Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/15/2014

Sunthari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy Tasildhar, Nagapattinam and Three others. - Opp.Party(s)

K.M.Subramaniyam

13 Nov 2014

ORDER

 Date of Filing      : 18.03.2014

                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 13.11.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.15/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 13^th DAY OF NOVEMBER  2014.

 

 

            Mrs.Sundari,

             W/o Venkatachalam

             North Poigainallur Village,

             Nagapattinam Taluk & District                               …      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1. Tashildar,

    Taluk Office,

 Nagapattinam.     

2. Revenue Divisional Officer

      Revenue  Divisional Office,

      Nagapattinam.

3. The District Collector,

District Collectrate,

Nagapattinam.

4. Secretary,

    Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank,

           Velangkanni.                                                               … Opposite parties

 

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 28.10.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.K.M.Subiramaniam, Counsel for the complainant, Government Pleader, Counsel for the opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

                        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the lands in survey no.139/3 Hec.0.95.0, survey no.139/5 Hec. 0.97.0 and  survey no.139/6 Hec. 0.92.0 at North poigainallur Village belong to the complainant’s husband Thiru.Venkatachalam. The lands were cultivated by him and under the Crop Insurance Scheme, it was insured in 2012 and as there was failure of crops  in that year owing to the severe  drought  condition, the sum of Rs.90,450/- was sanctioned towards drought relief to the complainant and it was credited in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant with the  4^th opposite party.  But when the complainant was to withdraw the amount, the 4^th opposite party refused to disburse the amount stating that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have instructed to stop the disbursement of the amount to the complainant.  When the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party in that regard to be apprised of the reason for not disbursing the amount, there was no proper response and reply on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complainant sent a notice through her lawyer on 02.03.2013 to the opposite prties no.1 to 3, who have not taken care even to send a reply to that said notice.  The complainant has suffered from untold mental agony, financial loss owing to the negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties by their refusal to disburse the relief amount sanctioned to the complainant.  Hence the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.90,450/- the relief amount either jointly or severally with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this complaint and to grant such and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 4^th opposite party and adopted by the remaining opposite parties is that the then Thiru.Elangovan, Village Administrative Officer of Vadakku poigainallur Village while preparing the list containing the particulars of the lands which are eligible to get the sanction of relief fund had  included many lands including the lands of the complainant, which were not acutally cultivated in the list without personally inspecting  the lands as he was  taken ill  during that period and hence another Village Administrative Officer Thiru.Rajendran, under the supervision of the Revenue Inspector inspected the lands and prepared the revised list and the lands of the complainant, which were originally included in the list prepared by Thiru.Elangovan, were delated from the list of Thiru.Rajendran and  hence the amount sanctioned and credited in the account of the complainant were stopped from payment to her. No  cultivation was made in the complainants’s land during that the period and hence she was not entitled to get the relief amount and as the 4^th opposite party met the complainant and her husband at their village on the receipt of the lawyer’s notice sent by them,  they told him that they will not take any further action and hence no reply was sent by the opposite parties. The Village Administrative Officers Thiru.Elangovan and Thiru.Rajendran are the necessary parties to the complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the said necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed.

                        5. The complainant has filed her proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in her complaint and has filed 6 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.  The 4^th opposite party has filed his proof affidavit in support of the defence of the opposite parties and has filed 2 documents which are marked as Exhibits B1 to B2. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner is marked as Exhibit C1. Thiru.S.DineshKumar, the present Administrative Officer of the Vadakku poigainallur Village, is examined as Forum’s evidence, CW1.  Written arguments have been submitted by the complainant as well as the 4^th opposite party.

6.Points for the consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

                        2. Whether Thiru.Elangovan and Thiru.Rajendran then Village

                             Administrative Officers are necessary parties to this complaint and the   

                             complainant is bad for non joinder of said necessary parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

 

                        7. Point 1: On the side of the complainant Exhibit A1, the receipt for payment of ploughing charges to the Assitant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Nagapattinam is filed in evidence of the cultivation of the complainant’s lands during that period 2012.  The said receipt is dated 06.12.2012 and it stands in the name of Thiru.V.Ravichandran the son of the complainant. Exhibit A2 is the true copy of the Chitta relating to the complainant’s lands mentioned in the complaint. As per the said exhibit survey no.139/5, comprised an extent of Hec. 0.97.0(Acre 2.40) survey no.139/6 an extent of Hec.0.52.0(Acre 1.28) and survey no.139/3 an extent of Hec.0.95.0(Acre 2.35) totalling Hec.2.44.0 (Acre 6.03).  In the complaint the extent of land comprised in 139/6 is noted to be Hec.0.92.0 by mistake instead of Hec.0.52.0, Exhibit A6 is the Savings Bank Pass Book of the complainant with the 4^th opposite party and it has revealed that the sum of Rs.82,950/- is credited in his account under the caption “drought relief 2012-2013”.  The main contention of the 4^th opposite party adopted by the remaining opposite parties is that originally Thiru.Elangovanvan, the then Village Administrative Officer of North Poigainallur Village had furnished the list containing lands which were not actually eligible for getting drought relief fund and hence another one Thiru.Rajendran  the Village Administrative Officer who succeeded the former made a revised inspection of the lands in that village under the supervision of the Revenue Inspector and furnished a revised list Exhibit B2 in which the lands of the complainant included in the former list were delated on the ground that those lands were not at all cultivated and were only barren lands (தரிசு). 

