Kerala

Idukki

CC/74/2021

P V Agustin - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Agricultural officer - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 23/04/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 12^th day of December 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.74/2021

Between

Complainant                                     :  P.V.Agustine,

                                                             Parasseril House,   Mariyapuram Kara,

                                                             Thankamani Village, Idukki District.

                                                             (By Adv.George Thomas)

                                                              And

Opposite Party                                   :1 . The Agriculture Officer,

                                                                 Mariyapuram Agriculture Office,

                                                                 Mariyapuram P.O.

                                                            2 . Mr.Anilkumar, Agriculture  Officer,

                                                                 Office in Charge,

                                                            3 . Mr.Biju Mathew, Agriculture Officer,

                                                                 Agriculture Office, Thodupuzha,

                                                                 Thodupuzha Civil Station.

                                                             4 . The Director, Agriculture  Office,           

                                                                  Thodupuzha

                                                             5 . The Director, Agriculture Office,

                                                                  Thiruvananthapuram.

.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant is residing within the limit of Agricultural Office, Mariyapuram.  He had done  banana cultivation in 2 Acre 15 cent property after 2018, September 22^nd.  1950 banana plants were cultivated here.  These plants were insured as per the receipt number 186316 for Rs.5850/- on 12/11/2018 eventhough these plants were duly cared by complainant, on 2020, March 28, there was an unexpected wind and all these banana plants were fell down.

(Cont....2)

-2-

2 . Complainant had informed about the banana agriculture failure to Trivandurm Agricultural Help Desk and as per the direction from them, Mrs. Shajila, who is Assistant Agricultural officer of Mariyapuram Agriculture Office reached on the first day and thereafter other Agricultural Assistant Mr.Jaiju along with Mrs.Shajila reached and inspected the place and photos of these banana plants were taken by them and they say to complainant that do not cut and change these broken banana plants.

3 . After one and half month, one Mr.Biju Mathew in Thodupuzha Agricultural Office called complainant and says that now these broken banana plants can cut and clean the place. Under the direction from him, complainant had done it.

4 . Complainant had made a complaint to Mariyapuram agricultural office.  Accordingly, on 13/04/2019, Mr.Anilkumar, who is the Agricultural Officer came there and inspected the broken banana plants.  He had counted 1650 banana plants as broken down and photos were taken in his mobile phone.  Thereafter complainant was signed certain papers under the direction from him.  But, this Agricultural Officer demanded 10% as bribe from complainant.

5 . But, complainant couldn’t give the amount demanded by office due to Covid 19 circumstances.  After that, complainant enquired to Agricultural Directorate, Deputy Directorate in Thodupuzha and Agricultural Office, Mariyapuram.  Accordingly he was informed that the proceedings have been initiated.

6 . But, next day, complainant has enquired to Agricultural Department, Thodupuzha.  Then, he was informed that 650 banana plants were only reported  instead of 1650 banana plants.  Since complainant didn’t give bribe to Agricultural Officer, Mr. Anilkumar, it was reported that 650 plants only were broke.  Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to opposite parties on 04/01/2021.  But, they didn’t take any proceedings till the day.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

          This is deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.  Opposite parties are liable to make availability of insurance amount to complainant.  Complainant has insured his banana plants with the insurance company which is under the direction from opposite parties.  Hence opposite parties are liable.  Complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

1. Opposite parties may be directed to pay the insurance amount for 1650 banana plants along with interest since 28/03/2019.
2. Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Opposite parties may be directed to initiate the proceedings against the Agricultural Officer, Anil Kumar.

Upon notice from the Commission, opposite parties have appeared and filed detailed written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder.

This complaint is not maintainable either in laws or on facts.  It is true that complainant has cultivated 1950 banana plants after 2018 September.  But, it is false that these plants were broke down on 28/03/2019 due to unexpected wind.  Complainant is hiding the actual date for this complaint.

In 2019, complainant has not either contacted to opposite parties or applied for crop damage and no officers inspected as per the application.  But, under the application on 05/04/2020, it was inspected.  It is false that on 13/04/2019, these damaged bananas were counted and fixed by Panchayath President and Agricultural officer, Anil Kumar.  Complainant has not filed any application to Agricultural Office in 2019.  First opposite party has neither demanded any reward or bribe from complainant nor made any incorrect document about the crop damage of complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Complainant is hiding the actual facts and making false allegations for availing amount from government for 1650 bananas instead of 650.  Complainant has insured these bananas on 14/11/2018 for Rs.5850/- and

(Cont....4)

-4-

accordingly, insurance policy was issued.  Banana is a single year crop.  But, banana has a fixed harvesting period.  Here, complainant has applied on 06/04/2020 for getting the insurance for the damaged bananas due to natural calamities happened on 05/04/2020.  This is after 19 months from the cultivation.  However, as soon as received the application from complainant, on 06/04/2020, Agricultural Assistants have inspected and reported 650 banana plants were damaged.  After receiving inspection report, Agricultural Officer has checked the application, because he had a doubt regarding  cultivation.  In fact, complainant needed compensation for banana plants which were not insured.  This is duly informed to Agricultural Assistant Director, Idukki.  Thereafter, it was sent to banana Research Station in Kerala Agricultural University for Scientific Report.  Report has come and it is produced before the Commission.  As per the report, harvesting of banana takes approximately 11 months.  However, in Idukki District, due to cold climate, time may be slight difference.  But it is not believable that 19 months old banana plants were standing without harvesting.  After taking insurance, either complainant didn’t enough care to cultivate these banana plants or it may be grown as ratoon crop, therefore, cultivation may be delayed.   Under these circumstances, insurance amount cannot be given to complainant.  However, it is informed to Agricultural Director with respect to these issues.

