Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/74/2016

1) Sri Kanipaka Vigneswara Tytu Mitra Group, rep by Cheekireddy Janardhan Reddy, S/o Singa Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Green Fields, Rep. by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

V.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing     :18-07-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:02-04-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  2^nd  day of   APRIL, 2018

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri A. Prabhakar Gupta, Member

 

C.C.No.74/2016

 

Sri Kanipaka Vigneswara Rytu Mitra Group,

Represented by:

 

1. Cheekireddy Janardhan Reddy,

S/o.Singa Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 35 years,

2. Konduru Gopala Reddy,

S/o.Sesha Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 60 years,

3. Konduru Sudhakar Reddy,

S/o.SEsha Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 58 years,

4. Konduru Sesha Reddy,

S/o.Narasa Reddy and

Hindu, aged about 47 years,

5. Malamalapu Kota Reddy,

S/o.Konda Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 72 years,

Residents of Gowravaram Village,

Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.                        ….. Complainants

 

Vs.

                                                                           

1. Green Fields,

Rep. by its proprietor,

Padugupadu village,

SPSR Nellore District.

 

2. Bharat Kisan Seva Centre,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

Rammurthy Nagar,

SPSR Nellore District.

 

3. The Director of Agriculture,

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,

O/o. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture,             

Basheerbagh, Opp.L.B.Stadium,

Hyderabad.

 

4. The Joint Director of Agriculture,

Mini Bypass road, Rammurthy Nagar,

Nellore.

 

5. Mandal Agriculture Officer,

Kavali- 524201,

SPSR Nellore District.                                              …..Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us  for hearing in the presence of                Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, advocate for the complainants and                                    opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and                                                                       Sri  K. Raghunatha  Reddy,   Government Pleader for the opposite parties  3 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

              The complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 5 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to direct the opposite parties      1 to 5 jointly and severally to supply the agricultural products as promised i.e., Nursery Raising Machine, 6 Row Paddy Transplantor, Nursery Trays, Rotovator, 35 HP and above Tractor or to refund Rs.13,32,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 19-05-2015 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, distress, financial loss and inconvenience caused to the complainants due to deficiency in service and negligence of the opposite parties, to grant costs of Rs.5,000/- of this complaint and  grant such other reliefs and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

          2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that: the complainants submitted that the Government announced subsidy schemes to farmers and gave wide publicity about their subsidy schemes to the farmers through agricultural department.  As per the terms of the said scheme, five farmers will form as a group known as Rytu Mitra group and purchase agricultural machinery etc., and get subsidy from the Government.  That the complainants

further states that they formed as a group and submitted application along with documents to opposite party-4 for purchase of mechanized Sri Vari  Sagu package so as to  develop their group and to get 50% subsidy under SMSRI package.  1^st complainant is nominated and elected as convener, 2^nd complainant is nominated and elected as co-convener in the group unanimously and the group name is Sri Kandipaka Vigneswara Rytu Mitra Group under RKVY scheme.  As per the instructions of opposite party No.4 and opposite party No.5, the complainants also opened account bearing No.369210110012239 in Bank of India, Kavali, in the name of Sri Kanipaka Vigneswara Rytu Mitra Group, after according permission from agriculture department.  Opposite parties No.3 to 5 considered the application of the complainants group for purchase of mechanized Sri Vari Sagu package with subsidy of 50% and accorded permission to the complainants group.  As per the directions and conditions of opposite party Nos.3 to 5, the complainants has to pay Rs.13,32,000/- towards the agricultural machinery through opposite party No.5.  At the time of granting permission to the complainants group, the opposite parties have stated that the agricultural product and machinery i.e., Nursery Raising Machine, 6 Row paddy transplantor, Nursery trays, Rotovator, 35 HP and above Tractor, will be purchased only from opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as per proceedings certificate.  Opposite parties Nos.3 to 5 also collected initial non-subsidy amount of  Rs.5,020/- under application No.FM011500113391 on 5-4-2015.

        The complainants further submitted that the opposite parties No.3 to 5 insisted the complainants to obtain 2 banker cheques for Rs.4,20,000/- and  Rs.49,000/- in the name of Bharat Kisan SEva Centre and 4 banker cheques for Rs.3,49,000/-, Rs.4,90,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9,000/- in the name of Green Fields, and  handover the same to opposite party No.5.