8. The contention of the complainant is that the Village Administrative Officer Thiru.Rajendran who prepared the Exhibit B2 has himself attested in Exhibit A3, the Affidavit Form submitted by the complainant for getting relief fund from the Indian Agricultural Insurance Corporation for the period 2012-2013, 2^nd period and that coupled with Exhibit A1, the receit for charges of Ploughing would go to show that they had cultivated paddy in their lands.  Further on the side of the complainant it was contended that the complainant’s lands were wrongly deleted in the Exhibit B2 and the Exhibit B1, the Adngal extract would go to show that the revised inspection is not done properly and they have wrongly made wrong entries regarding the lands of the complainant.  On the side of the complainant it was vehemently pointed out that the entire extent 0.97.0 comprised in survey no.139/5, is not having casurina at all  as noted in the 19^th column of Exhibit B1 and further contended that in that survey no the extent of 0.95 cents was cultivated by her and at present it remains barren land and the remaining land in that survey no owned by one Ramados Vagaiara is having Eucalyptus trees and not Casurina trees. In view of the said contention made by the complainant Thiru.M.Jayasubramaniyan, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to make inspection of the lands comprised in the said fields 139/3, 139/5 and  139/6 and note down the crops standing thereon as on the date of his inspection and file his report. 

9. Accordingly the learned commissioner has filed his report which is marked as Exhibit C1.  In the report it is mentioned that the lands comprised in the survey no.139/3 and survey no.139/6 are barren lands without any crops as on the day and out of the total extent of Hec.0.97.0 (Acre 2.40) comprised in survey no. 139/5  the extent of Acre,0.95 is barren land which belongs to the complainant, who had purchased from its owner one Ramadoss  and in the remaining 1acre and 45 cents there are Eucalyptus trees  and Casurina trees of 2 years old.  The complainant has filed her objection to the said commissioner’s report stating that in the said land of Acre 1.45 comprised in the said survey no.139/5  only Eucalyptus trees alone are stanting and the learned advocate Commissioner  has falsely observed that there are Casurina trees also in the said land and wanted the commission warrent  to be reissued to another advocate commissioner for reinspection.  No objection is filed by the opposite parties to the Exhibit C1, the report filed by the said commissioner.  In view of the said serious objection raised by the complainant the Forum has examined Thiru.V.Dinesh Kumar, the present Village Adminstrative Officer of North Poigainallur Village as he also was present at the time of inspection of the lands by the said advocate commissioner. He has categarocally deposed  that the total extent of lands comprised in survey no.139/5 is Hec.0.97.0 (Ac.2.40) and out of that total extent the extent of Ac 0.95 is in the possession and enjoyment  of the complainant, the said land remains barren at present and that the remaining extent of land is belonging to one Ramadoss S/o Chakrabani and there are standing Eucalyptus trees only of above 2 years old and there is no Casurina tree at all in that land.  The said testimony of the Village Administrative Officer totally falsifies the learned Advocate commissioner’s observation that there are standing Casurina trees also in the land comprised in survey no.139/5.  It is very unfortunate that the learned Advocate commissioner, an officer of the Forum, who has to discharge his duty with utmost integrity, promptitude and devotion to duty has committed such lapses.  It is pertinant to point out that the said Village Administrative Officer was not even cross examined by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the opposite parties, in that regard and that itself reiterates the veracity of the testimony of the Village Administrative Officer. No farmer would raise casurina and Eucalyptus trees together in the same field as the rate of growth of the Eucalyptus trees is far higher than that of the Casurina trees. This Forum hereby records its strong condemnation and deprecation towards the said misconduct of the said advocate commissioner in making such false observation in his report.

10.Therefore the Exhibit A1 and A3 and the oral testimony of the Village  Administrative Officer, CW1, would go to estabilish  that the deletion of the lands of the complainant in the Exhibit B2, the revised list, is not correct and the complainant had cultivated her lands namely the entire extents comprised in survey no.139/3, 139/6 and the Extent of Ac.0.95 in survey no.139/5 and is entitled to get the relief amount sanctioned by the Government as well as the Insurance Corporation.  At the same time, it as to be pointed out that the complainant is entitled to get amount only to the extent acre 4.58 alone she is in possession of the following extent.

1. Survey no.139/3 (Acre 2.35)
2. Survey no.139/5, out of Hec.0.97.0 (Acre 2.40) the extent of Acre 0.95 only
3. Survey no.139/6, Hec.0.52.0 (1 Acre and 28cents). totalling acre 4.58

She is entitled to get the total compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre as told by the opposite parties towards Cauvery Delta Relief Fund sanctioned by the government as well as All India Agricultural Insurance Corporation.  Therefore the actual relief amount payable to the complainant is 15000X4.58= Rs.68,700/- only.  The complainant has not acted bonofide in claiming the amount payable to the entire extent of Ac.6.03 comprised in the said three survey numbers.  In fact she is not entitled to claim the compensation amount for the extent of Ac.1.45 in survey No.139/5 belonging to 3^rd party and where there are standing Eucalyptus trees.  Since the opposite parties have acted negligently in deleting the lands belonging to the complainant from the list of lands entitled for sanction of the relief amount, the opposite parties have committed negligence as well as deficiency of service.

                        11.Point 2: Thiru Elangovan and Thiru.Rajendran who caused the preparation of the 1^st and 2^nd list containing the lands eligible for the relief amount are the Subordinate Officials of the opposite party 1 to 3 and they are not to be separately added as opposite parties in this complaint since their higher officials are already added as parties.  The complaint is therefore not bad for non-Joinder of necessary parties.

                      

12. Point 3: In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled to get the relief amount. It is informed by the opposite parties that the total amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) is granted to every farmer per acre under the Cauvery Delta Relief Fund as well as the Agricultural Insurance Scheme and as such the complainant is entitled to the sum of Rs.15,000x4.58=Rs.68,700/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand and seven hundred only) towards relief amount for the entire extent of Ac 4.58 cents comprised in the said three survey Nos.139/3, 139/5 and 139/6, he owning only the extent of Ac0.95cents out of the total extent of acre 2.40 comprised in survey no.139/5.  The opposite parties are directed to pay the said amount of Rs.68,700/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand and seven hundred only) to the complainant either  jointly or severaly within 30days from the date of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its realization. The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are also liable to pay the sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of this complaint to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall accure to the said amount from the date of this order till the date of its realization.

                        13.The complainant is not entitled to any compensation towards her mental agony and hardship for the reason that she did not act bonafide in claiming the relief amount for her lands, as she had suppressed the fact that she has owned and possessed only the extent of Acre 0.95 in survey no.139/5 and claimed relief fund to the  entire extent under Exhibit A3 as well as in the complaint as if the entire extent of Hec.0.97.0(Acre 2.40) in survey No.139/5 belonged to her.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  13^th day of  November 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                      PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.06.12.2012:The Xerox copy of the Receipt for payment of ploughing charges  

   given by the Assitant Executive Engineer, Agricultural

    Engineering Department, Nagapattinam.

Ex.A2/Dt.12.12.2012:  The Xerox copy of the Chitta relating to the complainant’s land given

     by the Village Administrative Officer, Vadakku Poigainallur Village.

Ex.A3/Dt.Nil                : Xerox copy of the Affidavit of the complainant attested by the Village

    Administrative Officer, Vadakku Poigainallur Village.

Ex.A4/Dt.15.04.2014:  The xerox copy of the receipt issued by the Collectorate,

     Nagapattinam to the Complainant for the receipt of grievance day petition.

Ex.A5/Dt.02.05.2013: Copy of the notice sent by the Complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties.

Ex.A6/Dt.Nil              : The xerox copy of the Savings Pass Book of the complainant given by

    the 4^th  opposite party.

 

List of documents filed by the Opposite party.

 

Ex.B1/Dt.Nil             : The Xerox copy of the Extract of the Adngal issued by the Village

   Adminstrative Officer of the Vadakku Poigainallur Village.

Ex.B2/Dt.                   : The list containing the particulars of lands for the grant of drought

    relief Fund to the farmers of Vadakku Poigainallur Village.

 

Exhibit of the Forum

 

Ex.C1/Dt.16.10.2014: The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner.

 

Forum’s Witness

 

1. Thiru.S.Dinesh Kumar, the Village Administrative Officer, Vadakku Poigainallur Village.

 

 

 

    MEMBER I                                     MEMER II                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.15/ 2014

Order Dt.:13.11.2014.