DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA

CC 56 OF 2017

Date of order 12^th February, 2019

Present:

Sri. Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B OSPS(I) Sr. Retd.,    President.

Smt. Bhawani Pattnaik, M.A, LL.B, PGDCLP,                    Member.                                                  

Alok Ranjan Panda , aged about 47 years, S/O. Late Rajani Kanta Panda,               resident of Hill Town, Ward No. 11, P.O./P.S.- Bhawanipatna (Town),                               District Kalahandi, Odisha.                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1.         The Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Udyan Bhaban, Nayapali, IRC village, Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khurda, Odisha.

2.         The Deputy Director of Horticulture Kalahandi, At/P.O./P.S.- Bhawanipatna, District Kalahandi, (Odisha).

3.         Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Authorized Signatory,                                                                     M/S. Oasis Irrigation Equipment Co. Ltd., P6, Scheme VI M (S) C.I.T. Kolkata

4.         M/S. Oasis Irrigation Equipment Co. Ltd., Plot No. 32, Sabar Sahi, Nayapalli,                      Bhubaneswar, District  Khurda. Pin – 751012.                                  

5.         The Honorable Minister of Agriculture, Union of India,                                                                       Krishi Bhawan Room No.120, First floor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,                                  New Delhi. PIN-110001.

6.         The Honorable Minister of Agriculture, Odisha                                                                                    Department of Agriculture & Farmer Empowerment,                                                                         Government of Odisha, 2^nd floor, Rajiv Bhawan, Secretariat , Bhubaneswar,                       District Khurda, Odisha

7.         The Honorable principal Secretary,  Department of Agriculture & Farmer Empowerment, Government of Odisha, 2^nd floor, Rajiv Bhawan, Secretariat , Bhubneswar, District Khurda, Odisha                                    ………  Opposite parties.

Counsel :

For the Complainant : Sri Satyen Choudhury &  Associates Advocate,  Bhawanipatna.

For the O.P. 1,2,5,6 & 7: Sri. Pratap Pradhan & Associates Advocate, Bhawanipatna

For the O.P.3 & 4: Sri. Indi Moeli Panigrahi Advocate, Bhawanipatna

JUDGEMENT

            The Complainant avails a beneficiary scheme for erection of Shade Net House/Green House in his land over 4000 square Meter under National Horticulture Mission in Odisha. The Shade Net House project under the National Horticulture Mission is declared by the Government of Odisha with a subsidy of 70% of the project cost. The shade net house shall be constructed under a specification as approved by the Government. The total cost for the construction of Shade Net House under National Horticulture Mission over 4000 Square meter  is assessed at Rs.24,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakh) only  and farmer’s share to the said project is Rs.7,20,000/-. The O.P. No.1 & 2 engaged O.P.No.4 to Construct the Shade Net House/Green House and the O.P. No.3 is the authorize person of O.P. NO.3 to look after the erection of Shade Net House of the Complainant. As per the specification for the Shade Net House/Green House the structure is to be designed to withstand wind velocity up to 104 Km./Hr. The general condition of Erection of Shade Net House for trellising system ought to use  high carbon steel and regarding material used under MI component the firm will use BIS mark material. If fixtures found rusted the structure will be considered incomplete, and the overall structure should perform satisfactorily in all respects. The Opposite Party No.3 declared guarantee for a period of one year on the Shade Net House of the Complainant against any constructional defect for free maintenance and extra two years guarantee for chargeable maintenance on request. The O.P. No.3 also agreed to employ a qualified agronomist to provide necessary technical support to the Complainant to plan and raise the crops in different seasons at least for one year. The shade Net House project was demolished within the guarantee period. But the Opposite Parties neither reconstructed the project till to day nor employed any agronomist to the project of the Complainant.

            Being notice the Opposite Party No. 1,2,5,6 & 7 and Opposite Party No.3 & 4 appeared through their respective Advocate and filed their separate written versions. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has no loco-standi to file this complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The erection of the shade net house is as per the specification laid down by the Government and the authorized team of the officers verified the project and filed completion certificate. The Complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency on the part of the O.P’s and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                        FINDING

            We perused the Complaint petition, written versions filed by the Opposite parties and relevant document filed by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties. It is admitted fact that the Complainant has avails a scheme for erection of Shade Net House under National Horticulture Mission over 4000 square meter of land of the complainant. The total project cost is Rs.24,00,000/- and farmer’s share to the said project is Rs.7,20,000/-. The O.P. No.4 being an empanelled erector executed the work of erection of the shade net house. The O.P. No.3 issue a bill for an amount of  Rs.7,20,000/-, receive the said amount from the complainant and issue a receipt of farmer share. The shade net house is damage within the grantee period.

            During the course of the argument the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that for construction of Shade Net house with micro irrigation system involve with technical  aspect and it is not possible in the part to a common man to develop such technique of his own without assistance of any technical person. Foundation of the Shade Net house and micro-irrigation system are erected by the O.P. No-4 under the supervision of O.P. No1 & 2. During the month of May, 2016 all of sudden the project is demolished and entire structure collapsed down towards earth due to use of sub-standard equipments (like iron pipe, joints, etc. ) for construction of the Shade Net House. The Opposite Party No.3 declared guarantee for a period of one year on the Shade Net House of the Complainant against any constructional defect for free maintenance and extra two years guarantee for chargeable maintenance on request. Further the O.P. No.3 agreed to employ a qualified agronomist to provide necessary technical support to the Complainant to plan and raise the crops in different seasons at least for one year. But the O.P. No.3 has not reconstructs the project nor employed any agronomist to the project of the Complainant.

The counsel for Opposite party No. 1,2,5,6 &7 submits that it is a beneficiary scheme of the Government for farmers to guarantee income. The complainant has choose O.P. 4 out of the empanelled firms to erect the shade net house in the field of the complainant and entered in to the MOU with O.P.No.4. An agreement was submitted by the O.P’s counsel, which was  made for erection of shade net house between the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.4. In clause 9 of the agreement  it is mentioned that the erector shall supply, replace & repair, as the case may be free of cost, any parts/component found defective during the warranty period under normal operation and services. Further it is submits that as per  clause–10 of the agreement the erector shall take up prompt action for repair, replacement and maintenance if any defect is noticed or found during warranty period. In clause -15 it is agreed that “the erector shall take up prompt action for repair and maintenance of the poly green house shade net house on continuous basis even after the expiry of warranty period and the cost to be incurred by the farmer shall be kept minimum”.

The counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 & 4 submits that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to dismissed.

On perusal of the document filed by the Complainant as well as the Opposite parties it is found that the Complainant has avails a scheme for erection of Shade Net House under National Horticulture Mission over 4000 square meter of land of the complainant  and the erection of shade net house covers guarantee for one year. The component use in the shade net house is BIS standard to  withstand wind velocity up to 104 Km./Hr and within the guaranty period the shade net house was damaged. The complainant informed the O.P’s about the damage of shade net house but the O.P’s failed to reconstruct the shade net house. At this stage we hold that the shade net house is damage due to use of sub-standard material. The shade net house is use in protected cultivation for commercial utilization to increase production and thereby increase in income of the farmer. The shade net house is reconstruct with a fresh extended guarantee for one year of its completion of reconstruction or return of the cost received by the O.P No.3 and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his loss of income, mental agony. In the instant case it is appears that the O.Ps were unable to restore the damage shade net house. It is appears that the  complainant invested a substantial amount to erect the shade net house with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the shade net house as well as to increase income. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the shade net house and loss of income. Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet agony, financial loss. Hence, it is ordered.

                                                            ORDER

            The Opposite Party No.4 is directed to refund the farmer share of Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees seven lakh and twenty thousand) which had been acknowledged to have been received by the Opposite Party No.4 along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of vegetable planted by the complainant  and developing the field along with Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) towards future  income loss and mental agony  within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which  interest @ 9 % over the total amount will be liable to pay by the Opp.Party No.4. No cost.

            Pronounced in open forum today on this 12^th  day of  February,2019 .

          Member                                                                           President

Documents relied upon:

By the Complainant:

1. Copy of Specification for shade House
2. Copy of Receipt of Farmer Share
3. Copy of Tax Invoice dt.06/07/2015
4. Copy of Beneficiary’s Undertaking
5. Copy of Completion Certificate
6. Copy of Warranty
7. Copy of guideline dt.30.06.2015
8. Copy of letter  dt.29.03.2012
9. Copy of Testing Report dt.19.03.2016
10. Copy of letter dt.18.10.2016,7.10.2016,10.12.2015
11. Copy of application form to avail subsidy
12. Copy of Receipt of farmer share
13. Photograph- 4 Nos.

By the Opp.Parties:

1. Copy of agreement
2. Copy of Order No.1/991 dt.17.02.2014
3. Copy of  Beneficiary’s Authorization
4. Copy of Photograph of complainant
5. Copy of letter No.1083 dt.16.05.2016,1247 dt.09.06.2016, letter No.1/10570 dt.19.08.2016, letter No.2347 dt.18.10.2016,letter No.1/701 dt.13.01.2017,letter No.1/2303 dt.20.02.2017, letter No.1/3808 dt.20.03.2017, letter No. 1/663723.05.2017.

                                                                                                               President