Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. vs Rattan Devi Khabaya

The complainant who is the appellant in FA No.427 of 2013 and respondent in FA No.243 of 2013, is an agriculturist, engaged in agricultural activities in Village Pipal Pal, for earning her livelihood. The complainant purchased 500 plants of Akshay Amla from Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd., appellant in FA No.243 of 2013 and respondent in FA No.427 of 2013, paying a sum of Rs.39,850/-. She claims to have incurred expenditure of Rs.11,58,641/- on planting and other activities related thereto including wages for the labourers, cost of fertilizers, cost of electricity etc. According to the complainant, she was assured by the seller that each tree of amla will produce 100-150 kg of amla of best quality but, in the year 2007, it was found that the size of the amla fruit was very small and it did not have red colour. This according to the complainant happens in case of jangli plants of amla and not in case of plants of good quality. The fruits of jungli plants, according to the complainant, have no market value. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation quantified at Rs.50,00,000/- besides the cost incurred by her in planting etc.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant in FA No.243 of 2013, which admitted the sale of plants to the complainant but denied the allegations of the complainant. It was stated in the written version that small and red amla could be due to several reasons such as inadequate irrigation, non-digging of soil, non-cutting of amla trees, quantum of manure, temperature, climate etc.

The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 12.02.2013, directed the appellant in FA No.243 of 2013 namely Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. to pay Rs.20 lacs as compensation to the complainant alongwith another sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation for the mental agony and cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties are before this Commission.

The certificate which the supplier had issued to the complainant and which is an admitted document, reads as under:

CERTIFICATE

To whom it may concern this is certify that we have supplied akshay amla & royal teak plants to Mrs. Ratan Khabya w/o Dr. B.L. Khabya for plantation at her farm at Village Piplipal, Post Surjana on Bundi Highway about two years back and we are providing scientific services to her regularly. It is possible to earn good profits with low risk when grown on fertile soils with irrigation and scientific management, each tree yields 10-15 cu.ft. wood in about 10-12 years. The main stem grows to height of 25-30 fts. and attains a girth of 35-45 inches with each plant fetching Rs.8000-11000 income and manage well by akshay amla plant can yield 100-150 kgs. amla per year (after 4 to 6 years).

It is thus evident that the supplier had represented to the complainant that she could earn as much as Rs.8,000/- to 11,000/- from each plant after 4-6 years provided that the plant was well managed. It was also assured that each amla plant could yield 100-150 kgs of amla per year. The amla however, was to be grown on fertile soil with scientific management and irrigation.

On the request of the complainant, her farm was inspected by Sh. Haraklal Jain, Retd. Asst. Director, Agriculture/Horticulture Department of Government of Rajasthan. The inspection report reads as under:

"On 06.12.2007, I inspected the farm of Smt. Ratan Devi, W/o Sh. Bhanwarial Khabya, Piplipal Patwar Halka Nagri, Tehsil Chittorgarh.

At the site, the Anwla trees were having fruits. Anwla crop was there in Khasra no. 2498/1 and 2477. About 500 Anwla plants were having fruits of very small size and red in colour, jangli type fruits, which has no demand and value in the market. Upon inquiry it was found that the saplings were purchased from Shiv Shakti Bio Plantec Ltd: As against said fruits, the fruits in the Anwla plants purchased from Tabiji (Govt.) Farm, Ajmer, were big and of high quality. Both kinds of fruits were photographed at the spot which are self-evident.

The plants at the spot purchased from Shiv Shakti Bio Plantec Ltd., appear to be completely healthy and the vegetative growth of the same is also very good, but the fruits are small and red. The reason for this may be low quality sign of the plants. In this way the farmer will suffer huge economic loss, due to supply of wrong plants."

On the application filed by the complainant, the State Commission directed inspection of her farm by the Forest Department of Rajasthan. The inspection was carried out after notice to the supplier M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. The said report, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

In reference to the above reference and subject, today dated 16.12.09 at 11.00 AM in the morning, the spot inspection was done at the agricultural farm of the applicant situated at Pipli Pal. The representative of the applicant Shri Kedar Ji Soni S/o Shri Bhanwar Lai Soni R/o Gandhi Nagar Chitorgarh was present. One registered letter No.2146 dated 10.12.09 by this office informing the Udaipur situated office of the Shiv Shakti Bioplantek Hyderabad to be present on dated 15.12.09 at 11.00 AM was sent. But there no representative was present from their side, therefore, the inspection- was done on 16.12.09 at 11.00 AM in the morning.

