-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.45/2018.

                                                            Date of filing: 25.07.2018.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 13.06.2019.

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                                                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                President.

                             (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

COMPLAINANT/S:            Chitramma, W/o Tripanna @ Tipgonda,

                                                   Age about: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                   R/o  H.No. 55, Village Koutha (B),

                                                   Tq. Aurad (B), Dist. Bidar.                                                           

                                             (  By Smt. Balika S. Patil, Adv.)                                       

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The  Director,

                                                @ 1250/18/41 Ravishankar Residency,

                                                Behind Park Apartments, Sanjeevnagar,

                                                Kodgehalli , Main Road, Sahakar nagar (Post),

                                                Bengaluru-560092 (Karnataka)

                                    2)        M/s Jai Mata Di Agro Service Centre,

                                                At Gandhi Gunj, Bidar-585403.

                                                (Dealer of all kinds of fertilizers seeds &                              

                                             Pesticides )                             

                                           (O.P No. 1- Exparte )

                                              (O.P.No.2 M.A. Kaleem, Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The complainant  has filed this case alleging defective goods (Redg Gourd Seeds) sold by the O.P.no.2, a dealer of the O.P.no.1 U/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is as hereunder.

2.         The complainant hailing from farming community owns and cultivate land bearing Sy.no.43, totally measuring  acres 3.16 guntas situated in village Koutha (B), Tq. Aurad(B) Dist.Bidar.  With an intention to plant Ridge Gourd in her land, she had purchased Ridge gourd seeds worth Rs. 3,500/- with other seeds totally worth Rs. 4,850/-.  The sale fo the supply occurred on 28.01.2018.  In the lable , the seeds were categorised as EZENSA-lable  no. 10249, kind-Hy Ridge gourd, variety-EZENSA, date of test 09.01.2018, date of packing 23.03.2018, validity upto 08.09.2018            ( each packs-50 gms. totaly 10 packets).  The O.P.no.2 gave full assurance regarding the quality of the seeds.  The complainant totally purchasing 500 gms. of seeds prepared the field and planted the seeds over an area of Ac. 1.20 guntas of land.  She had prepared the land properly and was watering the plants regularly. When the plants bore fruits during first half of April-2018, the entire harvest was found to be of bitter test, unfit for consumption.  She approached the O.P.no.2 who initially though agreed to compensate the loss and damages, later backed out from the promise for which the complainant filed an application with the jurisdictional Tahsildar, Aurad (B).  A primary inspection and investigation was made by the Taluka Revenue authorities and panchanama was drawn on 22.05.2018.  In the meantime on approach.  The Asst. Horticulture Officer of village Santhpur, Tq.Aurad-B inspected the field on 12.04.2018.  The authorities have assessed crop loss to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- and she has sustained expenditure to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- for preparing the land for cultivation.  She has suffered loss and mental agony.  Were the ridge gourd seeds of good quality, she would have harvested the crop three times during the season @ 30-40 quintal.  She computes her damages due to harvest loss at Rs.3,60,000/- expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- and claims a further compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards loss.

3.         The O.P.no.1 in spite of notice has never put up appearance and was placed exparte.  The O.P.no.2 appearing through counsel has filed written versions contradicting the allegations of the complainant.  The O.P.no.1 contends that, no assurance was given to the complainant.  The estimated loss of Rs. 3,50,000/- by the revenue authorities are beyond their jurisdiction.  The allegations are false the complaint at para 5 & 6are not technical but imaginary in nature and the O.P.no.2 is not responsible for the losses.

4.         It is further canvassed, bitterness in ridge gourd is caused due to abundance of a compound called cucurbitacin.  Bitterness at times occurs due to pollination with bitter pollens as has been ascertained from the website of National Agricultural system.  It is further canvassed that, bitterness gets increased due to hot dry weather and it is what has exactly happened is the present case.  As a whole the O.P.no.2 washes off his hands of all discrepancies and  deficiency(s) defects and prays for dismissal of the case pleading that, he is only a seller of various companies, suppliers and producers and has no hand in the bitterness found in the grown Ridge gourd.

5.         Both sides have filed evidence affidavits documents in support of their pleadings and written arguments.  Additionally, they were heard in length.  At one point of time, it was argued by the O.P.no.2 that, 500 gms. of seeds can be planted only in 15 guntas of land and no more.  However, we appreciate his generous admission of seed supply and also fruit bitterness. 

6.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our considerations.

1. Does  the complainant prove the  consequential damages of her pecuniary interest owing to bitterness in the Ridge gourd harvest?
2. Does the O.P.no.2 prove his innocence?
3. What orders?

