Haryana

Jind

CC/253/2013

Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sate Of Haryana OP1 And Distt. Horticulture Officer Op2 And Dr. Hawa Sing OIp3 And Rajinder Op4 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Daya Singh

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

ORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 253 of 2013
   Date of Institution: 11.12.2013
   Date of final order: 22.6.2016

Krishan s/o Sh. Chander Mal s/o Hari Singh r/o village Khema Kheri, Tehsil and District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
State of Haryana through Collector, Jind, District Jind.
District Horticulture Officer, Jind.
Dr. Hawa Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Govt. Garden Nursery, Jind.
Rajinder Malik, Horticulture Office, Julana.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Daya Singh Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Surjeet Arya ADA for opposite parties and
          Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite parties No.2 to4.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  is owner in possession to the extent of 1/12 share  in the agriculture land comprised vide khewat No.69 khatoni No.113 total 186 kanal 17 marlas  vide Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 of village Khema Kheri, Tehsil and District Jind and  his son namely Rajesh and Sunil Kumar are also owners and in possession of 1/6th share in the above said land. There are orchard of the complainant in 5 acres of land comprised vide 
            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …2…    
kharsa No.30 Killa No.9,12,19 and 25 under a scheme named as Rashtriya Baghwani Mission launched by the State of Haryana and the complainant planted about 600 trees consisting of Guava, Kinnu, Mosmi, Mango, Jamun and Lemon. It is alleged that on 16.10.2007 under said scheme of Haryana State he was given 330 plants of Guava and his son Rajesh was given 110 plants of Kinnu on 27.9.2007 by opposite parties No.3 and 4 planting the same in to his Orchard for which a subsidy Rs.4,400/- for first year, Rs.1800/- for second year and Rs.2800/- for third year was also to be given to the complainant by the opposite parties. The said plants were supplied to the complainant under scheme of Central government without any charge. After expiry of more than 6 years there were no proper fruits on said 330 Guava trees and Kinnu trees rather few fruits were seen on the plants of Guava and growth of Guava tree and citrus was very less whereas within four years a good yield of fruits was required to be received by the complainant. The complainant moved an applications to the opposite party No.2 on 30.1.2012 and  Deputy Commissioner, Jind on 6.3.2013 about the reason for not giving fruits of the above said trees but of no use. The officials of District Horticulture Office, Jind and State of Haryana who played fraud that breed of Guava is not Ellahbadi (Safida) which was allegedly sold to him by the opposite parties rather it is a Desi breed named as Bijju. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  a sum of 

            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …3…    
Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss and damages faced by the complainant and also for causing mental pain and agonies. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that no payment on account of supply of 330 plants of Guava and 110 plants of Kinnu to his son Rajesh for planting the same in their Orchard under the scheme Rashtriya Bagwani Mission launched by the State Govt. of Haryana was received. In fact these plants were supplied free of costs. Rather the complainant and his son were given without obtaining any payment/charges in this behalf and hence the complainant is not covered in the definition of Consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that Rajesh son of complainant planed the Kinnu and Amrood in 2 acres and one acre land respectively by arranging the plants at his own level but the payment to the tune of Rs.13,200/- was made to him by the Department through cheque. No amount was charged from the complainant on account of supply of fruit plants mentioned above.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.    In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, receipt of loan instalment Ex. C-2,copy of  application dated 30.1.2012 Ex. C-3, copy of application dated 6.3.2012 Ex.C-4, copies 
            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …4…    
of application dated 27.3.2012 Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6 and copy of document Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh, District Horticulture Officer, Ex. OP-1, copy of bill Ex. OP-2, c
opies of stock register Ex.  Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4, copy of document Ex. OP-5, copy of application dated 30.1.2012 Ex. OP-6, copy of letter dated 6.3.2012 Ex. OP-7, copy of letter dated 31.3.2012 Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 1.5.2012 Ex. OP-9, copy of letter dated 29.6.2012 Ex. OP-10, copies of inspection report Ex. OP-11 and Ex. OP-12 and closed the evidence. 
4.    Ld. counsel for opposite parties has argued that they have taken the preliminary objection in the written statement that  the complainant does not  come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. 
5.    On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant argued that this point should have been  raised at the stage of admission of case and now this point cannot be raised at the stage of argument. We have gone through the pleading of the  complaint that the complainant alleged  that under a scheme named as Rashtriya Baghwani Mission launched by the State of Haryana  the complainant planted 600 trees consisting of Guava, Kinnu, Mosmi, Mango, Jamun and Lemon. It is further alleged that  on 16.10.2007 under the above said scheme he was given 330 plants of Guava and his son Rajesh was given 110 plants of Kinnu on 27.9.2007 by opposite parties No.3 and 4 for  
            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …5…    
planting the same in to his Orchard for which a subsidy Rs.4,400/- for first year, Rs.1800/- for second year and Rs.2800/- for third year was also to be given to the complainant by the opposite parties. The said plants were supplied to the complainant under scheme of Central government without any charge.  
6.          Without going on the merit of the case, we are coming on the point that whether  complainant comes under the definition of Consumer Protection Act or not? In view of the contents of the complaint that the complainant himself admitted in the complaint that he has not paid any consideration or charge to the State Government in lieu of the plants which were given under the Scheme. So that we are of the considered view that complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he has not paid anything to the Govt. We have  also gone through the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2( 1) ( d) ( i) which reads as under:- Consumer means any person who-
“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”.

            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …6…    
On the other hand, the complainant has stressed  that  complaint is maintainable because at the time of admission of this complaint this Forum should have taken into consideration that complainant does not come under the definition of consumer but at the state of arguments this point cannot be raised. But this plea is not tenable because there is no estoppel against the statute/law and this point can be raised by the opposite parties at any time. 
    During arguments Ld. counsel for complainant moved an application for spot inspection and to sought report about the variety of plants in the Orchard of the complainant. Reply filed by opposite parties.  There  are two inspection reports on the file  on the application of the complainant regarding spot inspection given by the District Horticulture Officer dated 29.6.2012 as well as  report dated 1.6.2012  given by Dr. R.D. Kaushik Senior Co-coordinator, KVK, Jind, Dr. Baljit Singh Bhayana, District Horticulture Officer, Jind, Dr. Virender singh Dhanda, Assistant Programmer Officer, Jind and Dr. Jaibir Lohan, Horticulture Development Officer, Julana. In view of the reports, there is no merit in the application for inspection and same is hereby dismissed.  
7.      In view of the above said discussion  we are of the view that complainant does not come under the definition  of  Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 
            Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.
                   …7…    
of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583.  Original documents be returned to the complainant after retaining the photo copy of the same. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                   President,
                                                                           DCDRF, Jind. 
               Member                      Member                 22.6.2016

        Krishan Vs. State of Haryana etc.

Present:  Sh. Daya Singh Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Surjeet Arya ADA for opposite parties and
          Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite parties No.2 to4.
         Arguments on application as well as final arguments heard. To come up on 22.6.2016 for orders. 
                                President,
        Member      Member                 DCDRF, Jind.
                                21.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Daya Singh Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Surjeet Arya ADA for opposite parties and
          Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite parties No.2 to4.
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                President,
     Member             Member                 DCDRF, Jind.
                                22.6.2016