Orissa

Rayagada

CC/282/2015

Siba Prasad Sathpathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Venketerswar Subdhi, Seeds Dealer - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO. 282/2015                                                     Date.    3.9.2022.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                     President.

Sri   Satish  Kumar  Panigrahi ,                                        Member

 

Sri Siba  Prasad   Satapathy, S/O: Late  Narasingha  Satapathy, At/Po:Gudiabandha, Via:Padmapur, Dist: Rayagada- 765 025, State:Odisha,  765 025.

… Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.SriVenketaswaraSubudhi, Seeds Dealer,  S/O: Nageswar  Subudhi, AT:Jumuriguda, Main Road, Po:Padmapur, Dist:Rayagada, State:Odisha, 765 025.

 

2.SriGirijaSankarSahu, VAW of Gudiabandha, Padmapur Block, Dist:Rayagada,

 

3.The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Rayagada.

 

4.The Assistant Agriculture Officer,  Padmapur, Padmapur Block, Dist:Rayagada.

                                                                                                …. Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant Self.

For the O.P. No.1  Set exparte.

For the  O.Ps 2 to 4  Addl. Govt. Pleader, Rayagada.

 

                                                            ORDER.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of Rabi paddy crop loss  compensation  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts  of the case are summarized here under.

On being noticed the O.P No.1.neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of adjournments allowed to the O.P.No.1.. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing non appearance of the O.P. No.1 in spite of allowed adjournments   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the  C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.are set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over  as to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps2,3,4  put in their appearance through Addl. Govt. Pleader, Rayagada and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   pray to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  in the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps . Hence the O.Ps  prays to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps 2,3,4  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This Commission  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

        FINDINGS.

              On perusal of the reports filed by the O.Ps 2, 3, & 4 it is revealed that   the complainant had sown paddy seeds (Var-MTU-1010) in 4 acres  area covered  and bought above paddy seeds 4 bags   from Sri Venket Raman  a private dealer of Padmapur (O.P. No.1) on Dt.12^th. February, 2015  on payment of consideration.  It is a fact  that the complainant had  lost his crop  of  & incurred financial loss.   The crop  was damaged  due to TULUNI weedy but not due to any  pesticide. 

          The Plant Protection officer, Gunupur in their letter Dated.3.8.2015  addressed to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Rayagada  had informed that the crop was at harvesting  stage, but not at all  infested  and by any insect or disease rather severely infested by a weed, locally called Tuluni (Ischaemumrogosum, Fam Poaceae.

The  crop loss  was occurred  in  contrary the complainant submitted that, the  crop  was lost  so far he sustained  financial  loss due to supply of defective  seeds by the  Authorised dealer from whom he had purchased  the seeds by paying  the consideration amount.  But  the O.P. No.1 Dealer is not even appeared  to  prove his claim. 

          The    O.P. No.2,3,4,  have made all attempt to help  and assist  the petitioner to emancipate him  from crop loss as such no negligence was occurred  on the part of O.P Nos. 2,3,4. The D.D.A., Rayagada also exhibited   the report Dt. 03.08.2015 where in he    stated that  the petitioner   sponsored  different  schemes  

For better appreciation this Commission relied citations which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

           

 it  is held and reported in  SCC  1994 (1) page No. 243 in the case of Lucknow Development authority  Vrs. M.K.Gupta where in the Hon’ble Apex Court observed “Consumer and Service  under the C.P. Act  that the provisions of the Act must be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumers as the enactment in question was beneficial piece of legislation while examining the meaning of the term Consumer and service.”

That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of  from  his legitimate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which a consumer  is eligible   are  entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned. They should be made responsible  for the compensation  to a consumer undertaken harassment  on  account of  their behavior.

It is held and  reported in SCC   2012(2) page No. 506 in the case  of  National  Seeds Corporation  Ltd. Vrs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “It is not expected  from every buyer of the seeds  to set apart some quantity  of seeds for testing  on the presumption that seeds  would be defective and he would be  called upon to prove the  same through laboratory testing. On the other hand  a senior officer  of the Government had visited  the field and inspected   the crop and  given  report under his hand and seal  clearly certifying   that the seeds  were defective”.

In the instant case, the seeds were found defective  and this fact was also  admitted  by the Agriculture Officers, Gunupur on  his report.

