THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2022

                            Filed on: 12/08/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                             President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                 Member

CC.No.469/2016

COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER

Varghese Eapern, S/o.Eapen, Chenatharayil House, Theepany, Thiruvalla – 689 101.

(Rep.by Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

M/s.Hafi Biotech & Research Centre, Hafi lane, Ambunadu, Pukkattupady, Ernakulam

Dist. – 683 561. Represented by its Managing Director.

(Rep.by Adv.Vinod Varghese, Alappuzha)

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1)     Brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

        The complainant is a farmer by profession.  He had entered into a lease agreement with one Mr.Babu alias Balan on 17/11/2014 to lease out 2.5 acres of agricultural land at Chittoor, Palakkad District so as to cultivate banana plants for earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

        Subsequently the complainant conducted enquiry regarding high yield banana plants.  He saw the advertisement given by the opposite party in the media and magazines including ‘Karshakan magazine’ regarding the sale of the high yield saplings of the nenthran banana plant namely ‘Swarnamughi’. On seeing the advertisement the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party had handed over a brochure to the complainant.  It was written in the brochure that the opposite party is the patent holder of Swarnamughi nenthran banana.  They offered bananas weighing 40 kg. from a plant and profit of Rs.1,000/- per plant.  They further warned about fake plantain suppliers who have been supplying robosto plants by misleading as Swarnamughi.

        By believing the promises and offers made by the opposite party the complainant purchased 1510 numbers of Swarnamughi nenthran banana saplings by paying Rs.87,500/- on 27.12.2014.

        The complainant further states that he had spent Rs.3,000/- as transportation charges, Rs.50,000/- for ploughing and for taking pits, purchased 20 loads of cow dung by paying Rs.50,000/-, spent Rs.1 ½ Lakhs for drip irrigation and employed  4 to 5 laborers’  on payment of Rs.600/- for cultivation of the saplings.  He had also stated that he had spent a lot of money for the applying fertilizers and for such other miscellaneous needs. Thus the complainant states that he had spent            Rs.9 Lakhs for the cultivation of the banana plants supplied by the opposite party.

        To the dismay of the complainant when the banana plants attained full growth, the complainant noticed that most of the plants were not swarnamughi, but are of low quality Monthan kaya.  The complainant further states that he was cheated by the opposite party by giving the saplings of monthan kaya instead of swarnamughi brand of plants.  Therefore the complainant could earn only Rs.1.75 Lakhs as income from the cultivation.  The expected incomer offered and assured by the opposite party is Rs.17,85,000/-.  Complainant therefore filed this petition before the Forum/ Commission alleging that the opposite party had cheated him by supplying him low quality seeds of Monthan kaya instead of swarnamughi saplings offered by them in the advertisement and thereby cheated the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and therefore preferred the consumer complaint for getting relief of compensation from the opposite party.

        Upon notice from Forum/Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version that the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission for want of territorial jurisdiction. 

        The opposite party alleged that all the averments made by the complainant  “it is false, not sustainable and against the facts and figures as is revealed from the evidence and documents produced by the opposite party. They further alleged that they have supplied swarnamughi saplings to thousands of agriculturists for years together throughout Kerala.  The sapling is swarnamughi nenthran plantain which are of high yield and the opposite party’s have accepted that the complainant had purchased 1510 swarnamughi plantain saplings from the opposite party on 27/12/2014. The opposite party denied all the other allegations raised by the complainant like, digging of plot, amount paid for purchasing cow dung, irrigation, labour charges etc. and also stated that they are not cultivating saplings of monthan kaya and therefore the seeds supplied by them are of excellent quality.  The reason for non receipt of expected quantity for the complainant is against the facts and figures and the instant complaint is filed by the complainant is on an experimental basis and prayed to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the above facts.

The main points to be examined in the case in the above circumstances are as follows:-

(1)    Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum/Commission?

(2)    Whether the complainant had underwent any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

(3)    If the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party to ought the complainant quantum of compensation to be awarded to complainant?

(4)    Cost of the proceedings if any?

        Complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A7 which is marked. PW1was examine inbox and DW1 was also examined and cross examined.  There is no proof affidavit produced from the side of the opposite party.  As regards to the question of maintainability. The instant complaint is maintainable as the complaint filed at the place where the opposite party running this office for giving the instant case the opposite party’s office located Pukkattupady, Ernakulam it is under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore the complaint is maintainable and hence the allegation is void.

        On going through the evidences produced by the complainant it can be seen that Exbt.A1 goes to show that the complainant had leased 2.5 acres of property for cultivating banana saplings on payment of Rs.50,000/- to one Sri.Babu alias Balan land lord at Palakkad.  Exbt.A2 reveals that Hafi biotech and Research Centre had published booklets giving instructions to the persons highlighting the significance of their institution. Exbt.A3 shows that Varghese, Chittoor(the complainant) had purchased 1410 swarnamughi nenthran on 27/12/2014 vide bill no.1351 from Hafi Biotech on payment of Rs.70,500/-.  Exbt.A3(2) also shows that Sri.Varghese had purchase 100 swarnamughi nenthran from the opposite party on payment of Rs.5,000/-. It can be seen from Exbt.A3(3) that an amount of Rs.87,500/- has been received by the opposite party from Varghese Eapen towards the cost of 1750 swarnamughi banana which is in the form of receipt.  Exbt.A4(series) is a receipt of Sree Earth Movers, Exbt.A5(series) are bills issued by Sivasakthi Traders, Exbt.A6(series) another receipt issued by K.K.Rajendran & Sons and Exbt.A7 is a letter in the form of an affidavit produced by the Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kallara dated 21/12/2016.

Heard both sides on 10/12/2021.  On the basis of the documents produced by the complainant allegations raised in the complaint, and also on the basis of version filed by the opposite party we have examined the subject matter of the complaint and also analysed the points raised by both sides on the strength of supporting evidences and reached into the following points. 

It is out of doubt from Exbt.A3(2) and A3(3) that the complainant had purchased 1510 numbers of swarnamughi nenthran saplings from the opposite party on 27/12/2014 and on 5/2/2015.  It has not been disputed by the opposite party and the opposite party had agreed that they have issued 1510 numbers of swarnamughi nenthran banana saplings on payment of Rs.87,500/- to the complainant.  As far as the other allegations like that raised by the complainant in complaint that the complainant had availed land on lease, purchased fertilizers and cow dung and such other demands and claims are not significant or relevant since the opposite party is not directly involved in any such transactions and since it pertains to the purchase or transactions from other sources.

At the time when the Agriculture Officer was examined by both sides on the basis of Exbt.A7 he had given deposition that he was the Charge Officer of Agriculture and was crop health clinic office of Perumatti Grama Panchayath and had visited the plantation of the complainant and found that there was 75% of growth lesser than what was expected as far as swarnamughi tissue plantations was concerned in the field of the complainant.  The Agriculture Officer also had given the deposition that all necessary care were given by the complainant to the plantation and it is due to low quality of the seed the harvest had grown lesser from the expected result.

As per Exbt.A7 it can be seen very clearly that the experienced Agriculture Officer had given an affidavit before the Commission that “Bh-iy-amb ]cn-]m-e-\-ap-d-IÄ FÃmw sNbvXn«pw hnf-hn h¶ Ipdhv \So hkvXp-hnsâ KpW-ta-·-bn-epÅ A]m-I-X-bmbn a\-Ên-em¡p¶p”.  From the last sentence of the affidavit it can be seen that the opposite party had given advertisement to attract the attenttion of the people like the complainant and sold the saplings of banana without convincing the complainant of its quality and purity which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as laid down under Section 2(1)(g)/2(i)(r) of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986.

In these circumstances, the complainant had proved unfair trade practice and deficiency of service sustained to be from the side of the opposite party.  The opposite party had not produced any contra evidence or standardization of quality certificates against the above findings.

Hence the following orders are issued.

                                                        ORDER

1. The opposite party shall return an amount of Rs.87,500/- to the complainant within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall attract interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.

2. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

3. The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of proceedings.

            All these amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the Commission on this the  26^th day of April, 2022.

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                           V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                            Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

s/

                                                                   Forwarded/by Order

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                          Assistant Registrar

By post:

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits: 

Deposition:

PW1           :         Joseph Refin Jefri.M

DW1            :         Sherin Ashraf