C.T. Sebastian @ Saju vs Managing Director T.Stanes And Company Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 154/2009, "The Managing Director, T. Stanes and Company Ltd. and Ors. versus C.T. Sebastian @ Saju, " vide which while allowing the appeal, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Iddukki was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint CC No. 53/2008 before the District Forum saying that he is an agriculturist, being the owner of Palliikadu Estate on the Parivartanmedu side in Nedumkandam area, which is about 24 acres and also the Chembulayil Plantation which is about 30 acres, located at Chemmannar. He is cultivating cardamom and black pepper on the said estate. On 17.07.2007, he purchased 120 sacks of ''Animeal '' Bio-fertilizer by paying Rs.52,080/- and 10 sacks on 20.07.2007 by paying Rs.4,340/- and further 80 sacks on 28.07.2007 by paying Rs.34,720/- from the nedumkandam branch of OP No. 2/respondent no. 2, Southern Crops and Science Pvt. Limited, Vandanmedu and applied the same to 12000 cardamom plants at Chembulayil plantation and also to 3000 black pepper creepers of Pallikkadu Estate and also for 6000 cardamom plants of varying ages. It has been alleged that after three to four weeks of the use of said Bio-fertilizer, the roots of the cardamom plants were decayed and the fruits started falling and the pepper creepers were also dried. The complainant stated that at the time of purchase, he was made to believe by the representatives of the OPs that the said product was a complete bio-fertilizer and is quite good for cardamom and pepper plants and he was also provided a brochure in this regard. After the negative impact, the complainant got the Bio-fertilizer tested from the Indian Cardamom Research Institute and also lodged a complaint with the Department of Agriculture. The complainant alleged that he had to suffer irreparable loss and damages and agony and harassment as his crops and plants were damaged and the agricultural productivity was affected. The District Forum after taking into account the version of the parties, partially allowed the complaint on 29.11.2008 and directed OP No. 1 and 2 to refund the bill amount of Rs.92,040/- to the complainant, along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony etc. and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. An appeal was preferred against this order before the State Commission by OP No. 1/respondent no. 1 which was allowed by the State Commission and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, it was urged by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner that the complainant had purchased the product in question on the assurance given by the representatives of the OPs that the same was conducive for proper production of cardamom and pepper. The plants had, however, suffered a lot of damage, resulting in huge financial loss to the complainant. The learned counsel stated that as per the brochure of the respondent no.1, the percentage of nitrogen, phosphors and potash in the said product was required to be in the ratio of 07:10:05. However, when a sample of the product ''Animeal '' was got tested from the Cardamom Research Institute in Iddukki District, it was revealed that the content of nitrogen was mere 5.02%, phosphors 2.40% and and potash 8.08%. It was clear that the representation made by the OPs, as to the contents of the manure was fraudulently wrong and damage was caused to the plants, due to the low levels of nitrogen, phosphors and potash and also the presence of destructive chemical substances. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the contents of the orders passed by the District Forum in this regard. The brochure in question was withdrawn by the Company as per some Government order and it was replaced by another brochure. Learned counsel also invited our attention to report dated 22.05.2008 made by an Advocate Commissioner before the District Forum, in which it has been stated that certain fruits with cardamom were found as fallen down in a dried state. Some of the leaves of cardamom plants were also found as dry. The report of the Commissioner also stated that it was not possible to ascertain how much cardamom had been lost from these plants and also the Commissioner could not find any ascertainable damage, significantly to the pepper wines. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that there was a delay of 80 days in filing the present revision petition because all the documents had to be got translated into English as they were in vernacular language. The petitioner had to search for a lawyer in Delhi and certain time was lost in translating the documents, preparing and correcting the draft of the petition.

IT was urged by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 that as made out from the report of the Indian Cardamom Research Institute, or from the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 22.05.2008, that there was no harmful element present in the said product and no chemical reaction had occurred which could have caused damage to the plant in question. The report of the Advocate Commissioner had stated in categorical terms that it was not possible to ascertain the quantum of damage after visit to the agricultural estate in question.

LEARNED counsel further stated that the product ''Animeal '' is being extensively used by many persons and its specifications could vary for different crops. He argued that the use of ''Animeal '' may not have helped in enhancement of production, but it was very clear that no harm was caused to the agricultural produce as there was no chemical reaction involved. Learned counsel further stated that the OPs had not issued or provided any brochure regarding ''Animeal '' to anybody. They had mentioned in the objections filed by OP No. 1 to the complaint in question that they never claimed the composition of nitrogen, phosphors and potash as 7:10:5. It has however, also been mentioned in the reply that the OP had circulated the brochure several years before but after 7.10.05, the OP had withdrawn the 7:10:05 combination from the market as per order of the Government. Learned counsel denied that copy of the alleged brochure attached with the petition was issued by them. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

THE facts on record make it clear that the complainant did purchase the bio-fertilizer in question at a cost of Rs.92,040/- from the OPs on the basis of an impression given to them by the representatives of the OPs that the said product was conducive for the growth of cardamom and pepper. It appears, however, that after use of the product on cardamom and pepper, there was no positive result achieved, but at the same time, it becomes evident from the report given by the Advocate Commissioner that there was no evidence of any significant damage to the plantation. The District Forum rightly observed in their order that the actual number of plants decayed is not proved by any evidence. Further, the report given by the Indian Cardamom Research Institute does mention about the presence of nitrogen, phosphors and potassium in the product in question, but it is nowhere clear, how the product can be classified as organic manure. It is generally seen that the elements, nitrogen, phosphors and potassium are parts of inorganic fertilizers whereas the incidence of carbon is very high in organic products. In the present case, the total carbon is 2.71% only as stated in the report of Indian Cardamom Research Institute. Moreover, the OPs have failed to prove by any scientific evidence that this product is useful to the plants and in what manner. They have rather taken the stand that this product is not controlled by the Fertiliser Control Order of Government of India. The OPs have also denied having issued any brochure about the product, although they have admitted in the objections filed to the complaint by OP No. 1 before the District Forum that the brochure was issued several years back but later on withdrawn. There is evidently a contradiction between written submissions filed before the District Forum and in the line of argument taken by the counsel for OPs before us.

FROM the above discussion, it becomes clear that the petitioner/complainant as a consumer has spent a sum of Rs.92,040/- for buying the product from the OPs under the impression that it will promote the growth of plants on his agricultural land. There may not have been significant damage to the plants, but there is no evidence of any positive out-put after the use of the product. In the light of these facts, the orders passed by the District Forum allowing the complainant the payment of a sum of Rs.92,040/- spent by him in purchasing the product along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation seems to be a rational decision. We have no reason to agree with the impugned order passed by the State Commission that since there was no evidence of damage to the plantation, the complainant was not entitled to get anything. The factum of spending a sum of Rs.92,040/- for the purchase of the said product has not been denied by the OPs anywhere. In the light of the above discussion, this revision petition succeeds and hence the order of the State Commission is set aside, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.