BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.238/2015.

Date of instt.15.10.2015. 

Restore Remand:04.07.2017

                                                          Date of Decision: 20.09.2017.

Mewa Singh son of Sh.Bhim Singh, caste Jat, resident Bhoda Hoshnak, Tehsil and District  Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                             Versus

State Farm Corporation of India Limited, Central State Farm, Fatehabad Road, Opposite BSF Campus, Tehsil and District Hisar, Haryana, through its Director

..Opposite party.

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.              

Before             Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                        Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :         Sh.Pardeep Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.Amit Wadhera, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                      That previously on the application dated 28.07.2016 filed by the OP the present complaint was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 04.11.2016 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to set aside the order dated 04.11.2016 vide its order dated 16.05.2017 and the present complaint was remanded to this Forum to decide the same afresh on merits.

2.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that Mewa Singh-complainant purchased lemon saplings numbering 110 from Central State Farm, Hisar, State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. OP vide bill no.8419 dated 19.02.2010. Out of total 110 samplings 50 were of PANT variety and 60 samplings were of Kagzi variety. The above-said samplings were planted by the complainant in his agricultural land situated in village Bhoda Hoshnak District Fatehabad. It is further submitted in the complaint that the complainant spent huge amount of money for preparation and levelling of the land, for digging holes to plant the saplings; for using fertilizers urea, potassium and Zink by using tractor, Harrow and rotovator for the proper maintenance of the plants.  It is further submitted that it takes about three years in yielding fruits on the leman plants however in spite of proper care and precaution taken by the complainant, the plants did not give fruits even after a lapse of five years.  Therefore the complainant submitted an application before the District Horticulture Officer on 22-6-2015 for inspection of his fields.  On 23-6-2015 the District Horticulture Officer inspected the site and found that very less quantity of fruits are there on the plants.  The spot was further inspected by the Scientists of HAU on 28-8-2015 and found that saplings planted in the year 2009 and 2010 are of “BIJU” Variety and less fruits on the plants is on account of this fact.

                   It is further submitted that since the OP has supplied BIJU Variety of lemon saplings in place of Kagzi variety and as such on account of the same the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice the OP appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written version wherein various preliminary objections has been raised with regard to cause of action, maintainability, locus-stand etc. It is further submitted that the land bearing Khasra No.37//6(8-0) wherein the lemon saplings were planted is not in the ownership of the complainant and the same is owned by one Sh. Bhim Sing and as per the girdawari from the year 2010 to 2014, rice, wheat, cotton and vegetables  has been sown in the land in question and plantation of lemon saplings has not been mentioned. This proves that lemon saplings were never planted in the land in question by the complainant. It is further submitted that the spot was inspected by the D.H.O. in absence of the complainant and as such the inspection has been conducted without following the Government instructions issued in this regard. In reply on merits it is admitted by the OP that the complainant had purchased 50 saplings of lemon of PANT variety and 60 saplings of Kagzi variety form the OP. However, the remaining contents of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove the complaint the complainant produced in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1 and documents as Annexure C1 to Annexure C-6. Whereas the OP tendered the affidavit of Mr.Neeraj, Director Centre State Farm and document as Annexure R-2.

5.                During the course of proceedings of the present case this Forum vide order dated 05.07.2016 had directed the  District Horticulture Officer to submit his report after getting the spot inspected from the team of experts/scientists regarding the age of the plants and variety as to whether the same are BIJU plants or any other variety and also reason of the less yield. The report of DHO regarding the same was received on 22.07.2016.

                   The learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the averments made in the complaint and contended that the OP had sold the lemon saplings by saying that those plants are of PANT and Kagzi variety, but the lemon saplings of Kagzi variety were found of BIJU variety which yields very less quantity of fruits. This fact has been duly proved by inspecting team consisting of scientist of H.A.U. Hisar, expert from Centre of Excellence for Fruit Managing Sirsa and District Horticulture Officer Fatehabad, vide its report dated 22.07.2016. Therefore deficiency on the part of OP in selling lemon sapling is well proved and the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency on the part of the OP.

