STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 17.03.2016
Date of final hearing: 03.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 20.09.2023
First Appeal No.249 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/s Classic Agricone through its Managing Director, SCO 394, Sector-20, Panchkula (Haryana). ....Appellant
Versus
- Narender Singh S/o Prem Singh, R/o Village Siwah, Tehsil and District Panipat.
- Distt. Horticulture Officer, New Grain Market, Panipat.
- The Mission Director, Horticulture Department, Govt. of Haryana, Sericulture Complex, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana).
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Shilesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Deepak Vashisth, counsel for respondent No. 1 Sh. Shardul, District Horticulture Officer-authorized representative of respondent No. 2 and 3.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Complainant instituted complaint (Complaint No. 179 of 2013) before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Panipat. It was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2016. Respondents (as arrayed in complaint) were held to be deficient in their service. Direction was issued to respondent No. 2 and 3, not to release subsidy amount to respondent No.1; respondent No. 1 (appellant herein) was directed to return farmer’s share i.e. Rs.7,16,000/- and further to compensate complainant to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- as damages of cost of one crop of ‘Lillium Flower’ which was to be sown in the month of October-2012 and to further compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service, causing unnecessary harassment and to pay Rs.5,000/- to him towards litigation expenses.
2. M/s Classic Agricone filed First Appeal No.236 of 2016, before this State Commission against order dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Panipat, which was disposed off on 20.01.2017. Impugned order dated 22.01.2016 was modified to the extent that complainant has been held entitled to Rs.7,16,100/- which he has deposited along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization and Government shall not release further subsidy to appellant. Appellant has been held entitled to remove its material.
3. Complainant preferred Revision Petition No. 2466 of 2017 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Vide order dated 18.02.2019; case has been remanded back to State Commission with observation that: “From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission, we find that there is no discussion in respect of the further compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- granted by the District Forum, which has been deleted. As there is no consideration on this point, we are left with no other option but to remand the matter to the State Commission to hear the parties concerned and decide the only issue as to whether the petitioner (Complainant) herein, was entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- or not as directed by the District Forum.”
4. On receipt of the matter to this State Commission for fresh consideration on above limited point; the registry of this Commission has assigned new number to this appeal, as mentioned above.
5. In order to divulge upon said issue (regarding entitlement of complainant to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- as per remand order dated 18.02.2019); it would be pertinent to state following facts, as pleaded parties to this lis in their respective pleadings:-
(a) Poly House/Net House measuring 3410 sq. mtr. in the agricultural land of complainant was to be installed. OP No. 1 (appellant herein) was empanelled by OP No. 2 & 3 for installing said net house. Complainant handed over his land to OP No.1 for installation of net house on 13.06.2012. Required amenities were provided by complainant. OP No. 2 vide its letter dated 13.07.2012 granted sanction for installation of said net house. Tripartite agreement dated 15.07.2012 was prepared; which was to be signed by complainant as well as by OP No. 1 and 2. OP No. 1 showed its inability to sign the agreement. Total price of net house was Rs.20,46,000/-. As agreed, complainant paid Rs.7,16,000/- on 13.06.2012. OP No. 1 was required to install said net house and hand over the same to complainant within 45 days from date of agreement but it failed. As per allegations complainant suffered loss. He was deprived of, from taking one crop of Lillium Flower from the land, which was handed over to OPs for installation of net house. That apart, land measuring 120 sq. feet was wasted for next 10 years, because as per agreement and terms & conditions of Horticulture Department-Haryana, minimum time to continue the net house was 10 years. Complainant had to sow Lillium Flower in net house, which could not be sown in due time i.e. in October-2012.
(b) OP No. 1 in its defence stated that: OP No. 2 and 3 launched scheme for welfare of farmers for installation of net house/poly house, as per which; 65% subsidy was to be given by National Horticulture Mission and 35% share was to be paid by farmer. It is admitted that complainant submitted application dated 13.07.2012 to OP No. 2 with required documents. It was approved by OP No. 2 on same day and sent to OP No. 1, who started work of net house in the field of complainant. After completion of 50% work; 50% payment as subsidy was released by OP No. 2 to OP No.1. Installation work was done by OP No. 1 as per direction of OP No.2. On being inspected the site by OP No.2 & 3; it (work) was found to be done in proper manner by OP No.1. Employees of OP No.1 tried to rectify short coming in the net house of complainant on various dates, but complainant denied to carry out the work which was reported to OP No. 2, time to time.
(c) OP No. 2 & 3 in their joint defence has pleaded that: OP No. 2 has not signed the tripartite agreement due to some technicalities as the same was not applicable to the said case. OP No. 2 received information from OP No. 1 for inspection of site and its (OP No.2) officials’ inspected the site twice; gave report to OP No.2 and on receiving the inspection report; OP No. 2 released 50% payment of subsidy to OP No. 1. Complainant gave representation to OP No. 2 & 3, as well as, to Deputy Commissioner-Panipat and to Additional Deputy Commissioner-Panipat, which were replied by OP No. 2 and instructions were given to OP No. 1 for completion of net house. Committee of final inspection inspected the site of complainant on 28.02.2013 and found short coming. OP No. 2 issued Memo No. 1174 dated 13.03.2013 to OP No. 1 for removal of short coming of net house of complainant. OP No. 1 gave letter to OP No. 2 that: it (OP No.1) approached farmers for removal of short coming, but complainant/farmer was not ready to get it rectified on 03.04.2013.
(d) Based upon above facts; learned District Consumer Commission observed that complainant has been able to prove that he provided required amenities to OP No.1 for the purpose of structure of net house, but OP No. 1 did not install and handed over the same to complainant within stipulated period of 45 days from 15.07.2012, due to which, complainant was deprived of taking one crop of Lillium Flower from the land handed over to OPs for installation of net house.
6. Appellant herein, complainant and representative of respondent No. 2 & 3 were again heard on length, on only issue pertaining to entitlement of compensation to complainant, as per spirit of remand order dated 18.02.2019.
7. While opening the arguments in order to justify grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- by learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat; learned counsel for the complainant has contended that: since net house was not installed within stipulated period of 45 days reckoning from 15.07.2012 (date of tripartite agreement) by appellant herein, on the land of complainant, so handed over to OPs for that purpose, therefore, loss of one crop of Lillium Flower suffered by complainant was of immense gravity, intensity and magnitude. Crop of Lillium Flower which was to be sown in poly house during October-2012, could not be sown thereby putting complainant on huge loss, of which, he has been adequately compensated by granting compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- by learned District Consumer Commission. It is urged that there was short coming, reported in the work done by OP No.1/appellant herein. 120 sq. feet of complainant’s land has been rendered useless for 10 long years, because, as per contention, minimum life span of net house is 10 years. It is urged that all these facts have been taken note of, collectively, by learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat, by awarding him compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for appellant and representative of respondent No. 2 & 3 (as arrayed in original complaint) have urged, with one voice that the then State Consumer Commission-Haryana vide its Order dated 20.01.2017 was well seized of material fact that compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was not tenable to complainant and that is why it has modified the order of learned District Consumer Commission by granting him, equitable relief of interest @ 9% p.a. on refund of deposited amount viz. Rs.7,16,100/-, by complainant, from date of filing of complaint till its realization.
9. The complaint, as filed, expressly recites that complainant had been deprived from taking one crop of Lillium Flower from the land handed over to OPs for installation of net house. It also recites that crop of Lillium Flower which was to be sown in net house land, could not be sown on its due time i.e. October-2012 as OP No. 1/appellant herein did not install net house. It also recites that complainant, in legal notice had requested OP No. 2 and 3 that he is entitled to payment of damages of cost of one crop of Lillium Flower i.e. Rs.27,00,000/- (assessed minimum profit) per acre plus interest. Eventually, complainant in Para No. 11 of complaint has inter alia pleaded that: he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.22,75,097.23 paisa on account of one session loss of crop of Lillium Flower, plus Rs.5,00,000/- on account of loss of crop of cucumber (khira).
10. Burden to prove about entitlement of compensation, as mentioned above on account of alleged loss of crop (Lillium Flower) lay upon complainant alone as per mandate of Evidence Act and legally this burden will never shift. May be, as per stance of complainant; he could not sow Lillium Flower on its due time (October-2102), palpably because of want of net house /poly house, yet, he was required to lead positive evidence to the effect that he had always been in process of procuring seeds meant for crop of Lillium Flower, or its baby plants, from dealers, by placing orders in advance, only in anticipation of completion of poly net house at its due time and towards this pursuit; he had spent huge money in shape of advance payment to dealers. He was also required to lead positive evidence that he had already engaged manpower to look after the sown crop of Lillium Flower. Even if, complainant could not sow crop of Lillium Flower in the net house, yet nothing stopped him to bring on record, some link evidence in the shape of yield generated from one crop of Lillium Flower by any other agriculturist, who had been doing said crop’s cultivation, in and around the vicinity of complainant’s land or elsewhere, in close proximity to that time (October-2012). Had, some positive evidence to this effect been led by complainant, it could have provided significant lead to learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat, while awarding compensation at the whopping amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. Curiously enough, no evidence in above arena had been led by complainant before learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat. Since, there was no such quality evidence led before learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat by complainant, therefore, it remained quite mysterious and mystifying circumstance, as to how, learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat has granted Rs.8,00,000/- as damage to one crop of Lillium Flower without there being any credible, tangible and acceptable base before it. Apparently, said compensation has been granted on mere surmises and suppositions, which have no place in law. Learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat has been found faulty, while awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards damage to one crop of Lillium Flower. Complainant is not entitled to any such relief of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- as damages of cost of one crop of Lillium Flower and it is now held as such.
11. The learned District Consumer Commission-Panipat in its order dated 22.01.2016, while directing OP No. 1/appellant herein to return Rs.7,16,100/- (deposited by complainant) has not awarded any interest on that amount to complainant. The then State Consumer Commission-Haryana in its order dated 20.01.2017 (passed in First Appeal No. 236 of 2016) has modified the order dated 22.01.2016 and awarded refund of Rs.7,16,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint, till its realization, to complainant. Complaint was filed on 12.07.2013. Grant of interest @ 9% p.a. on deposited amount of Rs.7,16,100/- from 12.07.2013 till its realization, is nothing, but relief in the nature of compensation only. Meaning thereby, learned State Consumer Commission, despite being aware of fact that no evidence had been led by complainant before learned District Consumer Commission in order to substantiate his claim of compensation on account of damage of one crop of Lillium Flower, had yet, granted equitable relief of compensation, while observing that complainant shall be entitled to Rs.7,16,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.7,16,100/- from date of filing of complaint (12.07.2013) till its realization through its order dated 20.01.2017. Complainant is not entitled to anything else, towards compensation, over and above, what has already been granted to him by State Consumer Commission-Haryana vide order dated 20.01.2017.
12. For the reasons recorded above, on remand of this matter to this Commission for decision on only one issue regarding entitlement of complainant to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- or not, as directed by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, it is now held that complainant is not entitled to any such relief of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Direction contained in remand order dated 18.02.2019, passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-New Delhi, stands complied with accordingly. In view of above discussion, this appeal stands disposed off.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
14. Any other application(s) if pending, too stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 20th September, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
