DATE OF FILING: 07.01.2016.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.02.2017.
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W)
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he being a citizen of India and permanent inhabitant of Ganjam district of Odisha and he is a farmer by occupation. The complainant cultivates and possesses 7 (Seven) acres of land bearing Khata No. 678/410, 678/226, 33, 37 of Mouza Kanchana, Tahasil: Khallikote. The complainant for the purpose of yielding paddy crops cultivated his land by adopting traditional methods. The state of Odisha with an intention to grow agricultural products in the state introduced several qualitative, quantitative seed to its farmers through their state machineries of O.Ps 1 to 3 in the rural District. The complainant with an intention to grow more agricultural products cultivated paddy in his land on the advice of the O.P.No.1 & 2. The complainant on 24.6.2014 purchased 200 kg (10 packets) paddy seeds of Khandagiri Kissam-14 (KH-14) from the Secretary Pustapur Co-operative Society on payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand ) only to sow in his 7 acres of cultivable lands vide certificate No.76, Y Tag 152276, Pocket lot No. MAY 14-18-167 (6R 1120-1) and extract of book maintained by the O.P.No.1 on sell of seeds are field in the case. The complainant after purchasing sterilized seeds made prepared the lands fit for the cultivation and sowed the 10 pockets of seeds in his 7 acres of land. The complainant took all measures of using sufficient measures, fertilizers, pesticides and supplied proper irrigation to the land by spending Rs.50,000/-. The crops grew up in proper height and took flowers but all flowers could not carry fruits of paddy, hence the complainant intimated such irregular to the O.P.No.1. The Assistant Agricultural Officer of Khallikote, the AAO, namely Sri Dinabandhu Gandhi on 9.10.2014 visited the cultivated lands of the complainant and took some samples of plants from the spot and took photographs of the cultivated field. The complainant knowing the fact of low yielding paddy on 10.10.2014 wrote a letter to O.P.No.2 for redress of his grievances. The complainant harvested the paddy crop on the maturity period but found low yield insufficient paddy crop on harvest beyond the expected produces. The complainant on harvest found that 50% to 70% of paddy crop not yield ultimately he suffered financial loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for loss of paddy, mental agonies and litigation charges in the interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the O.Ps on 23.2.2012 but they intentionally neither choose to appear nor filed any version till 09.07.2016, hence they declared ex-parte on 19.07.2016. The case was proceeded ex-parte against the O.Ps.
4. On the date of ex-parte hearing of the consumer dispute, we heard argument at length from the complainant and gone through the complaint petition, written argument and documents filed in support of his case by the complainant. We have also perused the case record and verified the documents. Despite several opportunities given the O.Ps did not give any heed to consider the grievances of the complainant. This attitude of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service. In absence of any version and argument from the sides of the O.Ps to controvert the complainant’s allegations, we feel there is some substance in the allegations of the complainant. The complainant for the purpose of yielding agricultural products and cultivated his lands by using technology and high yield seeds, High yield seeds grow more and a huge amount of yield comes after production. Hence he choose to purchase 200Kg (10 pockets) paddy seeds of Khandagiri Kissam-14 from the Secretary Pustapur Co-operative Society on paying Rs.3000/- to sown in his 7 acres of cultivable lands vide certificate No. -76, Y Tag 152276, Pocket lot No. MAY 14-18-167 (6R1120-1) and extract of Book maintained by the O.P.No.1. It is a fact that lands situated in the name of Govind Chandra Mohanty, Father Laxman Mohanty, Khatian Sl. No. 678/410 of Mouza Kanchan, P.S: Kodala , Tahasil Number 276. It is also a fact that Govind Chandra Mohanty, father of Malaya Kumar Mohanty and this property belongs to family property. Nature of plot is “Barsadhar”. So it is an agricultural land depending on rainfalls. Similarly Malaya Kumar Mohanty is a farmer under Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana bearing No. 21194000006590101. It is clear from record that Malaya Kumar Mohanty is a farmer cultivating his family property and it is also evidence that from the receipt of Secretary, Pustapur Cooperative Society paid Rs.3000/- for purchase of 200 kg of Khandagiri seeds. It is also evident that on 10.10.2014 Malaya Kumar Mohanty intimated to Bihan Nigam Officer, OSSC Ltd, Berhampur that he sowed 10 pockets of Khandagiri seeds which were purchased from Pustapur Seva Samabaya Samiti and planted in 7 acres of land and he also intimated that there is good seeds bearing candas but on that candas no full grown seeds found. He also intimated the matter to Assistant Agricultural Officer, Khallikote for such problem and Srijukta Dinabandhu Gandhi moves to his village and personally verified the place of plantation and bringing some samples from his land. There he also stated that he losses Rs.2,00,000/- in this crop yielding process but no technical supporting person visited that place and not provided useful advice. It is also evident that from the photograph showing by the complainant that there is a huge grown of plants but no seeds. As the complainant did all relevant supporting steps to protect the loss at the time of yielding but it also evident that no further communications are made after words and no clarity that the O.P. move to the field or not after 10.10.2014. It is also unclear that what amounts of paddy are harvested after yielding process are completed. The farmer is not providing any information in this regard. Though he grown KH-14 paddy seeds rise for high yield but what and the exact amount of yielding from one packet of seeds it is not clear how much yielding will come as demanded by the company from a packet of seeds and what exact amount collected from that field. The O.Ps are not replied anything. On the contrary as the O.Ps are set ex-parte and not filed any version after several opportunities given to the O.Ps by the Forum. Hence it is a difficult to trace the exact loss incurred by the complainant. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in Suresh Kumar versus Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. Regional Officer, Karnel and another 2012(2) CPR page 28 such as: “From the observation made by the Dist. Forum as above complainant has successfully proved its case and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps stands proved on the record. So far as the question awarding the compensation to the complainant we are of the view that the complainant has not suffered 100% loss of the crop. It is also not proved that the complainant was not taking any steps for low germination of all seeds of necessary within 8 days. It does not mean complainant has suffered 100% loss in respect to paddy crops as other environments have also impact in the crop production”. Similarly in this case the complainant intimated the matter to the A.O. Khallikote Block, Khallikote that there is good seed bearing “Candas” but on that candas no full grown seeds found. No steps taken by A.O. Khallikote in due time. Hence the farmer incurred the loss. The growth of paddy and proper flowering shows that farmer took all steps to grow paddy in his field but all losses are due to defective seeds. As he is the farmer of its own field and it is also the occupation and livelihood of the family in such situation we allow the case of the complainant partially.
5 n the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant against both O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss occurred by the complainant.
In the result, we partially allowed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps and the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) only to the complainant towards loss suffered by him. The order shall be complied by the O.Ps within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry penal interest @ 4% per annum and to be recovered from the O.Ps through execution process under relevant Sections of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
6. The order is pronounced on this day of 10th February 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