7.         Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. As per the final orders owing to the following:-                                     

                                      :: REASONS ::

8.         Point (a).  As stated supra, the O.P.no.2 has gracefully admitted the supply of seeds and bitterness of the crops.  The poor illiterate farmer finding the bitterness of the crop in initio approached the seed dealer and on his apathy, to the Revenue authorities and Horticulture authorities, who had made spot inspection found bitterness in the fruits and had assessed the total damages to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/-.  Though the O.P.no.2 challenges this assessment, from the inspection report of the Asst. Horticulture officer, Ryota Samparka Kendra, Santapur, Tq.Aurad(B), Dist.Bidar (Annexure-G) we observe approximate harvest of 3.50 to 5 tons from a land of Ac. 1.20 guntas.  We calculate it at an average of 4 tons of harvest of Ridge gourd taking into consideration the uncertain factors in crop growing which would work out to be a loss of 4000 kgs. and this would be construed as the net damage.  Annexure R.3 also corroborates the same.  Hence we answer this point in affirmative.

9.         Point (b).  The rest of the pleadings, in view of the assessment of the Asst. Horticulture Officer appear to b e sheer cacophony in the part of the O.P.no.2 to wriggle out from the case.  After all what was preventing him to interact with his whole seller and take steps to examine an expert in the field to substantiate his defence?  Does the first half of April month ever witness extreme hot and dry weather to enhance the compound of cucurbitacin in Ridge gourd?  The defence is nothing but jugglery of words.

10.       Point (c) Arriving at a point to calculate the net damages sustained by complainant as stated supra, her loss is assessed as 4000 kgs. of Ridge gourd.  The retail rate of which as on today is Rs.78/- in HOPCOMS and the retail rate never falls below Rs.40/- per kg.  Giving a margin of Rs.10/-when be sold to the wholesaler, rate per kg would workout to Rs.30/- and the price of 4000 kgs.  would be Rs. 1,20,000/-.  To this has to be added an approximate sum of Rs. 30,000/- for land preparation like tilling,  levelling labours, manure putting etc. and hence her total damages are calculated at Rs. 1,50,000/- and hence we proceed to pass the following:

::ORDERS::

The complaint is allowed in part.

1. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of               Rs. 1,20,000/- towards damages to the complainant.
2.  A further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- be payble by the O.Ps..
3. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
4. In the event of failure of the O.Ps to satisfy the principal award within  specified time, the same would carry an interest of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. 

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 13^th  day of June  2019).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                         

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Annexure.A- RTC extract of Sy.no.43/2  of village Kouta(K) Tq.Aurad,

 Dist.Bidar.  

2. Annexure.B– Cash receipt no. 810, Dt.28.01.2018 of op.no.2 (original)    
3. Annexure.C-  Package cover of the seeds of Hybrid Ridge gourd

(EZENSA)   

4. Annexure.D– Acknowledged copy of representation dt.11.04.2018 of

                        the complainant to Tahsildar, Aurad (B).   

5. Annexure.E-  Report of Revnue Inspector Santpur dt.22.05.2018 to the  

                        Tahsildar Aurad (B)    

6. Annexure.F-  Copy of panchanama dt.22.05.2018 drawn by Revenue

Inspector, Santpur.

7. Annexure.G-  Investigation report of Asst. Horticulture Officer

                         Santpur, Tq.Aurad (B) Dist. Bidar, dt.12.04.2018.      

8. Annexure. H to M -  ( ‘I ‘excluded )  Colour photos of the field    
9. Annexure.N – Copy of Aadhar card of complainant.
10. Annexure P- (‘O’ excluded)  Office copy of legal notice dt.07.06.2018.
11. Annexure Q & R- Postal receipts.
12. Annexure S- Postal Acknowledgement card.

Document produced by the Opponent no.2.   

1. Annexure.R.1- Write up (copter print) specifying cause of bitterness 

                                during summer.                           

2. Annexure.R.2-  Copy of literature regarding Ridge gourd prepared

      by University  of Horticulture, Bagalkot.

3. Annexure.R.3-  Copy of package and practice of Ridge Gourd 

                             recommended by Horticulture University, Bagalkot.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Chitramma, w/o Tripanna @ Tipgonda  (complainant).

Opponent no.2.

1. R.W.1-  Sri Mallikarjun  Swamy S/o Malipakshayya Swamy                

              Prop. Jai Matadi Agro Service Centre Gandhi Gunj,Bidar   

              (O.P.no.2 ).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.