We found on the inspection that on the above arajiyat approximately 800 trees of amla are planted. Out of these plants 300-plants are planted on the western side of the arajiyat at a distance of 16 to 18 feets, the distance of their, lines is approximately 16 feets from each other. The representative of the farmer Shri Kedar Ji Soni told us that all these trees on amla were purchased and brought in his guidance in the year 2002 from- the Farming Science Centre Ajmer and were planted under his guidance and from then their care is being done by himself only. All these plants are completely healthy and their vegetative growth is also good. The fruits on these plants are of big size. By taking 3 samples of amla from these trees in the formaline solution were preserved and marked "A", and from C........D are my signatures.

On the east side of the above plants 500 plants of amIa are also planted at a distance of 16 to 18 feets, the distance of their lines is approximately 16 feets from each other. The representative of the farmer Shri Kedar Ji Soni told us on the spot that all these trees on amIa were purchased and brought in his guidance in the year 2003 from the Udaipur Rajasthan situated branch of Shiv Shakti Bioplantek Ltd, Hyderabad and were planted under his guidance and from then their care is being done by himself only. It seems by looking these plants, that these plants are completely healthy and their vegetative growth is also good. The fruits of amla that are on these plants are of small size. The reason for this can that they do not belong to the category of good quality. There is no reason seen of the effect of the mud, air, fertilizer and care etc. because the size of the fruits are big in the plants supplied by the Farming Science Centre, Ajmer under the air, care and the mud and the vegetative growth is also more. By taking 3 samples of amla from these trees in the formaline solution were preserved and marked "B", and from C.......D are my signatures.

Likewise two-two sets of the saples of the amIa were handed over to Shri Kedar Ji Soni the representative of the farmer.

No evidence was lead by M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. to repudiate the above referred inspection report particularly, the inspection report of the Forest Department of Rajasthan dated 16.12.2009. Therefore, I see no reason to disbelieve the said report. The Forest Department, on inspection, found that the fruits on the plants which the complainant had purchased from another supplier namely Farming Science Centre, Ajmer were healthy and of big size. The samples of those fruits were taken by the inspecting team. It was also found by them that the fruits on the plants which the complainant had purchased from M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. were small in size and did not belong to category of good quality. It was also noted by the inspecting team that there was no effect of mud, air, fertilizers etc. because the size of the fruit on the plants purchased by the complainant from the other supplier namely Farming Science Centre, Ajmer were good. It is thus evident from the aforesaid inspection report that the size of the fruit was small solely on account of the quality of the plant supplied by M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. to the complainant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. that the complaint was premature since as per the certificate given to her, the plant was to yield 100-150 kgs of amla per year after 4-6 years whereas the first inspection was carried out in the year 2007. As noted earlier, the inspection by the Forest Department of Government of Rajasthan was carried out in December, 2009. It was more than six years after purchase of the plants by the complainant from M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. Therefore, it is evident that even after six years, there was no growth in the size of the fruits. The fruits as per the report of inspection carried out in the year 2007, were of jangli quality and had no saleable value in the market. The complainant therefore, was rightly held entitled to compensation from the supplier M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, even as per the certificate given by M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. to the complainant, she could earn Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per plant after 4-6 years. Therefore, it can be safely said relying upon the aforesaid certificate that had the plants supplied by M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. to the complainant been of good quality, she would have been able to earn at least Rs.8,000/- from each plant after 6 years. The complainant having purchased 500 plants, the loss comes to Rs.40 lacs, if calculated on the basis of Rs.8,000/- for each plant. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission was inadequate and needs to be suitably enhanced.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) FA No.243 of 2013 is dismissed.

(ii) The appellant in FA No.243 of 2013 namely M/s Shiv Shakti Bio Plantac Ltd. which is also respondent in FA No.427 of 2013, shall pay a lump-sum consolidated amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant within three months from today.

(iii) No interest on the aforesaid amount will be payable if it is paid within three months from today.

(iv) If the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is not paid within three months from today, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.

The appeals stand disposed of.

The amount, if any, deposited with this Commission, shall be released to the complainant alongwith interest which may have accrued on it, provided that the said amount does not exceed Rs.40,00,000/-.