        The complainant further submitted that with a fond hope that they will get agricultural machinery and also subsidy and as per the promises and assurances of opposite parties No.3 to 5, the complainants obtained bankers cheque bearing No.164273 for Rs.4,20,000/- and another bankers cheque bearing No.164269 for Rs.49,000/- in the name of Bharat Kisan Seva Centre (opposite party No.2) on 19-5-2015 and Bankers cheques bearing Nos.164274, 164272, 164270 and 164275 for Rs.3,49,000/-, Rs.4,90,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively in the name of Green Fields (opposite party No.1) on 19-05-2015, totaling Rs.13,32,000/- and handed over the same to opposite party No.5.  The complainants further states that opposite party – No.5 collected the said bankers cheques from the complainants so saying that the said cheques will be handed over to opposite parties No.1 and 2 through their departmental officials after entering the bankers cheques and amounts etc. in their departmental registers.  Believing the promises and assurances of opposite parties No.4 & 5, the complainants handed over the said bankers cheques to opposite party No.5 with a fond hope that the machinery will be supplied to the complainants through any of the opposite parties but so far the said machinery was not supplied to the complainants.  The complainants approached several times with opposite party No.3 to 5 but all of them have been giving evasive replies and postponing the same on some pretext or other.  Recently the complainants after enquiries came to know that the said 2 firms sponsored by opposite parties No.3 to 5 are not supplying the agricultural items to their purchasers.  As insisted by opposite parties No.3 to 5, the complainants obtained the bankers cheques in the name of opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 and handover the same to opposite party No.5.

     The complainant further submitted that the complainants are poor agriculturists and it is the legal and bounden duty to supply agricultural products as ordered to the complainants when collected bankers cheques for Rs.13,32,000/- for the said products but all of them did not do so.  The act of all the opposite parties clearly goes to show their willful negligence and deficiency in service.  The complainants being attracted by the said scheme with the inducement of opposite parties Nos.3 to 5,  suffered lot of mental agony, distress and also financial loss.  When collected that huge amounts by way of bankers cheques, it is the duty of all the opposite parties either to supply the said products or to return the amounts covered under the bankers cheques or to refund amount but all of them kept quiet which resulted severe mental agony, distress and financial loss to the complainants and the very purpose of joining in the scheme is defeated due to the negligence acts of opposite parties.  So, all the opposite parties are not only liable to supply the said agricultural products and damages or to return the amount with interest besides damages to the complainants.  Vexed with their attitude the complainants got issued legal notice dated 19-05-2016 to all the opposite parties and opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 got returned the same with postal endorsement ‘Left’ and  opposite party No.3 kept quiet without any reply and opposite parties No.4 and 5 issued reply admitting the receipt of the bankers cheques and non delivery of the above machinery.  Hence, the complainants approached the Hon’ble Forum for redressal of their grievance.

       The complainants are consumers within the meaning of the Act and the Hon’ble Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the complainants are residents of Kavali Mandal and the opposite parties offices are situated within Nellore District and  the complainants submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

         3.   The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and no written version was filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

         4.   The opposite party Nos.3 to 5 filed written version/counter with the following averments that:-

          It is true that the Government announced subsidy schemes to the Farmers of various groups and as per specifications of particular scheme five farmers should have to form as a group called as Rythu Mithra Group and they have to recognize their group under the department of Agriculture for the purpose of get subsidy from the Government.

        The opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submitted that as per section-2 ( c )(iii) ‘(the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him) suffer from deficiency in any respect’ and as per (o), service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes but not  limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract or personal service”. 

           The opposite party Nos.3 to 5 further submitted that there is no hiring of services between the opposite parties 3 to 5 and the complainant herein.  Further there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and the opposite party 3 & 4.  The duties referred by the opposite parties 3 to 5 are statutory functions and thus there is no question of consumer dispute.  There are no contractual obligations on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5 with the complainants.  They limited to canvas the Government schemes but not otherwise and the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submitted for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party Nos.3 to 5.

