering, but after that all the plants failed, with low weight bunches, poor fruit setting and development even proper irrigation and use of fertilizers and pesticides. Subsequently, the complainant has called the expert of OP and Technicians and they visited the field on 21.06.2015 and they expressed that the defect might be due to calcium deficiency. Thereafter, the complainant called the other Expert/Scientist of Horticulture Department and after inspection, the Expert/Scientist opined that the plants are failed because of defective saplings and genetic variations. Again, the complainant requested the ADH, Department of Horticulture Koratagere Taluk to give expert opinion about the low bunches yield and the Field Officer of the said Department after inspecting the field has opined that "majority of the plants had failed because of varied saplings".
11. We have perused the documents produced by both the parties. In the Field visit report dated:07.10.2014, it is mentioned that date of plantation is in the month of August itself. Moreover, regarding density some issue was not raised by the OP when their officials visited the field 2-3 times.
12. The complainant has submitted the report furnished by KRUSHI VIGNAN KENDRA (KVK), ICAR, Indian Institute of Horticulture, wherein in column conclusion, it is mentioned as "Conclusion: The growth of the plantation was good. The majority of bananas plants did not bear flowers and some plants bore bunches that too very small and low weight and some of the plants were affected by panama wilt disease. Therefore, in our view the failure of Banana Plantation might be due to the defect and variation in the seedlings" and as per affidavit evidence of C3 Sri. B.Hanumantegowda, Subject matter specialist (Plant Protection), Krishi Vignan Kendra, Hirehalli and also answers submitted by CW3 to the interrogatories submitted by Opposite Party, we noticed that Sri.B.Hanumantegowda is a qualified person and done PHD in plant pathology and as per the request of complainant dated:13.07.2015 Mr.Hanumantegowda, B visited the field of complainant and submitted the report to the Assistant Registrar of Horticulture. As per the report and as per the question and answer to the interrogatories filed by Opposite Party's ........
Question Nos.21. Have your reportedly recognized in banana plants the poor bunch having fewer hands with improper filling of fingers and the reasons for this in most of the unripned fruits the distal end is nipple shaped is there any mineral deficiency? Did you but light on this?
Ans: Yes, We were recognized the poor bunch size and the number of abnormal fingers. But nearly more than 60% of the plants did not bear any bunches. No mineral deficiency.
Question No.22. In your alleged report you have mentioned the incidence of panama wilt & sigatoka. Is it not because of the negligence from the farmers end?
Ans: I cannot say it is negligence. Diseases are caused due to so many reasons/factors.
Question no.23. You conclude your alleged report stating that defective seedlings of variations in the seedlings "might be" one of the reason (might be includes might not be also what do you say?
Ans: It is complex parameters which determine and cause so many deficiency /disorders/diseases. Since, it is biological process and our experience which clearly indicated that is due to defective seedlings.
Question no.25. That means there are other reasons also like not enough irrigation provided by the farmer during the flowering period Ref: Vikaspedia-moiture stress, Indian Agriculture-an article on stress of a biotic factor on banana growth and yield published NRCB, IARI? What do you say?
Ans: Farmer has shown the availability of source of irrigations along with drip and number of borwell to committee. The committee having the opinion that water scarcity was not the reason.
Question no.28. Didn't you notice the farmer himself is hiding many incidences like date of first plantation made; the plant density per acre; natural disaster happened during the flowering period of the crop, sheet negligence on the crop after natural disaster by not providing regular irrigation lead to moisture stress resulted in poor bunches with unfilled and not marketable fingers? What do you say?
Ans: Committee is expertise in accessing the age of plantation and other points you raised are well taken care. It is mainly not due to the moisture stress.
13. Means, the poor bunches occurred due to the defective seedlings and not for the plant density per acre, natural disaster shire negligence moisture stress.
14. The another contention of the Opposite Party is that there is no test report enclosed by the complainant to prove for the defective seedlings. To answer this we have to follow the decision reported in 2013(1) CPR 279, wherein, the Hon'ble State Commission in Revision Petition held that "when no seeds were available with the complainant for getting the same tested at laboratory, in accordance with the provision 13(1) (c), the complaint cannot be dismissed merely for the reasons that procedure mentioned in Section 13(1)(c) had not been followed".
15. In this decision, the Hon'ble State Commission held in Paragraph No.3 that even the expert who have given the report who had no occasion to examine the seeds and their report is best on the visual inspection of the crop. Their report is very much relevant, because it is based on their physical observations about the condition of the plants, they are qualified at agricultural expert.
16. The case in hand, Mr.B.Hanumanthegowda is subject matter specialist (Plant Protection) Krishi Vignan Kendra, Hirehalli and after inspecting the field, submitted the report that poor bunches occurred due to defective seedlings. Hence, the contention of the Opposite Party that no expert report or test report produced by the complainant to prove the defective seedlings cannot be accepted. Moreover, in this case it was banana sapling and not seeds and the complainant cannot preserved it to follow the procedure. The farmers cannot predict the future and also no one cannot say that the banana saplings was defective before planting them in the field. Moreover, the Opposite Party has not filed test report of banana saplings before releasing the saplings in the market. No any documents were produced by the Opposite Party to show that the saplings in question were free from any defect. In the news paper report dated:14.04.2015, we noticed that there are total loss of crops about 5,000 in the complainant and other farmers' field due rain strome. However, as per the expert report dated:31.07.2015 and also answers submitted by the expert to the interrogatories question No.28, we noticed that there is 60% loss due to defective seedlings. Moreover, media report is not perfect at all time, it would highten the issues.
17. The complainant has claimed the compensation for what he has spend for banana yield but it failed. To the extent of that the complainant has produced the receipts of purchase of plants & its transportation, fertilizers and pesticides, cultivation of land, manure and plantation etc. The complainant also contended that, he had spend money for drip irrigation, labour expenses etc. and claimed Rs.80,00,000-00 towards loss of crops and mental agony . Hence, to decide the compensation and actual amount spent by the complainant, the complainant has produced the promissory notes of banks, receipts and invoice for purchasing the banana plants. Totally he has spend Rs.20,23,400-00 for banana yield. But yield was poor and complainant suffered loss. Hence, in our opinion, the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore the complainant is entitled for the compensation.
. Point No.(3):- 18. In view of above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:- :ORDER:
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby allowed with litigation of cost of Rs.25,000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.12,14,000-00 60% amount of Rs.20,23,400-00 to the complainant towards 60% loss of crop.
The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for mental agony.
The Opposite Party is further directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER