Date of filing:-02/03/2017.
Date of Order:-08/05/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2017.
Sasikanta Padhi, S/o. Nabin Chandra Padhi, aged about 37(thirty seven) years, R/o. Padampur, Thana Pada, P.o/P.s. Padampur, Dist-Bargarh.... ... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The President, Padampur, Primary Agriculture Service Co-Operative Societies, Padampur.
The Secretary, Padampur, Primary Agriculture Service Co-operative Societies, Padampur .
Both At/Po/Ps. Padampur Dist-Bargarh. ... ... .... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri P.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.08/05/2019 -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case :-
In pursuance of the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant has preferred to file the case against the Opposite Parties with an allegation of deficiencies in rendering him service.
In nut shell his case is that the he being an owner of an area of 12(twelve) Acres of land in his village has purchased 2(two) quintal of MTU 7029 Swarna variety of seeds from the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.29.06.2016 @ Rs.2,522/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred twenty two)only per quintal, being impressed by the advertisement made by the Opposite Party with regard to the quality of the seeds as 100% pure seeds having being certified by the Govt recognized organization the seeds certificate Agency and sown the same over six acres of his said field by observing all due formality in taking agro–climatic condition, using of soil, water, irrigation facility using proper nutrition’s and effective use of fertilizer and other agricultural practice but in spite of his all sorts of intensive care caution there was no growth of the plant, the growth of the same were in an uneven manner and resulting to which the yield was also very low consequent upon which he has to sustaine a measure amount of loss, which as per him amounts to deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In furtherance to his allegation he has reported the matter to the Opposite Party for several time and to the D.A.O, but to no effect ,except a report given by the D.A.O that there was poor growth ultimately he approached before the Collector too along with his brother who is a Complainant in C.C. No. 09 of 2017 but in vain hence the cause of action arose in filing the case in the forum with a claim of penal action along with action under the provision of the Act for deficiencies in rendering him service thereby claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only towards loss of the crop Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards his mental and financial suffering and the cost of the seeds Rs.5,044/-(Rupees five thousand forty four)only And in support of his case has relied upon the documents as follows:-
Invoice of the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Report of the A..A.O., Padampur.
Grievance petition before the Collector, Bargarh.
The petition presented before the O.P. On Dt.27.09.2016.
Perused the complaint, the documents filed by the Complainant and on hearing the advocates for him the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties.
And in it’s response they appeared before the Forum and filed their version, which is a completely denial one in as much as the very basic denial of the Opposite Parties in challenging the status of the Complainant stating therein in their version that since the Complainant is a member of the said Societies is an owner of the same and as such cannot claim against any omission or commission of the same and since the dispute is within it’s member and the society, and the same is not a consumer dispute hence is not maintainable in the Forum.
In furtherance to their averments made in the version is that since the alleged seeds are not being produced by the Opposite Party rather the same are being supplied by the government certified Agency having being tested with it’s quality and it is supplied to the members of the societies with a subsidized manner as such the Opposite Parties are in no way liable in any for any of it’s defects if at all found to be defective and also since there is non-joinder of the necessary party the case is liable to be dismissed.
Furthermore the Opposite Party have stated to have sold such verities of seeds to many more other cultivators of different areas including the present Complainant and another of his brother who is also a Complainant in C.C.No.09 of 2017 who have alleged that the seeds are defective but none else further have contended in their version that prior to the sowing the seeds the Complainants should have germinated the seeds for testing the quality of the same or should have got it tested through the Forum by producing it's sample before the Forum, therefore non compliance of the same procedure and simple allegation of defective seeds cannot be taken as the gospel truth and liable to be rejected.
And in it’s support the Opposite Parties have filed the following documents before the forum:-
Xerox copy of objectives of PACS (Down Load Copy).
Xerox copy of attested copy of membership pass book of Ramani Ranjan Padhi.
Xerox copy of the membership pass book of Sashikanta Padhi.
Xerox copy attested Challans issued by OAIC Ltd.
Xerox copy of attested copies of Invoices showing sale of MTU 7029 Swarna Variety paddy seeds to forty numbers of Cultivators.
Xerox copies of attested copy of letter of the PACS issued to AAO, Padampur vide No.42.
Xerox copy of attested copy of paddy sale receipt 2016-2017 of Ramani Ranjan Padhi.
Having gone through the pleadings and the accompanied documents relied on by the respective parties in our view the following issues have come up before us for adjudicating the case.