 

         5.   On behalf of the complainant, the affidavit of PW1 to PW5 filed  and Exs.A1 to A20 documents  were marked.

 

         6.  On behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 no evidence was adduced and

no documents were marked.

 

         7.   On behalf of the opposite party Nos.3 to 5, the affidavit of RW1 filed and no  documents were marked.

 

         8.  On behalf of the complainants and opposite party Nos.1 to 5 no Written arguments were filed.

 

        9.  Arguments on behalf of the both parties heard.

 

       10.  Now, the points for consideration are:

        1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainants against

            the opposite parties 1 to 5 under section 12 of Consumer

            Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against

            the opposite parties 1 to 5 is maintainable?

       2)  To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

       11. POINT NO.1:  The learned counsel for  the complainant submits by relying upon the affidavit of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Exs.A1 to A20 that the complainants handed over the cheques to the opposite parties 1 and 2 through the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 were returned agricultural machinery of subsidy and inspite of several demands and inspite of issuing of  Ex.A16 legal notice, the opposite parties 1 to 5 failed to delivered the agricultural machinery of subsidy to the complainant and hence the complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 and  submits to allow the complaint with costs.

             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party  Nos.3 to 5 submits by relying upon the affidavit of R.W.1 that as the complainants are not the consumers and hence the contention of the complainants that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 cannot be accepted and hence the opposite parties Nos.3 to 5 submits that there is no deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5 as the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable and the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 submits for dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 with costs.

             In view of the arguments submits by the both parties and as seen from the records and  it is admitted fact that the complainants gave  bankers cheque in favour of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 through opposite party Nos.3 to 5 and on the assurance of the opposite party Nos.3 to 5, the complainants obtained a demand draft and delivered the same to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  In view of the above said facts as the complainants hired the services of opposite party Nos.1 to 5, we are of the opinion that as there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party nos.1 to 5.

IN

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi AIR 2000 SC 331  =   (1999) 3 CPJ 36 SC

       Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that beneficiary for whose benefit the services are hired or availed as a consumer within the meaning of  Section 2(1) (d)(ii).

      Following the above decisions, we are of the opinion that as the complainants availed the services  of the opposite parties 1 to 3, hence there is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

            The learned counsel for the complainant submits by relying  upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A20, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.13,32,000/-  under Exs.A7 to A12   to both  the opposite parties 1 and 2 through the opposite parties 3 to 5 but the  opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to deliver the agricultural  products to the complainant and hence  inspite of  issuing of Ex.A16 notice as the opposite parties   failed to  pay the due amount, the complainants filed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 5 and submits  to allow the complaint with costs.

            On the other hand, the learned counsel for  the opposite parties 3 to 5  submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties  3 to 5, the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 3 to 5 is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

            In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for the both parties, it is an admitted fact that on instructions of opposite parties 3 to 5, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.8,63,000/- to the opposite party No.1 under Exs.A8, A9, A11 and A12 and a sum of Rs.4,69,000/- was paid to  opposite party No.2 under Ex.A7 and Ex.A10.  The opposite parties 3 to 5 selected the opposite parties 1 and 2  for supply of the agricultural instruments to the complainants .  As opposite parties 1 and 2  failed to deliver the agricultural products and  as there is no response on behalf of the opposite parties 1  and 2, the opposite parties 3 to 5 are liable vicariously for the   amounts   paid by the complainants to the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Exs.A7 to A12.  By relying upon the above facts, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties 1 to 5  is amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 to 5 has to be allowed. 

           In view of the above said discussion and the facts of the case, we answer this point in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties 1 to 5.

          12.  POINT No.2:In view of  our answering on point No.1 in favour of the complainants 1 to 5  and against the opposite parties 1 to 5, the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite parties  1 to 5 has to be allowed.

            In the result, the complaint   is allowed  and the opposite  Party No.1 and opposite parties 3 to 5 are directed to  pay a sum of Rs.8,63,000/-  (Rupees eight lakhs sixty three thousand only) (paid under Exs.A8, A9, Ex.A11 and Ex.A12) and the opposite party No.2 and opposite parties  3 to 5 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,69,000/-  (Rupees four lakhs sixty nine thousand only) (paid under Ex.A7 and A10).

             As there is stipulation of contract for the payment of the interest, the claim of the complainants to claim interest on Rs.13,32,000/-   and for damages is hereby dismissed.

             The opposite parties 1 to 5 are also directed to  pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards the costs of the complaint.

              The opposite parties 1 to 5 are directed to comply the order within 45 days on communication of the order.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by me  in the open  Forum, this the  2^nd  day of   APRIL, 2018.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

    MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainants

 

P.W.1  -	07-02-2018	Sri Cheekireddy Janardhan Reddy, Group Convener, S/o.Singa Reddy,  Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (affidavit filed)
P.W.2  -	07-02-2018	Sri Konduru Gopal Reddy, Group Co-convener, S/o.Sesha Reddy,  Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District (affidavit filed).
P.W.3  -	07-02-2018	Sri Konduru Sudhakar Reddy, Group Member, S/o.Sesha Reddy  Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District  (affidavit filed).
P.W.4  -	07-02-2018	Sri Konduru Sesha Reddy, Group Member, S/o.Narasareddy  Reddy, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District (affidavit filed).
P.W.5  -	07-02-2018	Sri Nalamalapu Kota Reddy, Group Member, S/o.Konda Reddy, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District  (affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

R.W.1  -

03-01-2018

Sri Musunuru  Suresh Babu, S/o.Chinnaiah,  Working as Mandal Agricultural Officer at Kavali, SPSR Nellore District (chief affidavit filed).

 

 

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1  -	28-02-2014	Photostat copies of letter from complainants and Resolution  complainant’s group.
Ex.A2  -	-	Photostat copy of  terms and conditions of Mechanised Srivari Package Scheme  (R.K.V.Y.).
Ex.A3  -	13-03-2015	Photostat copy of  RKVY Scheme Agriculture  Machinary 2014-15, Agriculture  Department, Andhra Pradesh.
Ex.A4  -	-	Photostat copy of pass book  first page in account No.869210110012239   in the name of  Sri Kanipaka Vigneswara Rytu Mithra and Cheekireddy Janardhan Reddy.
Ex.A5  -	23-05-2015	Meeseva Proceedings Certificate .
Ex.A6  -	-	Photostat copy of  Farm Mechanization 2014-15.
Ex.A7  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164269 for Rs.49,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.2.
Ex.A8  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164270 for Rs.15,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A9  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164272 for Rs.4,90,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A10  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164273 for Rs.4,20,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.2.
Ex.A11  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164274 for Rs.3,49,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A12  -	19-05-2015	Photostat copy of  Banker Cheque No.164275 for Rs.9,000/-   in favour of opposite party No.1.
Ex.A13  -	16-02-2016	Letter from complainant’s group to the opposite party No.4.
Ex.A14  -	16-02-2016	Received copy of (received on 17-02-2016) letter from complainant’s group to the opposite party No.4.
Ex.A15  -	10-03-2016	Photostat copy of letter from  complainant’s group  to the opposite party No.4.
Ex.A16  -	19-05-2016	Photostat copy of  legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties and Agriculture Development Officer, Kavali,  SPSR Nellore District alongwith six registered post receipts.
Ex.A17  -	-	Three served postal acknowledgements received from the opposite parties 3 to 5.
Ex.A18  -	-	Returned postal covers from the opposite parties                1 and 2.
Ex.A19  -	27-05-2016	Letter in Rc.No.Extn.II.783/2014 from                                 K. Hemamaheswara Rao, SPSR Nellore to the  complainant’s advocate.
Ex.A20  -	04-06-2016	Letter from opposite party No.5 to the complainant’s advocate alongwith Photostat copy of  letter from  opposite party No.5 to the  Station House Officer, Kavali Rural Police Station, Kavali Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore.

 

                   EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

                                                           -Nil-                                              Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1.	Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	M/s. Green Fields, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Padugupadu Village, SPSR Nellore District.
3.	M/s. Bharat Kisan Seva Centre, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Rammoorthy Nagar, SPSR Nellore District.
4.	Sri K. Raghunatha Reddy, Government Pleader, James Garden, Nellore-2.

 

Date when free copy was issued: