Haryana

StateCommission

A/237/2016

CLASSIC AGRICONE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMESH - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.GUPTA

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      237 of 2016

Date of Institution:      17.03.2016

Date of Decision :       20.01.2017

 

M/s Classic Agricone through its Managing Director, SCO 394, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Ramesh s/o Sh. Maha Singh, Resident of Village Siwah, Tehsil/Block Panipat, District Panipat.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      District Horticulture Officer, New Grain Market, Panipat.

3.      The Mission Director, Horticulture Department, Government of Haryana, Sericulture Complex, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2&3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Gautam Kailey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Deepak Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Dr. Subhash Chander, District Horticulture Officer, Panipat on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          M/s Classic Agricone through –Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal against the order dated January 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Ramesh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) entered into an agreement dated 15^th July, 2012 with M/s Classic Agricone-opposite party No.1/appellant to install a Poly House/Net House measuring 2223 square meters in the agricultural land of the complainant at Village Siwah, District Panipat. The opposite party No.1 was empanelled by the Opposite Parties/respondents No.2 and 3 for installation of the said net house. The total price of the net house was Rs.13,33,800/-. The complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 6^th June, 2012 and Rs.4,66,830/- on 13^th June, 2012, that is, the total amount of Rs.7,16,830/-, as agreed. The complainant approached the District Horticulture Officer, Panipat and after discussion and on being briefed by the opposite parties, the complainant handed over his land for installation of the net house to the opposite party No.1 on 13^th June, 2012. All the required amenities were provided to the opposite party No.1 by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 13^th July, 2012 granted sanction for installation of the net house and a tri-partite agreement dated 15^th July, 2012 was prepared which was to be signed by the complainant as well as the opposite parties No.1 and 2. However, the opposite party No.1 showed its inability to sign the agreement. The opposite party No.1 was required to install the net house and hand over same to the complainant within 45 days from the date of agreement, that is, 15^th July, 2012 but it failed to do so. Thus, the complainant suffered loss and he was deprived of from taking crop from the land, which was handed over to the opposite parties for installation of the net house. That apart land measuring 120 square feet was also wasted for next ten years because as per agreement and terms & conditions of Horticulture Department, Haryana, the minimum time to continue the net house was 10 years. The complainant had to sow the crop of Lillium Flowers in the Net House which could not be sown in due time, that is, in the month of October, 2012 due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times to complete the installation work of net house and also got issued legal notice but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The Opposite Party No.1 in its written version stated that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 had launched a scheme for the welfare of farmers for installation of poly house/net house. As per scheme, 65% subsidy was to be given by the National Horticulture Mission and only 35% share was to be paid by the farmer. The complainant had submitted the application dated 13^th July, 2012 to the opposite party No.2 alongwith all the required documents. The opposite party No.2 had approved the application on the same day, that is, 13^th July, 2012 and it was sent to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 started work of net house in the fields of the complainant as per direction of the opposite party No.2 and after 50% completion of the work, 50% payment as subsidy was released by the opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1. The installation work was done by the opposite party No.1 as per direction of the opposite party No.2. On being inspected the site by the opposite parties No.2 and 3, it was found to be done in proper manner by the opposite party No.1 and the employees of the opposite party No.1 tried to rectify the shortcoming. Thus, denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite parties No.2 and 3 in their joint written submission reiterated the version of the opposite party No.1. However, it was stated that the tripartite agreement dated 13^th July, 2012 was signed by the complainant and the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 had not signed the same due to some technicalities as the same was not applicable to the said case. The complainant gave many representations to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 as well as to the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panipat and the same were replied by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 was instructed to complete the net house. The committee inspected the site on 28^th
February, 2013 and found shortcomings. Opposite Party No.2 issued Memo No.1174 dated 13^th March, 2013 to the opposite party No.1 for removal of the shortcomings in the net house. The opposite party No.1 wrote letter to the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No.1 had approached the farmers for removal of the shortcomings but the complainant was not ready to get it rectified. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby held the respondents to be deficient in their services and thus, we direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to release the subsidy amount to the respondent No.1 and it is further directed to the respondent No.1 to return the farmer’s share i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.4,66,830/- and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs.Seven Lacs) as damages of cost of one crop of Lillium Flower which was to be sown in the month of 10/2012 and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousand for rendering deficient services for causing unnecessary harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.five thousand to the complainant under the head of litigation expenses.”

6.                It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties had launched a scheme for the welfare of farmers for installation of Poly Houses/Net House. It is also not in dispute that under the said scheme 65% subsidy was to be given and the complainant was to pay only 35% share. It has also come on the record that the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.4,66,830/- total Rs.7,16,830/- under the said scheme.

7.                The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the opposite parties did not complete the Net House/Poly House within the stipulated period, that is, 45 days from the date of agreement and even the installation was not completed till the filing of the complaint before the District Forum.

8.                On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant was supposed to complete the installation of the Net House/Poly House in a maximum period of 100 days of handing over of the site/land by the complainant/farmer.

9.                Be that as it may, during the pendency of the appeal this Commission sought report from the District Horticulture Officer, Panipat.  A Committee was constituted which consisted of District Horticulture Officer, Panipat; Horticulture Development Officer, Bapoli; Horticulture Development Officer, Panipat; Protection Structure Analyst-1, Panchkula; Protection Structure Analyst-II, Panchkula and District Gardening Consultant, Panipat. It has been reported by the Committee vide report (Annexure A-21) that the roof over the Net House was damaged at some places due to wind storm. Thermal net is in broken condition at some places and not fit for use. The farmer has sown the crop of Cucumber (Kheera) inside the shed of Net House.

10.              Indisputably, the total price of the Net House/Poly House of the complainant was Rs.13,33,800/-, the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.7,16,830/- (Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.4,66,830/-), Subsidy paid by the government was Rs.4,33,485/- and the total subsidy was 8,66,970/-.

11.              Having taken into consideration all these aspects since Poly/Net House has been rendered useless because of quality of material used, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to Rs.7,16,830/- which he has deposited alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realisation and the government shall not release further subsidy to the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled to remove its material.

12.              The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 20.01.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL