D.o.F:11/05/2011
D.o.O:31/12/11
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.114/11
Dated this, the 31st day of December 2011.
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G. : MEMBER
Kunhikannan.C, Kattur,
Katoor House, Kodoth PO, Kasaragod : Complainant
(in person)
1.Managing Director,
Kerala State Poultry Development Corporation,
T.P 30/897, Peda, Trivandrum.
(Adv.Abdul Khader,Kasaragod)
2. Dist.Animal Husbandry Officerdepartment
Dist.Animal Husbandry Office,Civil Station,Kasaragod.: Opposite parties
3.Vetinery Surgeon, Govt. Vetnery Hospital,
Kalichanukkam Po, Nileshwar.
(OP2&3 Govt.Pleader,)
4. Abhilash Meet Products, Angamaly,
Edakkunnu Paduvapuram Ernakulam (Exparte)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
In brief the case of complainant is that 2 hens he received under the IPDP (Integrated Poultry Development) Scheme of the Animal Husbandry department, was suffering from contagious disease. As a result the said chickens together with the 400 chickens he nurturing in his chicken farm has been died causing severe mental agony and heavy financial loss. On examination it is found that the chickens were suffered with the disease Ranikhet. The chickens of other beneficiaries were also died due to this disease. Since all his chickens were lost he issued a lawyer notice claiming compensation from Ist opposite party, who is the distributor of the said chickens. But in reply to the said notice it was informed that the place called Odayamchal’ from where the complainant received the chickens were not included in the beneficiary list of the said scheme. But in a query made by one Bhaskran under RTI Act, he has been informed the details of distribution of chickens in Kodom –Belur area. In that the name of the complainant was included in the beneficiary list of Kalichanadukkam. The complainant has availed loan from the Backward Corporation and due to the death of chickens now he is unable to repay the loan. Therefore the complaint claiming compensation.
2. According to Ist opposite party, the Ministry of Animal Husbandry Department-Govt. of Kerala under the Integrated Poultry Development Scheme in Food Security Program, has decided to issue two hens to the beneficiaries who are selected from the BPL ration card holders free of cost during 2010. Ist opposite party was entrusted with the responsibility of procuring the hens, from the reputed and government recognized hatcheries and also transporting it to the required point of delivery. Ist opposite party is not aware whether the complainant is a beneficiary of the said scheme. While selecting and procuring the hens it was ensured that the chicken were inoculated and given all the required medicines as per the guidelines of the Animal Husbandry department at all stages and till the chickens were delivered to the beneficiaries including to the complainant. According to complainant the chickens he obtained from the government was put in the farm were suffering from disease and the complainant had kept the hens in the same farm and they died within 2 days. Including the complainant the Ist opposite party has totally distributed 2626 birds in Kodom-Belur Grama Panchayath area and none of the beneficiaries had complaint of disease to the hens they have taken delivery so far. No other beneficiaries has so far not complained about the hens delivered to them. Therefore the allegations are not trustworthy or sustainable. The complainant is not a consumer since the hens are supplied free of cost. The complainant ought to have insured his chickens to claim the loss from the insurer. Hence Ist opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant.
3. According to 2nd opposite party complainant was also one of the beneficiaries of the IPDP scheme of Animal Husbandry department. Though the complainant states that the chickens supplied under the scheme and the chickens in his farm were died, no postmortem conducted and hence it cannot be hold that the chickens were died due to Ranikhet. Though complainant states that the chickens supplied to others are also died, no complaints received by them. Complainant purchased chickens to his farm from a private hatchery and some of the broiler chickens were brought to Kalichanadukkam Veterinary clinic was suffering due to Salmonallosis CRD. Therefore the allegation that the chickens of the farm of the complainant were caused due to the contagious disease of the hens distributed under the IPDP scheme is not correct and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. 3rd opposite party did not file any version. During enquiry it was submitted that Ist opposite party purchased the chickens distributed in Kodm-Belur Grama Panchayath from one Abhilash Meet Products, Angamaly, Edakkunnu, Paduvapuram,Ernakulam. The amount spent for distributing 90 days old 2626 chickens was `315120/- That means one chicken cost `120/- at the point of delivery!
Feeling suspicious about the genuineness of the transactions, Abhilash Meet Products was impleaded as supplemental opposite party No.4 and notice was issued to them But neither the acknowledgment card nor the registered notice returned unserved. Hence notice to 4th opposite party deemed to have served U/S 28(3) of the Consumer Protection Act and 4th opposite party is set exparte.
5. Complainant examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on his side. On the side of opposite parties no evidence adduced.
6. Ext.A1 is a reply received by the complainant from the Chief Minister’s Public Grievance Cell. Ext.A2 is the certificate issued by the President of Kodom Belur Grama Panchayath . In Ext.A2 it is stated that the complaints received from 124 beneficiaries about the death of the hens they received under the IPDP program has been entrusted with 3rd opposite party to hand over to 2nd opposite party. Ext.A3 is the photograph of the poultry farm of complainant depicting the complainant and the diseased chickens. Ext.A4 is a notice issued by one Dr.Narayanan to complainant asking him to appear for the enquiry. Ext.A5 is a reply under RTI Act given by Ist opposite party to one C.Bhaskaran. In Ext.A5 it is seen answered by Ist opposite party that all the hens distributed were vaccinated against the diseases and for distributing 2626 chickens having an age of 90 days the government spent `315120/- in Kodm Belur Panchayath. Ext.A6 is a copy of lawyer notice. Ext.A7 is the copy of reply notice . Ext.A8 is the prescription dtd.4/3/2011 issued by Dr.P.Mandhra Upadhya to complainant for treating 200 birds having disease ‘Ranikhet’.
