w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Shaik Imam Saheb v/s M/s. K. F. Biotech (P) Ltd, Bangalore, Rep. by its Managing Director & Another

    F.A.No.102 of 2012 Against C.C.No. 117 of 2010 District Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R. District
    Decided On, 12 March 2014
    At, Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: M/s. M. Hari Babu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M/s. K. Maheswara Rao, G. Prasad, Advocates.

Judgment Text
GopalaKrishna Tamada, President

1. Complainant is the appellant and he approached this Commission with the present Appeal questioning the order dated 01.04.2011 in CC 117/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa Y.S. R. District, whereby, the District Forum has awarded only an amount of Rs.45,500/- as against the claim amount of Rs.17,88,570/-.

2. The case, in brief, as per the complaint filed by the appellant herein is that he owns an extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No. 569 and his son by name Shaik Hidayathula owns an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in Survey No. 890 in Vemula Village, Kadapa District. On the advice of the Marketing Executive of OP.1, he ordered for 6000 Grand Naine ( G.9) tissue Banana plants @ Rs.7.50 ps per plant and paid an advance amount of Rs.12,000/-. Subsequently, after receipt of entire plants, he paid the balance sale consideration also. Thereafter, he incurred huge expenditure for plantation of Banana with the said seeds, but, however, it did not yield any result. According to him, he spent a total sum of Rs.2,80,760/- towards plantation of tissue culture. To find out the reason for failure of the crop, the Coordinator DAATC, Vutukur, Kadapa visited the lands belonging to the appellant and his son and submitted a report on 03.03.2010 which discloses that the growth and bunch, emergence was not normal and more than 50% were up right and looking sky and the seeds which were supplied by the opposite parties are defective in nature. As the total extent is Ac.6.40 cents of land, estimating the loss for two crops at Rs.12,00,000/-, the appellant filed the complaint claiming a total compensation of Rs.17,88,570/-.

3. The said complaint was resisted by the 1st opposite party by filing counter and it was categorically stated in the counter that they supplied more than One Million plants in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the said process, they also supplied 6000 plants to the appellant for a valid sale consideration of Rs.45,500/- @ Rs.7.50 ps per plant. It was further stated that there was no complaint from any farmer and it was categorically mentioned in the brochure that the farmers should strictly adhere to the instructions to get the required growth of Banana plants. It is only because the appellant failed to take necessary precautions and provide required nutrients for healthy growth of plants and prevent diseases, there was no growth from out of the seeds supplied to the appellants and for the same the opposite parties cannot be found fault with. After following the procedure as provided for under law, the District Forum after getting marked certain documents, i.e. Ex. A-1 to A-25 on behalf of the appellant and looking into the material on record came to the conclusion that the appellant miserably failed to establish that there was total loss of about Rs.17,88,570/- as claimed. But, however, on the basis of Ex. A-24 and Ex. A-25, i.e., letters of the Coordinator DAATTC and Asst. Director of Horticulture-1, Kadapa awarded compensation of Rs.45,500/- as stated supra and the same is challenged here.

4. The total extent of land, according to the appellant, is Ac. 6.40 cents, but, he owns only an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and the remaining Ac. 3.40 cents owns by his son who is not a minor. The appellant has not filed any proof establishing the fact that he was authorized by his son to file the said complaint. In those circumstances, we cannot take the entire land of Ac.6.40 cents into consideration and it shall be restricted to only Ac. 3.00 cents as the appellant owns only Ac.3.00 cents. No doubt, the appellant claimed Rs.12,00,000/- towards loss for two crops estimating @ Rs.6,00,000/- per crop , Rs.3,43,070/- towards invested amounts, Rs.45,500/- towards purchase of plants, an amount of Rs.2,00,00/- towards mental agony, thus, totaling at Rs.17,88,570/-. Excepting the purchase of plants for which the appellant paid an amount of Rs.45,500/-, there is nothing on record establishing that he sustained loss of Rs.6,00,000/- per crop and he invested an amount of Rs.3,43,070/- etc. In fact, from his own documents, i.e., from Ex. A12 to A-16, it is clear that the appellant has come forward with exaggerated figures stating that he dumped in 46 bags of urea, 28 bags of DAP, 46 bags of potash for six months which are highly imaginary. In our considered view, the District Forum has rightly rejected his claim in so far as those amounts are concerned and awarded an amount of Rs.45,500/- towards cost of the plants.

5. The appellant must have incurred some amount towards plantation etc., of the said Banana plants which fact was not taken into consideration by the District Forum. Even if it is taken as Ac.3.00 cents, the appellant must have incurred an amount not less than Rs.15,000/- @ Rs.5,000/- per Acre and the said amount may be granted by this Commission, in addition to, the amount which was already granted by the District Forum. A

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ccordingly this appeal is partly allowed enhancing the said amount from Rs.45,500/- to Rs.60,500/- and the same shall be paid within a period of four weeks. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the amount from Rs.45,500/- to Rs.60,500/- ( Rupees Sixty Thousand and five hundred only ) and the respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay the same to the appellant/complainant within a period of four weeks. In default, the respondents/opposite parties shall pay interest @ 9% P.A. till the date of payment. No costs.