Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/64/2019

Rajkumar Pandy S/O- Shiba Prased Panday - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adyashakti Agro Vision, Rajendra Nagar - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Patel

08 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA.

                                                          

C.C.NO-64/2019

 

Raj Kumar Pandey, aged about 48 yrs.

S/O-Shiba Prasad Pandey,

       R/o- Debadihi,

       Ps/Dist : Jharsuguda………………………………………………………...……Complainants.

     

Versus

 

1.  Adyashakti Agra Vision,

Rajendra nagar, Madhupatna,

Cuttack-10 -753010

 

2. The Chief Officer, National Horticulture Board,

8 CRP, Ekamra Karan Road, NI Block,

NI IRC Village, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

 

3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Main Branch, Jharsuguda, Odisha……………………….……..…………Opp. Parties.

 

            Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                       :-         Self.               

For the Opp. Party No-1                 :-         Sri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associate.

For the Opp. Party No-2                 :-         Sri L.N.Guru, Adv. & Associate.

For the Opp. Party No-3                 :-         Sri R.K.Dash, Adv. & Associate.

 

 

             Present:-     1. Shri  Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President.

                                     2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).

 

Date of Hearing:- 01.12.2021, Date of Order: 08.12.2021

 

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that, the Petitioner is an unemployed person hence adopted cultivation as his occupation having landed properties in M.S KHata No- 457 and 391 in mouja- Debadihi, vide Plot No- 3478,3653,3654,3661,3461/4186. In order to raise horticulture he heeded money to purchase Banana & Mango Trees and Drips line.  Horticulture D.A.O, Sundargarh while propagating   about the high earning of the profits  through Mango and Banana Plants advised to take loan for their respective lands. The Petitioner got a sanctioned loan of Rs.10,50,000/- in his favour from the Bank(O. P-3) There after the Complainant made contact with the O.P-2 in order to purchase drip plants  as the O.P-3 is dealing with the sale of Drip Plants.  The O.P-2 asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,32,760/- for the supply of  drips  pipes in Ac. 8.00 dec  but he supplied only Ac3.5 Dec and assured to supply the rest  later on but he failed to supply the same.  The material already supplied to the Complainant was within the cost of RS.1,40,000/-. Even after several requests the O.P-2 did not turned to supply for the rest areas.  But the O.P-2 assured to return the rest amount of RS. 1,32,000/-. Subsequently the O.P-2 returned Rs.90,000/- in two installments i.e Rs.60,000/- and RS.30,000/- to the Complainant.  The OP-2 is liable to return rest amount of RS. 12,000/- to the Complainant but in spite of several requests he did not return the money.  Due to this deficiency in service the Complainant is unable to invest the money in his farm for which the Complainant suffered both mentally and economically.

            As per the O.P-2 that the subsidy offered to be paid is not services defined in the C.P Ac, 1986. He cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Chaudhury Ashok Yadav Versus Rewari Central Cooperative Bank and National Horticulture Board reported in 2013 SCC along with two other decisions.  There is no cause of action arose in favour of the Complainant and against the O.P-2. He added that Subsidy is a grant from the Govt. and any citizen cannot claim a right to get subsidy. The sanction governed by the terms and condition of the scheme and is granted to those farmers/ organization who are found eligible as per provisions of scheme guidelines in order to promote commercial horticulture. As per the guidelines the project should be implemented within prescribed time limit of 18 months from the date of release of 1^st installment of term loan. Mere issuance of Letter of Intent will not guarantee the grant of subsidy to the beneficiary unless the proposal is implemented in accordance with the information given in the application of LOI/Detailed Project Report DPR) and within overall guidelines of the scheme.  Any deviation in implementation of proposal for which promoter will be solely responsible.  The Board reserves the right to cancel the LOI at any time in case there has been misrepresentation by the promoter or any information furnished by the promoter is found false or there has been concealment of any facts.  As the Complainant has not fulfilled the criteria to avail subsidy under the scheme the O.P-2 has not entertained this. As there is no direct relation  between the Complainant and the O.P-2  as per the C.P act- 1986 there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was committed by the O.P-2.

            That as per the O.P-3 the Complainant petition is not maintainable as per Law. There is no fault or deficiency in service by the O.P-3 to the Complainant.  The relation between the Complainant and the O.P-3 is that of a borrower and lender. There is no specific allegation against the answering O.P-3 hence the Complainant petition has no merit. The O.P-3 do not have scope about the purchase of drip pipes from the O.P-2. The O.P-3 after considering and verifying the documents submitted by the Complainant sanctioned loan after executing documents as per the norms of the Bank. AS the O.P-3 has not committed any deficiency in service he may not be penalized by the Hon’ble Commission.

Though the notices were issued in the name of the O.P-1 as per the address give in the Complaint petition which is purported to be the place of business, those were returned unserved with a Postal Remark of “LEFT” to this Commission. Basing on the directory given in Section of 65(3) of C.P act-2019 it is declared that the notice has been duly served on the O.P-1. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose off the case on merit basis considering the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer as he had purchased Drip Pipes to supply water to his banana and Mango plants planted in his Orchid to improve his earning by producing high quality of fruits and sell them in market at suitable price. But the O.P-1 supplied Drip pipes which only covered Ac.03.50 dec of lands. The O.P-1 assured to supply Drip pipes for rest  Ac. 04.50 dec of lands but in vain for which the plantation was damaged. As a result the Complainant  unable to watering the plants and suffered a huge amount of loss. This matter has been well settled in the case of T. Nagaiah vs M/S. Jain Irrigation Systems Pvt ... on 17 August, 2020 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.The allegations against the O.P-2 & 3 is not proved, hence they are free from any charges made against them. The O.P-1 is found to be deficient in services and we order as under :-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to refund the balance an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- which was taken in order supply the Plants to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the Complainant petition i.e  dtd. 14.08. 2019 till date of realization.  The O.P-1 is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as Compensation towards harassment, metal pain and agony due to supply of low quality plants and expense for their planting along with Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.         

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 9^th  day of December-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree,                                                                                             

 

MEMBER.(W)                                                                                               PRESIDENT.

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                            By me.       

 

                                                                     

  PRESIDENT.