AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant purchased 3500 plantlets of banana tissue culture from the respondent on 01.08.2009. 2600 plantlets out of them were planted by him in his field. According to the petitioner, at the time of sale, the respondent had promised to him that the fruits would be about 40-50 kg per plantlet but, the actual yield was only 12-13 kg per plantlet. He therefore, complained to the Agricultural Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kinwat and accordingly, a committee visited his field on 31.07.2010. The committee found that all the trees had not borne fruits. Alleging defect in the plantlets sold to him, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
The District Forum vide its order dated 06.06.2013, directed the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 35,000/- that being the price of the tissue culture alongwith compensation quantified at Rs. 15,000/-.
Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, both the parties filed separate appeals before the concerned State Commission.
Vide impugned order dated 13.07.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent but partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.33,500/- as compensation for the loss of the banana crop. Being still dissatisfied, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission, accepted quantity of 666 quintals claimed by the petitioner but reduced the rate per ton of banana by Rs.500/-. The resultant figure, therefore, came to Rs.33,500/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the banana crop was supposed to give yield for as many as three years but the State Commission has awarded compensation only in respect of yield for one year and to this extent, the said order requires to be suitably modified so as to award compensation in respect of quantity which was expected in three years.
It is an admitted position that the plantlets purchased from the respondents were planted by the petitioner/complainant in his field on 01.08.2009. It is also not in dispute that the inspection by the committee was conducted on 31.07.2010. Therefore, within one year of the plantation, the petitioner/complainant knew that the plantlets purchased by him from the respondent were defective. Therefore, nothing prevented him from purchasing new plantlets and immediately planting them after the inspection was carried out by the team on 31.07.2010. Therefore, compensation on account of loss of crop for three years will not be justified and the State Commission in my opinion was absolutely fair and reasonable in awarding compensation on the basis of the loss of banana crop for one year.
As far as the rate of bananas is concerned, admittedly, no evidence was produced before the District Forum to prove that the actual market price was Rs.1,000/- as against Rs.500/- awarded by the State Commission. Therefore, the price taken by the State Commission also does not call for any interference.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.