1.                  The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he being a farmer was identified by OP.1 for growing Eucalyptus plants in his land with technical support of OP.1 and financial assistance of OP.2.A tripartite agreement was signed between the complainant and Ops and as per said agreement, the OP.1 supplied 3000 Nos. of Clonal plant vide invoice No.8111 dt.25.8.2011 with an assurance of financial assistance from OP.2 but after 3 months gap of supply of plants, the OP.2 sanctioned agricultural loan of Rs.45, 000/- in favour of the complainant.It is submitted that the OP.2 disbursed only Rs.37, 880/- out of sanctioned amount of Rs.45, 000/- and deducted some hidden charges from the loan amount without providing any service as per agreement.It is further submitted that in spite of proper care taken by the complainant, the crop of pulpwood in the said land of 3 acres has not grown to the desired quality as laid down in the tripartite agreement at Condition No.1.5 and hence it transpires that the OP.1 did not supply the good quality cloned plant to the complainant for which the complainant suffered loss.Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.4.00 lacs towards compensation for loss of crop and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                 The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is not a consumer of OP.1 and the case is hit under limitation since the cause of action arose on 25.8.2011 when the cloned saplings were provided to the complainant.The OP contended that after plantation of cloned plant during August, 2011, the complainant never raised any complaint on the quality of plants since then.It is further contended that the OP.1 agrees to buy the entire crop of pulpwood subject to fulfillment of Clause 1.5 of tripartite agreement and the OP also relied Clause 2.2 of the said agreement describing farmers obligation that the profit and loss entirely depends on the cultivation practice being followed by the farmers and the critical climatic factors prevailing upon.Thus denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                            The OP.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per agreement, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.45, 000/- for eucalyptus plantation and had withdrawn the amount as per his requirement.  It is also contended that the bank has not collected any hidden expenses from the complainant and the complainant is a defaulter of loan dues.  It is also further contended that the bank is not responsible for the failure of plantation.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case the complainant being interest in Eucalyptus plantation has been identified by OP.1 and after fulfillment of conditions required, the said OP.1 has supplied 3000 Nos. of Eucalyptus Clonal Plants to the complainant vide invoice No.8111 dt.25.8.2011.  After a tripartite agreement between the complainant and Ops, a loan of Rs.45, 000/- has been sanctioned in favour of the complainant.  The complainant has raised the plantation in 3 acres of his land and as per agreement the OP.1 was to buy entire crop of pulpwood from the complainant after 5 years.  The case of the complainant is that he followed all “dos and not dos” to raise the trees but after 5 years of plantation, the entire crop of pulpwood on the said land has not grown up to desired quality as laid down in specification in the tripartite agreement at Condition No.1.5 and hence it transpires that the OP.1 has supplied low quality of Clonal so that it could not grow to the satisfaction and come out for sale.

6.                     In this case, the OP.1 has supplied Clonal Plants to the complainant to raise the same in his field.  The Bank has also provided loan for the said purpose.  Article-II of the tripartite agreement denotes about farmer’s obligation.  The Clause 2.2 says that “Farmer shall be solely responsible for raising of plantation of pulpwood, proper POP follow up etc.  Company shall not finance any of the plantation expenses of the Farmer and the Company shall not in any manner whatsoever be responsible for the yield of the plantations, its incidental profit and loss etc.  The yield of the plantation, its profit and loss is dependent entirely on the cultivation practices being followed by the Farmer and the critical climatic factors prevailing upon.”  Clause 2.3 says that,” the farmer agrees to protect the plantation in the said land from damage by cattle or other animals and also theft or other damages.  Farmer further agrees to remove under growth plants at suitable intervals, carry out soil working, ploughing, apply fertilizers and insecticides at appropriate time etc.  Farmer would adopt all the required silvicultural practices (Package of Practices) as indicated by the Company or its representative for proper cultivation of Eucalyptus clonal plantations.”  The above clauses of tripartite agreement clearly indicate that the complainant being the farmer is solely responsible for raising of the plantations, its protection and post care activities.  Those factors are very much important for proper growing of trees.   In the above premises, it cannot be said that due to low quality clonal plants supplied by the OP.1, the growth of the plantation was not to the satisfaction.  Further the said allegation of the complainant does not follow any expert opinion.

7.                     The Forum vide its order dt.28.06.2017 had appointed the DFO (Territorial), Jeypore as Commission of Enquiry to ascertain the factual aspect of issue regarding non growth of the plantation and the DFO has furnished his report stating at para-4 that “Clause 2.2 and 2.3 of the agreement are very relevant in this context wherein the complainant has been made solely responsible for raising of the plantation, its protection and post care activities.  From the field enquiry by the committee, it has come to the light that the post planting care has not been properly done by the complainant.”  From the report of the DFO, it was clearly ascertained that due to lack of post planting care, the plants did not grow up to the standard as mentioned in the tripartite agreement.

8.                     Further Article-I of agreement says about Company’s obligation.  Clause 1.3 of the agreement says that “The Company agrees to buy the entire crop of pulpwood from the farmer subject to Clause 1.5.  The Clause 1.5 says that “The Company agrees to buy the pulpwood of following specification grown on the said land by the farmer after 5 years of plantation i.e. Pulpwood debarked with a minimum 15cm to a maximum of 45 cm girth and a billet length of minimum of 1.2 cm and a maximum of 2m.”

9.                     The complainant stated that the plants did not achieve the required growth due to substandard clonal plants supplied by the OP.1 but from the report of Commission it was found that the complainant has not taken post planting care properly as mentioned in Clause 2.2 and 2.3 of agreement.

10.                   Further the complainant is grumbling about non cooperation of OP.1.  It is stated that the OP.1 has neither visited the field of plantation nor advised the complainant suitably regarding proper growth of plantations.  The OP.1 stated that the complainant has never approached them for any difficulty faced.  In this regard, no document has been filed by the complainant showing that in spite of his request, the OP.1 did not care to visit the field or passed any instruction.  It was obligatory on the part of the complainant to approach and seek technical help from OP.1 from time to time if he noticed that the trees are not growing properly but the complainant has never done so.  From the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.1 and hence the complaint petition fails.  Further the allegations against the financier (OP.2) have no bearing at all.

11.                   In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)