6.                On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP vehemently rebutted the contentions of the counsel for complainant and contended that the present complaint is false and fake and has been filed to extort money from the OP. It is further contended that the lemon sapling which was sought/desired by the complainant was sold to him and no different variety of saplings of plants was handed over to him as alleged in the complaint. The learned counsel further contended that Khasra No.37//6 wherein the plants were planted in not in the ownership of the complainant and as such the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. It is also contended that the lemon saplings purchased from the OP were never planted by the complainant in Khasra No.37//6 and the same is evident from the girdawari for the years 2010 to Rabi 2014 wherein the Patwari has recorded that paddy, cotton, wheat, vegetable and gawar were sown and there is no mentioning of lemon orchard.  It is also contended that the lemon orchard has not been managed properly which is also evident from the inspection report dated 22.07.2016 wherein it is specifically reported in para No.6 that the orchard is very poorly managed and undesirable inter cops are being grown in the orchard and plants are severely infected with citrus conker. The same is also evident form photo-graphs Annexure R1 to R18. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is on account of the poor management of the orchard by the complainant the plants are not yielding proper fruits and there is no deficiency in the lime samplings sold by the OP and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case law titled as Nugenes Ltd. Vs. Ishwar and another and reported as 2014(3) CPJ 33. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that since during the period from the year 2010 to 2014 the complainant has sown other crops as is evident from the Khasra girdawaris of the said period therefore the claim of Rs.5,04,000/- as crop loss averred in para 12 of the complaint is incorrect.

7.                We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both parties and have also examined the pleadings, documents and affidavits placed on record by both the parties. It is admitted by the OP in para No.6 of reply on merits of the written statement that the complainant had purchased lemon saplings numbering 50 of PANT variety and 60 saplings of Kagzi variety. This is also evident form Annexure C-4 i.e. cash memo-cum-gate pass of central State Farm Hisar that the complainant Mewa Singh son of Bhim Singh had purchased 50 no. of lemon saplings of PANT variety and 60 No. of Kagzi variety on 19.2.2010. However the inspection report dated 22.07.2016 the scientist and expert has clearly opined that the age of Kagzi nimbu/Acid lime and PANT lemon seems to be 5 to  6 years old. It is further opined that Kagzi Nimbu are seedlings (BIJOO) and there is not fruiting in the Kagzi Nimbu and reason for no fruiting in Kagzi numbus is that the plants seems to be seedlings, therefore from the inspection report dated 22.07.2016 it is established that seedlings/BIJOO variety of lemon saplings were sold to the complaint which gives very low quantity of fruits. It is pertinent to mention here that the orchard was inspected in presence of OP by Scientist of H.A.U. Hisar, expert from Centre of Excellence for Fruit Sirsa and Distt. Horticulture Officer, Fatehabad. Therefore the report dated 22.07.2016 can not be discarded. And as such it is established that the lemon saplings that yield a very low quantity  of fruits have been sold by the OP to the complainant and on account of the same the complainant has suffered financial loss, physical harassment and mental agony. The contention of the counsel for the OP to the extent that the land in Khasra No.37//6 wherein the saplings in question have been planted is in the ownership of one Bhim Singh and as such the complainant is not a consumer is not tenable as it is proved on the case file that the complainant is son of Bhim Singh and land in question is of the family and such he is consumer of the OP. The contention of the counsel for the OP that the complainant never planted the saplings purchased from the OP in Khasra No.37//6 as is evident from girdawaris for the years from 2010 to 2014 is also not correct. The inspection team consisting of scientist and other senior officer of the Government vide its report dated 22.7.2016 has specifically reported that the plant in dispute 5 to 6 years old. Therefore the report of the Horticulture Officer of Government cannot be discarded on the basis of report of Patwari. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that in a orchard other crops can be grown for 3 to 4 years. Otherwise also the inspecting team has no interest involved and have no enmity with the  OP to give a wrong findings. The judgment relied upon by the OP is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the fact  and circumstances of the present case as the facts of both the cases are different and in that case the inspection was not conducted in the presence of both the parties. A perusal of the Khasra girdawaris for the period from 2010 to 2014 it is revealed that during this period the complainant has also sown the other crops i.e. paddy, cotton and wheat etc. in the land in question. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for compensation on account of crop loss as prayed by him in para 12 of the complaint. From inspection report dated 22.07.2016 it is also evident that the orchard was not maintained by the complainant properly and the same was very poorly managed. Therefore we are of the opinion that some negligence is also on the part of complainant. Therefore keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the matter as discussed above we are of the view that it will be in the fitness of things to grant Rs.70,000/-as compensation to the complainant by the OP. It is ordered accordingly. The order be complied within one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the opposite parties as per rules. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20.09.2017.

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

             (Ansuya Bishnoi)  (R.S.Panghal)    District Consumer Disputes                       

     Member                 Member            Redressal Forum,Fatehabad