Whether there is any deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties to the complainant .and whether the Opposite Party are liable for any action thereunder ?
To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
During the course of hearing of the case the respective learned counsels for both the parties vehemently placed their points of arguments both orally and by writing also with regard to the Law and facts in proving their respective claim.
Having gone through the entire materials available in the record along with respective pleadings and the written arguments. While dealing with the issues as to whether there is deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party, it reveals from the materials available in the record and the submission made by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the there are only eleven elected members to constitute the societies who constitute the board of directors, subject to take the necessary decision as and when required and others who purchase seeds from the said society have to pay some amount towards the share of the same and becomes a member of the same and if any defects in any items purchased from such society found to be defective then he has got right to file case against such society on the contrary the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties claimed before us by way of oral and written arguments with the references of some citation of some higher forum of law (Sec 121 of Odisha Co-Operative Act, 1962, Sec-68 of the Odisha Co-operative Act, 19998 (vol.2) C.P.J Page 597 (S.C.bombay), 1993( Vol.1) C.P.R.Page. 174 N.C. ) that the member being an owner of the societies cannot sue against him and even if prefer to file any such then can agitate the matter before the statutory body in accordance with the Co-operative Societies Act 1962, in this context delving deep in to the matter in comparison to the case in hand with that of the cited legal road maps, we found that those are not applicable in the present case because of the fact and circumstances more so in view of the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 which is a special enactment of the legislature empowering in it which is in addition to the law for the time being in force but not in derogation to the same, furthermore when there is no ambiguity in the case in hand we don’t find any reason to go in to much details of the references in as much as there is clear cut guidelines as envisaged in the rules of the Act that in a Consumer Forum while dealing with Consumer dispute as far as practicable the case should be dealt with in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand .
In furtherances to our observation, with regard to the making of party to the Opposite Party No.1(one) & 2(two) as they are the elected representative being elected by the members of the society hence no case is maintainable against them, in this regard the contrary view of the Complainant is that since the elected bodies are the representing authorities of the society are the proper party to be sued because they have been arrayed as parties to the case on behalf of the society not in person ,so we are of the view to express in favor of the Complainant, in addition to the same the very averments made by the Opposite Parties with regard to the non-joinder of necessary party in making the Odisha Agro Industries corporation as a party cannot be accepted especially because of the fact that the Complainant having being a member of the Opposite Party has relied upon it and has purchased the seeds by paying the costs of the same to the Opposite Party believing on it to be the sole authority of dealing with the business as a village based farmer having no knowledge of the facts as stated by the Opposite Parties that it is being supplied by some other government certified agency, hence it is answered accordingly in assertive to the case of the Complainant.
Furthermore it has been alleged in the averment made by the Opposite Parties in their version to the case of the Complainant that the proper procedure of cultivation might not have been followed causing failure in the crop, being fortified with references to the other numerical sale of the same seeds to many other parties and there is no complain hence denying the complaint, in this context it is observed that the Complainant is a seasoned farmer cultivating the crops every year using his experience and potentiality but in no any earlier occasion such a claim has been made against, more so had it been not a fact why should he complain and to the extent of going to the Collector, further more it is observed that the Complainant has reported the matter before the Opposite Parties also but they did not bother to take care of his grievance, at least they could have investigated in to the matter by collecting some seeds from him or visiting the field of the Complainant and should have tested to ascertain the quality of the seeds but they have not taken any measure, in as much as it is the duty of the answering Opposite Party to disprove the allegation if they denie the complain as the same is the basic principle of Law. So considering the ground reality of the case basing on the materials available in the record ,we are of the view that it amounts to deficiencies of service on the part of Opposite Parties and both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally Liable. Accordingly our view is expressed against the Opposite Parties.
Secondly while considering the Issues No.2(two), with regard to the claim of the Complainant, in details we have discussed the case in the foregoing paragraphs and have unanimously opined in favor of the Complainant. Now it is obvious upon us to opine in favor of the complainant, hence Order follows.
-: O R D E R :-
Hence the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,26,000/-(Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand)only very moderately calculated by the Forum towards the crop loss by the Complainant and also are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the Complainant within thirty days of the receipt of the order in default of which the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 6 % (six percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the Order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is disposed off to-day i.e.on Dt.08.05.2019.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
Upload by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan,
Office Assistant (D.M.A.)