It is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2004(2) page No.660 the Hon’ble  Maharashtra  State C.D.R. Commission,  where in observed “When marigold   crop was received to extent  of 80% loss  of expected yield  and expert report  showed that poor crop was due to quality of seeds not to the mark producer  of  seed  was liable to compensate farmer for loss  of crop”.

It is held  in Revision petition  No. 147 of 2015 pronounced on  Date.8.7.2015 the Hon’ble National  C.D.R, Commission, New Delhi  upheld the order of the   District  Consumer Forum, Kalahandi  .

The  genetic defects  in the seeds can not be detected  through  visual inspection .  The Seeds  would have been  sent to recognized  laboratory  for analysis  of the said  variety of seeds   and   need to be tested in a scientific laboratory  which is not done  in this case. 

The O.P. No.1 (Dealer) had not collected any sample of seeds for scientific  analysis and not submitted any testing report from laboratory and  failed to prove that the seeds are defective free and proper for high yielding   no any report  from the competent authority also had been filed in this regard no any scientific testing  report had also been  submitted by the O.Ps to prove that the seeds are genuine and no defect there by the crop loss was occurred  due to negligence  of the complainant and his failure to attend the  agriculture land works in time.  In any stretch of imagination it can not be stated that the  crop  failed by the  negligence of the complainant.

Due to negligence  of  the  O.P. No.1 towards  supply of  mixed paddy  seeds  for sown in the Rabi crop  in 4 Acs. Area    the complainant  also claimed for loss of earning towards the loss of  paddy  crop  a sum of  Rs.1,06,380/- and   damages  for mental agony and  litigation  expenses.

After considering all facts, record on file and the law, this Commission  is of the opinion that seed sold to the complainant  was defective  and mixed  with some  other variety.

From the above discussion  we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the compensation needs to be  entitled by the  complainant. So, while partly allowing this case we order  that the  O.P No.1  shall be liable to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards purchase of seeds, labour charges,  loss of livelihood and mental agony, damages. We feel that ends  of justice would be met if  O.P No.1  compensated with the amount awarded by us.

In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances inter alia material on record this commission’s considered view that the complainant is entitled  to get Rs.20,000/- as loss of livelihood  due to Rabi paddy crop  damage.

Besides the complainant is entitled to receive the compensation for the damages suffered by  him.    The complainant has  stated  that he had  incurred  total  Rs.1,06,380/  in the paddy field  towards  Seeds price  labour charges, pesticids, 4 months time utilized in the paddy field  the details of which have been given  in his complaint.    Considering the suffering of the complainant and the mental agony  undergone by the complainant   and his family  members, we feel  that the amount  claimed as compensation is just and reasonable.

 

The quantum of compensation for  Damages were calculated on the basis of expenditure made by the complainant  in the paddy  field.

Further this commission  observed that  the O.P No.1(Dealer)is held  guilty  of unfair  trade practice   & is not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. The  commission feel that the O.P No.1  services are deteriorating and does not follows professional  ethics.  Due to the same attitude  of the  O.P No.1  the complainant deprived of  to get the good service from the O.P No.1.  Other O.Ps 2,3,4 have no direct business link with complainant.  Hence the O.P No.2,3,4   are hereby  discharged from their liabilities.

 

 

Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view, we allow the instant case in part. We feel  it be just and expedient to direct the O.P No.1 to pay lump-sum of Rs.                     to the complainant towards  Rabi paddy  crop damage.

In view of the above  foregoing  discussion relating to the present  case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. The O.P. No.1 (Dealer)   is held guilty  of supplying  bad quality  of seeds since  deficiency  on the part of  the  O.P. No. 1  stands  duly established.  Considering the facts of the case, we hold that the complainant should not be deprived of the amount of expenses which he had incurred in his   paddy field.

Hence to the meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

In resultant the complaint is allowed in part  against the O.P. No.1 (Dealer) and dismissed against the O.Ps 2  to  4.

                                      ORDER.

The  O.P. No.1(Dealer)  is   hereby  directed to pay lump- sum  amount     to the  complainant towards  loss of   paddy  crop  as  per report of the Agriculture Officer, Gunupur.

Parties are left  to bear  their  own cost.

Copies of the order be served on the parties  concerned as per rule.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

Pronounced on this      3rd.  day  of   September,     2022.

 

MEMBER.                              PRESIDENT.