In the Karnataka State Consumer
1
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Dated, the 26th day of September, 2005
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, PRESIDENT,
SRI J.N.SRINIVASA MURTHY, MEMBER,
SMT. RAMA ANANTH, MEMBER
APPEAL NO.388/2004
M/s. SAI SHAKTHI BIO-TECH,
Represented by the Manager,
No.751, 1st Floor, 7th Cross,
Dr.Rajkumar Road,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore APPELLANT
(By Sri G.S.Balagangadhar, Advocate)
VERSUS
1.Sri L.UMAPATHI,
son of Sri K.G.Lingappa,
aged about 43 years,
Banagere village,
Holalkere taluk,
Chitradurga District
2.Sri K.G.LINGAPPA,
son of Smt. Kallamma,
aged about 66 years,
Banagere village,
Holalkere taluk,
Chitradurga District RESPONDENTS
(Respondents in person)
-----
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Chandrashekaraiah:
This Appeal is by the Opposite Party (for short, the “OP”) challenging the Order of the District Forum allowing the Complaint of the Complainants.
2.The facts in this case are as follows:
The Complainants have purchased about 100 “Vanilla Saplings” from the OP at the rate of Rs.67/- per Sapling. According to the Complainants, the OPs have agreed to replace the Vanilla Saplings in the event if they are not of good quality and that they would supervise the crop after the Complainants plant the same on their land. But, in the instant case, according to the Complainants, the Vanilla Saplings supplied by the OP are not of good quality and the OP has not come forward to look after or supervise the crop, even though the Complainants requested the OP to come and inspect the Saplings, as the Saplings had not come up well in spite of providing the required manure and water.
3.The OP has filed its version stating that the District Forum at Chitradurga had no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as the parties agreed for the jurisdiction of Bangalore Courts for redressal of dispute, if any. The OP has also taken the defence that since the Complainants have purchased the Saplings after signing an agreement to the effect that the Saplings sold to them are of good quality and, hence, the Complainants cannot maintain the Complaint for compensation.
4.The District Forum after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties has allowed the Complaint in part. This Order is under challenge in this Appeal.
5.It is not in dispute that the Complainants have purchased Vanilla Saplings from the OP by paying a sum of Rs.6,700/-. According to the Complainants, the Saplings are not of good quality and, therefore, though they had requested the OP to replace the Saplings, the OP has not replaced the Saplings, despite the fact that it had agreed to do so. The further case of the Complainants is that in spite of the fact that they have provided manure and water as required for the growth of Vanila Saplings, the plants have not come up well and, therefore, they have suffered a substantial loss. The OP has written two letters, which are marked as Exhibits ‘P-8’ and ‘P-9’ under which the OP agreed to replace the Saplings. But the fact remains that the Saplings were not replaced by the OP. Therefore, it is seen that there is a “Deficiency in Service” on the part of the OP. It is not the case of the OP that the Vanilla Saplings have come up well. Further, according to the Complainants, the OP has agreed to supervise the growth of the crop. In the instant case, the OP has not produced any evidence to show that it has inspected and supervised the crop. According to the OP, the Complainants themselves have admitted in their evidence that there was no soil testing before the planting of the Vanilla Saplings. Admittedly, the land in question is classified as a “Garden Land”. There are coconut and other fruit-bearing trees on the said land. If the land is classified as a Garden Land, necessarily there will be a source of water and the soil will also be of a good quality. Taking these facts into consideration, the District Forum has rightly allowed the Complaint of the Complainants.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the OP submitted that the District Forum at Chitradurga has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint on the ground that the parties have agreed for resolution of disputes, if any, at the Courts at Bangalore. Assuming that there is an agreement to get the disputes resolved by the Courts at Bangalore, the said agreement cannot be extended to the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the Forums constituted under the said Act are not the Courts and they are only quasi-judicial authorities. In this regard, this Commission has already taken the aforesaid view over-looking similar objection in other cases. Therefore, the argument putforth by the learned Counsel for the OP that the Complaint filed before the District Forum at Chitradurga is not maintainable is liable to be rejected and, accordingly, it is rejected.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the OP further submitted that the compensation awarded for mental agony is on the higher side. The Complainants are agriculturists. They are mainly depending upon the yield they would get from the agricultural land. If the agriculturists fail to get the crop as expected, virtually they will be on streets. In the instant case, there is no crop from the Vanilla Saplings. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the District Forum cannot be said to be on the higher side.
8.In the result, we pass the following Order:
(1)The Appeal is dismissed.
(2)Parties to bear their costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RMK