Orissa

Jajapur

CC/63/2015

Prakash Sathpathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pratap Panda,A.H.O - Opp.Party(s)

Srikant Mohapatra

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                      

                                             Dated the 29th day of January,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.63 of 2015

Prakash Sathpathy  , S/O Late Pravakar Sathpathy  

Vill./ P.O.Kampagada,

P.S. Bari-Ramachandrapur ,

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                     

                                                  (Versus)

1.Pratap Panda,A.H.O,(Asst.Horticulture Officer-in-charge)

At/P.O/Bari, P.S.Bari-RamchandraPur,Dt.Jajpur

At present:(A.D.H,Officer,Jajpur) At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur.

2. District  Agriculture Officer,At/PO/Dt.Jajpur.

3. Director SHEEL BIO-TECH.LTD.SHEEL HOUSE-RL-270530

Main Jagadamba Road,Tughlakabad Extn, New DELHI

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                     

For the Complainant:                            Sri S. Mohapatra, Sri S.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                    Self.

For the Opp.parties : No.2                    Self

For the Opp.parties : nNo.3                  Sri D.C.Das, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   29.01.2018.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER .

The petitioner  has filed the present dispute against the O.ps alleging deficiency of  service .

            The fact relevant as per complaint  petition is that the petitioner is a Agriculturist . The O.P.no.3 was doing banana (kissam G-9) sapling plantation business through o.p.no.2  .The petitioner entered into a documentary mutual understanding paper ( agreement) for cultivation of G-nine Bananna  sapling.  That as per agreement the dispute between the parties will be inspected and  solved by op.1 and 2 but it remains as a matter of record. Thereafter the petitioner cultivated banana (G-9) sapling with the area measuring  about one acre  for the year of 2013 and 14 .  But the O.P.no.3  did not provide healthy G-9 sapling ,good fertilizer   etc,  for which the petitioner got less  fruit   on production of the fruit  ( banana) .  On the other hand the O.P.no.3 did not take any step to sale the fruit  product  in the market , for which the  petitioner has  suffered heavy financial loss.

            That as per agreement the O.P  instigated the petitioner to generate Moodays under M.G.N.RE.G.S  the petitioner did  it but failed to get labour charges from the o.ps .Hence the o.ps have committed negligence in providing service and they did  not pay  any heed to the letter sent by the petitioner regarding  his grievance .

            Thereafter  the petitioner sent a pleader notice dt.29.1.15 to the O.Ps,  whereas the O.P.no.1 has given the reply by refusing the claim of the petitioner .  The O.P.no.2 orally suggested the petitioner to settle the matter but frequently took  time for which the petitioner was  constrained to file the present dispute with the prayer  to  direct  the O.Ps  to compensate him a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- for his loss  due to  labor charges,  physical and mental agony.

            After notices   the O.Ps  entered into appearance and subsequently filed their written version  . The O.P.no.1  has taken the stand in the  written version  as follows:

That the aforesaid complaint filed by the  petitioner is not maintainable both in fact and law.

There is no question of business as the O.P.no.1  is a govt.  servant .  Further no mutual understating has been made with govt.  nor any documents erected  and   act  as per  instruction  and direction of Govt norms .  The  cultivators  will cultivate their own  field to make them profitable . The O.P.no.1 was duty bound for timely supply of technical advice to the farmers related to disease pest ,control and to monitor the program on feasibility . That healthy sapling good quality of Biozyta organic fertilizer, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, pottassic fertilizer ,Hignic pesticides ,choloropyriphosus pesticides, polythene mulching has been provided to the beneficiaries on free of cost . Further , the plant   selected by the Govt. before placing Govt. order to provide the beneficiaries concerned so, it is not my personal/ individual decision .  The this is the decision of High level Govt. officials and action is taken .None of the complainant  have received by the petitioner regarding quality by this office prior to an advocate  notice .  It  is  not  a fact the O.P.no.1 is no way concerned to  pay labour payment .it is fact that ,the Musteroll  ( labour payment roll) being generated by  the B.D.O   concerned and the same musteroll   is paid by the  Project Director,  DRDA, Jajpur  on basis of on line  payment to  the concerned Account  holder . In this case the petitioner paid a sum of Rs 86,900/-  only towards labour payment but the petitioner has made false allegation in every step before this Hon’ble fourm . Subsequently the O.P denied that no letter has been sent by the petitioner because the undersigned has no individual office and the undersigned  is a sub- ordinate staff of  Assistant Director of Horticulture , jajpur.  Banana is a one year duration crop and completed within a calendar year . So, the crop yield is already over within a year-2013-  14  . Further it is a matter of surprise  that the banana  crop is one year duration and the  complainant cultivated  the crop during the year - 2013 and 14 and the same petitioner  lodged  during  the year of 2015 which is approximately one year  gap after due over , so the question of settlement  of matter is doubtful, intentional, malafide, baseless and totally fake and colourful to make the image defamatory of o.p.1 .   It is a fact that the petitioner is not a consumer of O.P.no.1 . Hence the instant application  is not maintainable  that the petitioner has not paid any amount towards his cultivation and all the inputs were supplied  free of cost along with labour payment  and in absence of imaginary allegation without any proof /fact of buying of plan lets, fertilizers, pesticides ,polyththene mulching, labour payment for consideration which has been paid/ promised or partly paid or partly promise the   complainant  can not come under the purview of the “consumer” as defined in Sec. 2(d) of C.P.Act . so the aforesaid complaint  is liable to be dismissed  as not maintainable  .

            O.P.No.2 has  taken the stand in their written version  and stated that the Dist. Agriculture office , jajpur  and DAO, Jajpur is no way related to the matter  and Bari block comes  under the DAO, Dharmasala .

The O.P.no. 3 taken the stand   in their written version  that

1  The petitioner is not a consumer as defined   u/s-2 of C.P.Act  1986

2. That the petitioner did not purchased a banana plants from O.P.3   and no  consideration has been paid.

That petitioner   did not pay regarding the  deterioration the quality of the plant during the cultivation cycle , O.P  will not be made responsible as claimed by the petitioner.

4.The petitioner neither inform the op.3 regarding cultivation  practices was adopted  for cultivation of Banana  plant , the o.p3  is not  responsible for any discrepancies and short coming losses as claimed by the petitioner for cultivation of Banana plant .

The petitioner with  the malafide  intention went to  black mail  to o.p3 with  the intention  to grab unlawful  money and  want to get unlawful   benefits by   filing  the present petition .

5. That the agreement on which basis the case is started is false fabricated  with denied the date of declaration under the  Christian Erra or etc as per the norm of  the agreement between  the parties.

2^nd ly the agreement is falsified   being denied with the particulars  of the 1^st party into agreement to justified that the particulars of the 1^st party in to the agreement to justify their particulars  and on the other hand  the agreement  is proved false being  denied with the definition  of the petitioner. Hence  it is submitted that the entire agreement is void and liable to be rejected .In the light of the above mentioned circumstances  the o.p3 prayed that the Hon’ble forums may dismissed the petition.

            On the date of hearing we heard  the argument from both the sides  and after perusal of the record and documents in details we observed that

1.It is undisputed fact that the petitioner  and O.P.no.3 entered into an agreement for cultivated high brand banana (G-9)  with the help of the guidance under O.P.no. 1 and 2 .

2.But it is a fact the petitioner filed the present dispute with the allegation that the o.ps did not  provide healthy sapling good fertilizer etc , O.P.no.3 did not  take the banana  for selling in the market for which the petitioner  suffered heavy financial loss .

Owing to the above assertion and counter assertions we are of  the considered view that the dispute is liable to be dismissed  on the following grounds.

a. The dispute against Govt. servant is not maintainable before this Fora as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 1996 (2)CLT-p-241-S.C(State of Odisha Vrs Divisional Manager , LIC and Others )

b. In order to maintain the dispute before this Fora it is not only the liability but also the mandatory duty of the petitioner to prove that he is a consumer who has purchased the goods has hired the services of the o.ps on payment of consideration but in the present dispute there is no such materials or evidence from the side of the petitioner to prove that he is a consumer and in absence of which the dispute is liable to be dismissed in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court  reported in 1997 (2)CLT-271-SC-Para-19(New India Insurance Co.ltd Vrs.  Shree B.M Sainani )

Hence this order

            Consequently the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable .While dismissing the dispute we are in the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to approach proper forum/ court in respect of his grievance if he so likes  . No cost.          

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th  day of January,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.