Orissa

Cuttak

CC/160/2022

Binayak Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Block Agricultural Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Self

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.160/2022

 

Sri Binayak Behera,

AT:Andhoti,Gobindpur,

Cuttack.                                                                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.        Block Agriculture Officer,Baranga,Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        Agriculture District Officer,

        Nayabazar,Cuttack

 

3.     Secretary,

Department of  Agriculture & Farmers Empowerment,

        Odisha,Bhubaneswar.                                                  ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     05.08.2022

Date of Order:    27.12.2022

 

For the complainant:              Self.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 3:           None.

               For the O. P. no.2:                  Self.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                                  

          The case of the complainant in short is that he is a farmer by profession.  It is alleged by him that he alongwith other ten farmers had cultivated sweet corn in their field having total area of 5 acre of land with the assistance of O.P no.1 under the scheme “ATMA” sponsored by the O.Ps.  It is also stated by him that they were provided the seeds by the O.P no.1 through one seed seller namely, Sachidananda Panda.  The further case of the complainant is thatas per the terms of the scheme, they had cultivated the corn but due to the poor quality of seeds, all the seeds did not germinate and the plants from the rest of the seeds which were germinated did not grow properly, for which they had suffered a lot.  So on 30.4.2022 they had intimated to the O.P no.1 about the loss of corn crops.  The O.P no.1 after receiving such complaint had visited their field on 4.9.2022 and promisedthem to give compensation under the scheme.    As he did not take any action, the complainant thereafter had intimated  about their loss to other O.Ps as well as to the Collector, Cuttack for redressal of their grievances.  But the O.Ps did not compensate them.  It is alleged by the complainant that they hadsustained a loss of  Rs.9,20,000/-, which they had incurredfor cultivation of the corn on different heads.  Hence, the complainant for himself and for other farmers has filed the present case praying therein for a direction to the O.Ps for payment of compensation as per law.

          The complainant has filed xerox copy of some documents in order to prove his case.

2.       On the other hand, the O.Ps no.1 & 3 did not appear, hence they have been set exparte.  Only the O.P no.2 filed his reply, which is considered as written version.  It is stated by him that the allegation made by the complainant was enquired into by the present O.P no.1, the Block Agriculture Officer,Baranga.  He has filed verification report of O.P no.1.  It is prayed by him to dispose of the case as per the law.

          The O.P no.2 has filed some documents in order to establish his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

It is alleged by the complainant that he alongwith other farmers had jointly cultivated the sweet corn in the area comprising of five acres of land and the seeds were provided by the O.Ps through one Sachidananda Panda.  The complainant has not produced any receipt as regards to purchase of corn seeds from the O.Ps.  The complainant has also notproduced any evidence as regards to payment of any consideration money to the O.Ps for purchase of the said  corn seeds. So he is not a consumer under the C.P.Act,2019 as he had not paid any consideration money to the O.Ps.  The complainant has also not produced any evidence to the effect that he was covered under “ATMA Demonstration Programme” of O.Ps.   On the other hand, the complainant’s allegations were enquired into by the O.Ps.  It reveals from the enquiry report of the O.P no.1 submitted to O.P no.2 that the complainant’s area/village was not covered under the “ATMA Demonstration Programme”.  It is further stated in the said enquiry report that the complainant had cultivated the corn in the field, the area of which wasless than one acre and the plant population was normal.   The complainant has alleged that he alongwith other ten farmers had cultivated the sweet corn in five acres of land but no evidence was laid to that effect.  Besides the complainant, no otherfarmershad ever approached the O.Ps for compensation due to loss of corn.  The present case has been filed by the complainant himself by his personal capacity.  No other farmers have joined in this complaint petition except the complainant.  Hence, the allegation made by the complainant that he alongwith other farmers had cultivated the corn jointly in the area of 5 acres of land under the scheme “ATMA” is not believable.  The complainant has given calculation of different expenditures which he alleged to have incurred for cultivation of sweet corn but no evidence has been produced to that effect.  Hence the calculation of expenditure cannot be believable.  Be that as it may, non-inclusion of the name in a Welfare scheme or not providing any benefits under the welfare scheme by the State Govt. without consideration is not consumer dispute.  In view of the above findings, it is held that the present case is not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer, hence, the question of deficiency of service does not arise.

 

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is thus not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P.No.2& exparte against O.Ps no.1 & 3 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th  day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                 

     Sri  Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member

                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                           President