This is a discussion on Sri Rama Agri-Genetics within the Other Product and Services forums, part of the Product And Services category; C.C. No. 83 / 2009 Between Rangamanayuni Nagaprasad, S/o Late Naganarasimhulu, aged about 52 years, Advocate, residing at D.No.8/47-1-6, Sainagar, ...
C.C. No. 83 / 2009
S/o Late Naganarasimhulu, aged about 52 years,
Advocate, residing at D.No.8/47-1-6,
Sainagar, Rajampet town and Mandal,
rep. by his General Power of Attorney Yenugonda
Sadasiva Naidu, S/o Late Ramakrishnappa Naidu,
Aged about 43 years, residing at D.No.2-38-3,
Arakonda Road, Thagguvaripalli,
Bangarupalem Town and Mandal,
Chittoor District .
1. B.Janardhana Reddy, Proprietor,
Nandini Fertilizers, Opp. RTC Bus-Stand,
Byepass Road, Kadiri, Anantapur Dist.
2. Sri Rama Agri-Genetics (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, 11-68,
Ground Floor-2, Siddeswara Apartments,
Krishna Nagar, Kurnool-518002, A.P.
… Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.01.2010 and upon perusing the complaint, written versions, affidavits, material documents and on hearing Sri A.Devendranath, counsel for the complainant, and Sri T.Purushotham & Sri K.Ashok Reddy, counsels for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 2 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-
DELIVERED BY Sri. V. Parthasaradhi Rao, B.A., L.L.B., President
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This is a complaint filed by the complainant for recovery of an amount of Rs.42,100/- for the loss of crop and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service.
The complainant submits that he is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Sri R.Nagaprasad, who is the practicing advocate at Rajampet, Kadapa District. The said R.Nagaprasad is originally resident of Thumbakuppam village of Chittoor District having agricultural lands in Thumbakuppam Village. He is only to look after his agricultural lands and so he has given General Power of Attorney to the complainant.
The complainant purchased 2 Kgs. of sunflower seeds concerned to Gowri (SRSFH-888) variety of sunflower seeds from the 1st opposite party on 31.03.2009 for the purpose of raising sunflower crop in the lands situated at Thumbakuppam village. The complainant raised the seeds of sunflower in the said lands but 90% of seeds have not terminated and 10% of seeds are alone grown. But the grown up plants have not given any yield. The complainant addressed a letter to the opposite parties to visit his land but the opposite parties have not given any reply.
The complainant invested an amount of Rs.6,100/- for ploughing, coolies and electricity charges and Rs.6,000/- towards maintenance. He lost Rs.30,000/- towards income of the crop and totally sustained loss of Rs.42,100/-. The price shown on the bag of seeds is Rs.1,050/- but the seeds bag was supplied for Rs.800/- by the 1st opposite party. Due to gross negligence on the pat of the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party has not taken care about the seeds and the complainant sustained loss. Hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and the complaint may be allowed.
The 2nd opposite party remained exparte. The 1st opposite party filed Written Version alleging that the residential address of the complainant and his GPA holder are not known to this opposite party. This opposite party is running his shop from the year 2000. Whenever any person purchased either fertilizers or seeds, a cash bill will be raised with all particulars namely Brand name, Batch number, Manufacturing date, Expiry date, Packing particulars, Quantity, Rate per Unit, Amount etc. The 1st opposite party is not manufacturing or producing any product of his own brand. There is no need to him to sell substandard seeds.
The allegation that the complainant raised sunflower seeds in his land that 90% of seeds are not fit for growing and that the remaining 10% of seeds though grown up have not yielded any crop are all false. After receipt of the letter dated 29.06.2009 from the complainant, the opposite party called upon the complainant and questioned him about the sending of the letter and the contents therein. The complainant replied that by mistake the letter was sent to the opposite party. Believing the words of the complainant, the opposite party has not given any reply. The allegation that due to nonqualified seeds supplied by the 1st opposite party, the complainant lost Rs.42,100/- is not correct. When the complainant had not purchased any seeds from the opposite party all the allegations regarding investments of Rs.12,100/- and loss of income of Rs.30,000/- are baseless. There is no cash bill purchased by the complainant in this case and the story of quotation dated 30.08.2009 which is not having name of the complainant nor signature of the opposite party is not true. The complainant did not mention the particulars of field and its extent in which the seeds were sowed. When there are many seed selling shops around the area of Bangarupalem, Palamaner, Punganur, Tirupati, Madanapalli there is no necessity to go all the way to Kadiri to purchase seeds. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed.
Basing on the averments and pleadings the following points arise for consideration:
1) Whether the opposite parties supplied substandard sunflower seeds to
to the complainant?
2) Whether the complainant sustained loss of Rs.42,100/-?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards mental agony?
