Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by Sri Shivanna S/o Doddegowda resident of Duddagere Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk to direct the opposite party Sri Vinayaka Agri Service, K.R.Mohalla, Mysuru to rectify the damage caused to the fertilizer unit attached to the drip irrigation in his land, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss caused to him, to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages towards loss of anticipated crops due to sub-standard work carried out by the opposite party and cost of the proceedings.
2.        The complainant is the owner of land survey No.75 measuring 2 acre 8 guntas situated at Duddagere village, Varuna Hamlet, Mysuru Taluk.  The complainant on taking quotation from the opposite party for installing drip irrigation in his land has got installed the drip irrigation with necessary equipments and accessories.  The opposite party has carried out the work of drip irrigation on 12.09.2014.  The complainant has availed loan from the Indian Overseas Bank, Megalapura Branch, Mysuru Taluk on 08.07.2014 for the said work.  It is the case of complainant that the opposite party has collected Rs.89,227/- for the drip irrigation work and further the opposite party has withdrawn subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- without his consent.
3.      It is the further case of complainant that the drip irrigation as a unit of fertilizer and manures its work is to exert discharge fertilizers – manures to the drip irrigation.  The function of the fertilizer unit has deteriorated considerably from the month of November 2014 as a result liquid was not flowing into the drip irrigation pipe.  The complainant has orally requested the opposite party to attend the repairs but there was no response then the complainant by engaging the services of manual labourers supplied fertilizers to the watermelon and other plantation crops.  Due to non-functioning of fertilizer unit, the complainant has suffered monitory loss to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has got issued legal notice dated 04.07.2015 calling upon the opposite party to attend the repair but notice returned unserved with endorsement as not claimed. Hence, this complaint.
4.      The opposite party appeared through the learned counsel and filed written version admitting that he has installed drip irrigation unit in the land of complainant and the said irrigation system has implemented by the Horticulture Department, Government of Karnataka by providing subsidy.  However, the opposite party denied that he has withdrawn subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- without the consent of complainant.  The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to him for service and the complainant has received the subsidy amount of Rs.49,300/- on 13.05.2016 from the Department of Horticulture.
5.       It is the case of opposite party that the complainant is using the borewell for drip irrigation and when the water goes to underground level the silt and sand will block the fertilizer unit as a result it has deteriorated and not by the service given by this opposite party.  The complainant can himself clean the same by using hand and it is not required any machinery or extra skill.  The complainant has grown 20 tones of Watermelon and 20 tones of Banana during the year 2015-16.  The allegation of complainant that he has sustained loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- is false.  Even today the complainant is growing the commercial crops and earning good income.  The installation of drip irrigation items is of NETAFIM Company and in case if any defect in the drip irrigation items then the complainant has to take action against the manufacturer of said Product.  The complaint filed against this opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
6.        The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced nine documents along with two photos.  That one K.P.Anand, Proprietor of opposite party Vinayaka Agri Service filed his affidavit evidence.
7.        We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the complainant and opposite party in addition to written brief submitted by them and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the fertilizer unit attached to drip irrigation component was not functioning properly and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.             Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- In the negative;

Point No.2:- In the negative as per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.          Point Nos.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that fertilizer unit of the drip irrigation was not discharging fertilizer and manure through drip irrigation pipe since the fertilizer unit supplied by the opposite party is sub-standard.  The commissioner report supports the case of complainant that the fertilizer unit supplied by the opposite party is not of standard and good quality.  As against this, the learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently argued that it is not the case of complainant that fertilizer unit is having manufacturing defect. The commissioner has reported that on the date of inspection, the fertilizer unit was in good condition and working.  Due to mishandling or mis-management of the unit it might not have been functioned.  
10.       The complainant has produced quotation dated 31.07.2014 issued by opposite party in the name of complainant for Rs.1,14,600/- which inclusive of VAT and service charges for installation of drip irrigation along with fertilizer unit.  The complainant produced Annexure 3 tax invoice issued by the opposite party dated 12.09.2014 for Rs.89,227/- including VAT at the rate of 5.5%.  The opposite party has not disputed payment made by the complainant and installation of drip irrigation including fertilizer unit. The complainant has made allegation against the opposite party that the later has received subsidy amount from the Horticulture Department. The complainant has not produced any material to show that the opposite party has collected or received subsidy amount from the Horticulture Department.  The complainant would have taken letter from the Horticulture Department to show that who has received subsidy amount.  Thus the complainant has failed to prove the allegation of receiving subsidy by the opposite party. 
11.       On the application filed by the complainant one Veeranna.K.P., Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mysuru was appointed as commissioner to inspect drip irrigation unit along with accessories and fertilizer unit.  The commissioner has visited the complainant’s land on 15.03.2018 but he could not carry out the commission work since there was no electricity on that day to on pump set.  Again on 27.03.2018 the commissioner gave visit to the land of complainant.  On both the dates the complainant, opposite party and others had present and the commissioner has taken signature of both the parties and others who had present on the date of visit and inspection of the land. 
12.       The commissioner has submitted report by giving answer to the memo of instructions submitted by the complainant and opposite party.  The opposite party has only filed objections to commissioner’s report stating that the commissioner has submitted report to help the complainant.  On the contrary, the complainant has not filed objections to the commissioner’s report.  The commissioner to the first memo of instruction of opposite party answered that after inspecting the fertilizer unit i.e. ventury instrument is in working condition.  The first memo of instruction of opposite party to report with regard to the condition of ventury instrument used in drip irrigation.  The commissioner on observing the lifting of water from borewell found sand and silt and that was stored in filter.  The commissioner has reported that the farmers shall have to clean the filter by removing sand and silt which stored at the time of lifting water from the borewell otherwise it cause hindrance for flowing fertilizer through ventury instrument.  The complainant has showed demonstration how he is using fertilizer or manure to feed the crops through venture instrument.  The complainant used filtered water to melt fertilizer in a bucket and thereafter he again filter the said fertilizer by using cotton cloth.  After filtering the liquid fertilizer used to feed the crop or plantation through ventury instrument.  The commissioner after observing demonstration of the complainant reported that the method used by the complainant is not causing any hindrance for smooth flow of fertilizer through ventury instrument.  The commissioner further noted that the complainant had cleaned filter of the borewell by removing sand stored therein.  The filter can be cleaned with bear hands. 
13.        The complainant has given memo of instruction to the commissioner by putting hypothetical questions like the subsidy amount is taken by the opposite party and due to use of substandard material for drip irrigation unit he could not get good yield.  The complainant has not asked specific question through memo of instructions as to whether the materials used by opposite party were of standard or sub-standard.  The commissioner on seeing the memo of instructions of complainant has given reply that if the sub-standard materials have been used then the farmers can get replacement of the parts as per warranty card.  The commissioner has not reported whether the drip irrigation and fertilizer unit accessories used by the opposite party are of sub-standard since the complainant has not asked the commissioner to report the same.
14.      The complainant has made allegations against the opposite party that the drip irrigation and fertilizer unit accessories were of substandard as such the fertilizer unit (ventury) did not function as a result he has sustained loss to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant has not asked the commissioner to report about quality of materials used by the opposite party for drip irrigation and fertilizer unit accessories.  On the contrary, the commissioner after making inspection has reported that ventury instrument is in use and it is in good condition.  Thus the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint that materials supplied by the opposite party were of sub-standard. The complainant might have suffered loss in the agriculture due to mishandling of the drip irrigation and fertilizer unit.  The complainant is not entitled for reliefs sought against the opposite party since the fertilizer unit attached to the drip irrigation system is in good and working condition as per the report of the commissioner.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for other reliefs since he has failed to prove that the materials used by the opposite party are of sub-standard and the drip irrigation and fertilizer unit attached to it is not in working condition.  For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Shivanna is hereby dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of February 2020