V.R.N.MURTHY, PROP.M/S.S.FARMS AND HOLDINGS INC. vs INDO

IN this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act there is a claim of Rs. 95.00 lakhs by the complainant for alleged loss of banana crop planted by him on the basis of tissue culture banana plant which were purchased by him from the opposite parties during the period between June to September, 1998. Complainant says that he purchased three varieties of banana tissue culture plant from the opposite parties in the year 1994 and these three being, (i) Dwarf Cavendish, (ii) Robusta and (iii) Grandinine. In the year 1994 he purchased 4000 saplings of all the three verities; in 1995, 10,500 saplings of Dwarf Cavendish and in 1996, 6000 saplings of Dwarf Cavendish banana plants and the results were good. However from 10.6.1998 to 9.9.1998 he purchased 11,000 tissue culture Dwarf Cavendish banana plants, 1200 tissue culture Robusta banana plants. After a year it was found that the banana plants planted attained good girth and height but in November, 1999 change in the formation of flowering bunches was noticed. It was also found that the complainant was supplied Dwarf Cavendish variety instead of Robusta variety which was so indicated in the invoice of the opposite parties. Complainant made representations that in spite of specific request for supply of Robusta variety, Dwarf Cavendish variety had been supplied. To compensate the same, opposite parties supplied him 3000 tissue culture Robusta variety in January, 2000. However, fact remained that the whole lot of 23,000/- tissue culture plant purchased from the opposite parties, failed to show any sign of flowering and the suckers of these plants were also showing rosette type of symptoms. In brief, since the crop failed this claim has been made.

THE complaint runs into as many as 37 pages and in support of the claim made therein numerous documents have been filed. All these show a great deal of evidence will have to be led both oral and documentary and such type of complaint cannot be decided in our summary jurisdiction. Questions raised are certainly complex requiring great deal of expert evidence. In the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., I (2002) SLT 214 = I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) = (2002) 2 SCC 1, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under : "Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay Court-fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum."

We would, therefore, dismiss this complaint and leave the complainant to seek his remedy either in the Civil Court or any other Forum and in that event he may be entitled to seek exclusion of time spent in these proceedings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineers Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 583.