7. From the documents produced and evidence adduced by the complainant the following facts are revealed
(a) The Ist opposite party has distributed 2626 hens (aged 90 days) in Kodom Belur Grama Panchayath. The total amount spent for the distribution was `315120/-. That means the distribution price of one hen is `120/-.
( If a 90 days hen cost `120/- why should Ist opposite party distribute it among the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries could have purchased grown up(matured) hens for a much lesser price.)
(b) The Kodom Belur Grama Panchayath authorities has received 124 complaints about the death of hens distributed under the IDPI scheme. The complainant was one of the beneficiary and complainant.
© Ist opposite party is the authority purchased 2626 chickens from 4th opposite party, Abhilash Meet Products out of the amount received from Animal Husbandry Department .
(d) The complainants 200 birds were suffering due to Ranikhet disease as on 4/3/2011 (as per Ext.A8). Therefore the contention that some of the nearby farms chickens were suffering with Salmonallosis/CRD and therefore complainants chickens were also may have suffering with the same disease is not correct.
(e) Opposite parties are hesitate to admit that the chickens were died due to Ranikhet due to the reasons best known to them. It may be because the hens of other beneficiaries may also lost due to the disease Ranikhet.
(f) The contention of Ist opposite party that no other beneficiaries made any complaints with respect to the death of the hens supplied is also not correct.
(g) Though Ist opposite party states that the chickens distributed were inoculated and given all required medicines no proof is produced to substantiate this contention.
8. The learned counsel for Ist opposite party vehemently argued that the hens were distributed as part of the IPDP which is a social welfare scheme. But it appears that the welfare of Ist opposite party& 4th opposite party were the prime moto of the IPDP scheme.
9. The further contention of opposite parties is that complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Act. But it can be seen that the complainant is a beneficiary’ of IPDP scheme launched by the government and the consideration for the purchase of hens are paid from the public exchequer to 4th opposite party through Ist opposite party who is acted as a distributor cum facilitator of the scheme.
Hence complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act defines ‘consumer’ as follows
consumer" means any person who,--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) 2[ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and part by promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 2[ hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. 1[ Explanation.-- For the purposes of sub- clause (i)," commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment;]
buys any goods for a consideration
From Sec.2d(1) it is clear that consumer includes ‘’ any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised…”’
10. In this case complainant is the user of hens distributed to him by Ist opposite party who purchased the hens from 4th opposite party. It is not Ist opposite party who directly purchased the chickens from 4th opposite party with their own money and distributed to beneficiaries. They obtained the money for purchasing the chickens from Animal Husbandry department which is a wing of government. So the status of Ist opposite party & 4th opposite party are more or less identical with respect to the chickens purchased for distribution ie they are suppliers of chickens. In addition to that Ist opposite party is the facilitator also of the said scheme This is not a case where there is no consideration. Though the complainant has not paid it directly. The consumer Protection Act nowhere provides that ‘user of goods’ shall pay consideration to acquire the status of consumer. It is not the case of Ist opposite party that they purchased the chickens for their own use. It is not their case that they obtained the chickens free of cost. The chickens purchased were intended to distribute under the IPDP welfare scheme. So Ist opposite party ‘approves’ the complainant as a user of the goods they supplied for which consideration is paid from public exchequer to 4th opposite party through Ist opposite party who is a facilitator cum distributor of the scheme. Therefore complainant is a consumer’ within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the contention that complainant is not a consumer is not sustainable.
11. Ext.A4 shows that Ist opposite party was not concerned about the goal or aim intended with the IPDP scheme and their sole interest was only the purchase and distribution of the hens.
The methods in the implementation of this welfare schemes indicate its flaws corruption, faulty implementation and lack of clarity , aim etc. It is a known fact that the corruption in the implementation of the welfare schemes are rampant and out of one rupee only one paisa reaches the poor ie the real beneficiary. The middle men and government officials are the main beneficiaries of those welfare schemes and most of the money intended to be spent in the welfare measures were siphoned off by different vested group and classes who are not at all bothered about the aims, goals, purposes and objects of the scheme. They are interested in the percentage of kickbacks and according to them every welfare scheme is a deal. However there are no incriminating evidence to fasten any liabilities on 2&3rd opposite parties . As per Ext.A8 it is seen that the Veterinary doctor has treated 200 birds . Complainant has lost those 200 chickens due to the supply of hens by opposite parties 1&4 which suffering from contagious diseases. One chicken can worth an average of `100/- . Hence he is entitled to get 200x100= `20,000/- as compensation.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1&4 are jointly and severally directed to pay `20000/-( Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony he suffered on account of the supply of ill affected hens by the opposite parties1&4 without any care and caution. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which the above amount would carry interest @9% from the date of complaint till payment. Opposite parties 2&3 are exonerated from liabilities.
Sent a copy of this order to the Director Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Kerala to consider revising the present mode of welfare scheme’ to a more transparent and efficacious manner with close monitoring to achieve the aims and objectives of such welfare schemes rather than concentrating on disbursing the fund to avoid lapse.
Exts
A1 - reply received by the complainant from the Chief Ministers Public Grievance Cell.
A2- certificate issued by the President of Kodom Belur Grama Panchayath .
A3 -e photographs of the poultry farm of complainant
A4- notice issued by one Dr.Narayanan to complainant
A5- reply under RTI Act given by Ist opposite party to one C.Bhaskaran.
A6- copy of lawyer notice.
A7 -copy of reply notice caused by the complainant to Ist opposite party.
A8- prescription dtd.4/3/2011 issued by Dr.P.Mandhra Upadhya to complainant
PW1-Kunhikannan.C-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