In fact, at the time of inspection, these were 650 broken bananas seen at the place.  It is informed by complainant himself that these bananas were in 19 months old at that time.  So according to opposite parties, this complaint is false and made artificially for getting compensation for bananas which already harvested.  Hence, complainant is not entitled to get compensation.  Therefore, complaint may be dismissed with cost.

Complainant has filed amendment application and after allowing it, he has amended in the first paragraph of complaint that the date of happening unexpected wind is March 28^th 2020 in fact. Under these amendment, opposite parties have filed additional written version.  According to

(Cont....5)

-5-

 

opposite parties, it is false and frivolous.  Because, after submitting the written version by opposite parties, complainant is trying to overcome it and as a result, he has amended the date as 2020, March 28^th in first paragraph only.  But, in other paragraphs such date was not amended.  Therefore, it is clear that this complaint is false.  Hence, it may be dismissed with cost.

Thereafter, case was posted for evidence.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit along with documents.  These documents were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P5.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Thereafter case was posted for opposite parties evidence.  Chances were given to opposite parties.  But, no evidence tendered by opposite parties.  Hence it was taken for orders.  Now, the point which arise for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs entitled to complainant?

Points are considered together

We have perused the proof affidavit and marked documents.  Also, we have perused the deposition of complainant.  He has deposed that he insured 1950 banana plants on 12/11/2018.   It is proved under Ext.P1.  These insured banana plants were fell down due to natural calamities on 20/03/2020.  This date was later amended in complaint.

We are of the opinion that the actual date is the above said amended date.   Because, opposite parties have stated in their written version is that there was an application on 05/04/2020 by complainant  and it was enquired by their office.  Also, they  have stated that complainant has not filed application in 2019.  Copy of application preferred in 2019 not produced.  No evidence that any such application was preferred.  Only application filed, is as admitted by opposite parties, only on 05/04/2020.  Natural calamity was

(Cont....6)

-6-

 

on 28/03/2020.  Plantation were insured on 12/11/2018.  Opposite parties have submitted that as soon as received the application, their Agricultural Assistants have inspected such place and reported on 06/04/2020.  Under these circumstances, we find that the amended date is the actual date which happened natural calamities and unexpected wind ie, on 28/03/2020.  Complainant has alleged that after inspecting the place, Agricultural Officer reported only 650 banana plants were fell down and damaged.  Since there was no money or reward given to such officer, it was so reported.  Complainant has deposed in his examination that he has received compensation for 650 banana plants only and he should get compensation for another 1000/- damaged banana plants.  But, there is no proof that totally 1650/- banana plants were damaged.  Ext.P2 does not show that 1650/- plants were damaged.  No other evidence adduced to show that how much banana plants were damaged.  Ext.P2 ie, photograph shows that only 2 or 3 banana plants were fell down and broked. Upon the application from complainant, opposite parties have inspected such place and reported as 650/- banana plants were damaged. We find this to be commencing ordinarily, a plantation life span is only for 12 months.  There is no possibility of plantation, planted on or before 12/11/2018 standing unharvested for more than one year.  As per that, complainant claims that he has received compensation amount for 650/- banana plants.  Complainant’s allegation is that it was not reported about the actual numbers of banana plants which were damaged.  Therefore, complainant had filed petition to CMO Portal and Vigilance Department.  It was informed as per Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 that the petition of complainant is being proceeded for further enquiries.  No evidence adduced to prove that Agricultural Officer has demanded reward from complainant for reporting about the actual numbers of damaged plants.  Moreover, this Commission has no authority to prosecute anyone for seeking or taking bribe.  There  is  evidence     of    only    650    plantation    having    destroyed    for    which

 

(Cont....7)

-7-

complainant has been compensated also. Hence we find that deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is not proved.  Therefore complaint is dismissed without cost.  Points (a) and (b) are answered accordingly.

Extra copies to be taken back by parties without delay.

 

 Pronounced by this Commission on this the 12^th  day of December, 2022.

 

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                               SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER    

                                                                                       Sd/-                                              

                                                                        SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                              SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                           

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1- P.V.Augustine

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1- Receipt dated 12/11/2018

Ext.P2 -  Photograph

Ext.P3 – Letter from Principle Agriculture Office Idukki to complainant   

               dated  26/04/2021

Ext.P4 – Letter from Principle Secretary to complainant dated 16/02/2021

Ext.P5 – Letter from Vigilance Department dated 25/09/2021

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil         

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR