Adv.for the complainant - C.S.Mishra
Adv.for the O.P - N.N Sathpathy ,N.k.Tripathy
Date of filing of the case – 04.10.2012
Date of order - 03.03.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, as per the advice and assurance of O.P. No:-2 & 3 , the
complainant intends to cultivate G-9 variety of banana plants in his 2 acres of land under the national Horticulture mission and accordingly he had purchased 2000 plants from O.P. No. 1 through the Horticulturist O.P. N.O.2 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- vide money receipt No . 10204 dt.27/06/2011 . The complainant being an experienced person had planted the banana plant by adopting standard procedure of plantation. The complainant alleges that ,after plantation he found the plants are defective one and all the plants are not G-9 variety , for which he sustain financial loss. The complainant further alleges that , although he had orally reported the matter before the O.PS, they have not taken any step . Hence the complainant.
2. Although notice has been served on the O.P. No. 2 & 3 they have not appeared and hence they are set expert vide Order dt. 28/02/2013 . O.P. No. 1 & 4 have filed their written version separately. O.P. No.4 averred that, there is no specific allegation against him and he is not providing any service to the complainant & claims dismissal of the case.
3. In his written version, the O.P. No. 1 interalia averred that, the crop failure is due to bad management and care and the complainant had not followed the terms & conditions mentioned in the money receipt. The Op N.O.4 further averred that, the harvest depends on several factors like right dose of fertilizers, pesticides, water & recommended practice is required, when hybrid variety crop is grown. The plants have excellent fruiting behavior, but variations might have come through external agencies .It is also averred that, the complainant has planted the crop without soil testing and in a very low space, hence the O.P. No.4 claims dismissal of the case.
4, Heard the Complainant . Perused the pleadings of the parties and documentary evidence available on record. Perused the written argument filed by Op No.1 . It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased G-9 variety of banana plant from the O.P. No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- for plantation in his 2 Acers of land . It is also an admitted fact that , there is failure in the yield and there are some off type of plant. Therefore the point for consideration is whether the crop failure is due to the negligence of the complainant or due to the faulty supply of plant.
5. To prove his case the complainant requested this forum to call for an expert Opinion and accordingly this Forum call for a report from the District Agriculture Officer, Patnagarh . The Commissioner - cum- District Agriculture Officer , Patnagarh after spot verification submitted his report vide letter No .550 dt.29/06/2013. The relevant portion of the said report is as follows:- (as the complainant has been cultivating banana since 5 years, he has adequate expertise to grow banana crop successfully. He has grown G-9 banana crop in consultation with the Asst . Horticulture Officer , Belpada. As per the observation the soil and climatic condition of the area is quite suitable for G-9 variety as 10% of plants have yielded better 35 kg per plant and the remaining 90% yielded poor 5-6 kg per plant those may be off type (not G-9) . The planting material – tissue culture banana seedlings (90%) supplied by RPRC may not be true to the type).Therefore it is evident that, there are 90% off plant which are not G-9 type are sold by the O.P. No. 1 to the complainant.
6. Although the OP. No . 1 has filed objection to the aforesaid report of the Dist. Agriculture Officer , Patnagarh , the Op, No.1 neither appears nor produce any rebuttal evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise . In so many decisions the Hon’ble National commission has held that , where in a complaint alleging defective growth of plant , there was expert report in favour of complainant, but there was no expert report to counter this report to rebut the report of horticulture Officer, then complaint has to be allowed. (Reference may be made to 2008 (2) CPR134(NC) M/s Ankur seeds Vrs K.Hasen Rao).
7. Now coming to the point of compensation, it is seen from the letter No.900 dt.17.11.2014 that the loss of the complainant has been assessed by the District Agricultural Officer, Patnagarh for Rs.89,806/-. There is no evidence available on record to dispute this assessment and hence the complainant is entitled to the same.
8. There is no material against OP No.4 nor the complainant has proved any negligence against OP No.4 . Hence the case is not maintainable against OP No.4.
ORDER
The OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.4000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.89,806/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost within the aforesaid period failing which the entire amount of cost and compensation shall carry an interest @ 8% P.A till payment.
Accordinglythe caseis allowed againstOP No.1 to 3 and dismissed againstOP No.4.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH’2017.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