4) To what relief?
The complainant filed Chief Affidavit of PW-1 and marked Exs. A1 to A6.
The opposite parties filed Chief Affidavit of RW-1 and marked Ex.B1. Both the complainant and 1st opposite party filed their Written Arguments.
Point No. 1 to 3 :-
The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant is General Power of Attorney holder of Rangamanayuni Nagaprasad and he filed this complaint against the opposite parties and the complaint is maintainable.
The 1st opposite party contends that the General Power of Attorney is a defective one. It was not registered one. There is not proper schedule and other things. He further contends that as per contention of the GPA, it was executed on 14.08.2006 but the Notary put the signature on 15.08.2006 and so it has no sanctity and legal value. Further the total extent of land is not mentioned in the General Power of Attorney. In those circumstances, the GPA holder did not get any right to represent the matter and the complaint may be dismissed.
It is true that in the GPA Ex.A6 it was written that it was executed on 14.08.2006. But the Notary attested it on 15.08.2006. Now the learned counsel for the opposite party contends that it was not voluntarily executed and the complainant cannot get any right under GPA to represent this matter. In this matter before Consumer Forum technicalities are not to be seriously agitated. The learned counsel for the complainant explained that the document was written on 14.08.2006 and it was executed on 15.08.2006 before the Notary. Then the mistake is on the part of Notary who attested the document on 15.08.2006 to correct the date 14.08.2006. Both the deponent and Notary have not taken care of changing the date. According to me it is technical error. Therefore the complainant can represent the matter as General Power of Attorney.
The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the 2nd opposite party supplied substandard seeds to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party sold 2 Kgs of sunflower seeds to the complainant under the receipt Ex.A1. When the complainant sowed the seeds in his field, 90% of the seeds have not germinated and 10% of seeds have grown in the filed. Even these plants did not produce any yield. The complainant submit that he spent Rs.12,100/- towards expenses for raising sunflower crop and sustained loss of income of Rs.30,000/-. Totally he suffered loss of an amount of Rs.42,100/- and the same may be allowed to him.
The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party contends that Ex.A1 is not a Cash Bill, it is a quotation. It does not contain the signature of the 1st opposite party. Whenever the 1st opposite party sells seeds, it gives a valid cash bill containing the particulars such as Brand name, Batch number, Manufacturing date, Expiry date, Packing particulars, Quantity, Rate per Unit, Amount etc. He filed specimen of the bill (Ex.B1) stating that it sells the goods under such cash bill. Therefore Ex.A1 quotation is not given by the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party has not sold the alleged 2 Kgs of sunflower seeds to the complainant.
On the basis of Ex.B1 it is not possible to say that the 1st opposite party always sells the seeds under cash bill like Ex.B1. The case of the complaint is that the 1st opposite party sold the seeds under Ex.A1 without signing the bill. There is no necessity for the complainant to blame the 1st opposite party who sold the goods to him. Further common sense tells that the affected party always aims at the wrong doer and he never leaves such person without an action.
According to the complainant, the 1st opposite party sold the seeds under Ex.A1. We believe the statement of PW-1. Ex.A1 contains the name of the shop of the 1st opposite party. Perhaps the 1st opposite party is selling the seeds under the bills like Ex.A1 for the reasons known to him. Therefore this Forum believes Ex.A1 that the complainant purchased the sunflower seeds from the 1st opposite party. The complainant as PW-1 stated that when he sowed the seeds in his land, 90% of seeds have not germinated and only 10% of seeds have grown, even these plants have not given any yield.
The complainant produced a CD Ex.A3 that there is no yield from the crop. The complainant also gave registered notice Ex.A4 to the 1st opposite party demanding compensation. The 1st opposite party received notice Ex.A4 and it did not give reply to it. But the 1st opposite party in its Written Version stated that it has not given reply because the complainant accepted his mistake for giving the notice to him. The explanation given by 1st opposite party is not satisfactory. Having received the notice Ex.A4, the 1st opposite party remained silent. It shows that the 1st opposite party could not give any reason for selling the substandard seeds to the complainant. The 1st opposite party stated that he did not manufacture the seeds and 2nd opposite party supplied to him and the same were sold to the complainant. When the complainant has not received any yield from the crop, the opposite parties are liable to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant.
The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party contends that the complainant has not stated the extent of the land owned by him and he has not given particulars of his land. I agree with the 1st opposite party that the complainant has not stated the extent of land in which he raised the seeds. The complainant has also not produced the bills that he spent Rs.12,100/- for raising the crop. In those circumstances an amount of Rs.5,000/- is reasonable compensation for loss of crop. The complaint is thus allowed.
Points 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for loss of crop with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
Click here to Become Premium Member