State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pothu Raju Appa Rao,Srikakulam. vs 1.Secretary, Agr. Marketing ... on 14 September, 2012
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.64/2011
against C.C.No.122/2008, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam.
Between:
Pothu Raju Appa Rao,
S/o. late Adinarayana,
Brahmin Street,
Srikakulam. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.Secretary,
Agr.
Marketing Committee,
Pathapatnam.
2. President,
Agr.
Marketing Committee,
Pathapatnam.
Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the
Appellant :
M/s.D.Ramalinga Swamy
Counsel for the Respondents :
M/s.K.Lalitha &
A.Jaya Raju
QUORUM:THE HONBLEJUSTICE SRI
D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order:(Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** This appeal is directed against the order dt.17.11.2009 of the District Forum, Srikakulam made in C.C.No.122/2008 .
The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.122/2008 filed by the appellant/complainant seeking direction to the opposite parties to release 70 bags of first quality of Samba Masuri paddy to the complainant by receiving the loan amount of Rs.26,000/- with interest, direct the opp.party to pay the present market value of the said paddy @ Rs.1200/- per bag by deducting the said loan amount, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to pay costs.
For the sake of convenience, the parties may be described as they arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.26000/- on 26.12,2006 from the Agricultural Market Committee, represented by the opposite parties by pledging 70 bags of Samba Masuri variety of paddy consisting of 80 kgs. each In accordance with the said pledge, the opposite parties received the paddy and stored the same in their godown. The complainant approached the opposite parties, who are the Secretary and President of the Market Committee to clear the said RBP loan amount and for release of said 70 bags of Samba Masuri variety of paddy . On verification, the complainant came to know that the said paddy of 70 bags Samba Masuri variety was not found in the godown of the Market Committee. When the complainant asked the opposite parties about the paddy they gave evasive replies and got issued notices with false allegations to the complainant, for which, the complainant got issued reply notice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The further case of the complainant is that threat of auction of the paddy by the opposite party, without personal notice to the complainant caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed counter/written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that for the year 2006-2007, 32 farmers were granted loans worth Rs.8,58,000/- under RBP scheme. On 6.12.2006, the complainant brought 70 bags of paddy to the godown stating that it is a C.C. variety and that in toto 56 quintals and thereby obtained RBP loan of Rs.26,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant kept quiet, though, stipulated 90 days time is over.
As the stipulated time of 90 days is over, a notice dt.20.4.2007 was issued to the complainant and waited till 180 days as no reply was given by the complainant to the said notice.
Thereupon, another notice was issued on 9.8.2007, but there was no response from the complainant. So, auction notice dt.8.9.2007 was issued to the complainant. The complainant refused to take auction notice, which was sent by registered post. The opposite parties finally sent another auction notice dt.16.11.2007 to the complainant by office messenger. The complainant refused to receive the same and in the presence of Village Secretary, Pathapatnam, the said notice was affixed to the house wall of the complainant on 21.11.2007. At that stage the complainant got issued a registered lawyers notice dt.24.11.2007 informing the opposite parties that he was prepared to take away stock kept in the godown and sought time till 5.1.2008 to clear the loan. The opposite parties got issued reply dt.3.12.2007 denying the contents of the complainants notice.
Subsequently, the complainant approached the op.parties and has given a written undertaking to the then regular Secretary that he would receive the paddy kept in the godown by paying RBP loan on or before 5.1.2008. Though, the said time was over, the complainant did not come forward to receive the stock and to clear the loan. As 1 year was over, the paddy kept in godown pertaining to the complainant was put to public auction on 28.6.2008 in the presence of Thasildar, M.D.O., Village Secretary, SHO., Pathapatnam. In that auction, paddy bags were brought out and on weighing them, they came to know that weight is only 39.85 quintals The auction was not adopted as the expected amount in the auction is not sufficient to right off the loan amount on account of this process, it has come to light that the complainant played fraud on the Market Committee. Subsequently, the police complaint was given on 1.7.2008 to the SHO., Pathapatnam P.S. against the complainant. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the opposite parties, opp.party no.1, the Secretary of the Agricultural Market Committee, filed his evidence affidavit and they got marked Exs,B1 to B8.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal questioning the validity and legality of the order. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the complainant got amended the appeal grounds by introducing the additional grounds. The appellant/complainant contended that there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not verifying and weighing the paddy pledged by the complainant at the time of taking loan. That the District Forum should have seen that the opposite parties know that the pledged paddy of the complainant was changed by the officials of the opposite parties and created the story of shortfall. In view of the subsequent events, the appellant/complainant entitled in terms of money, having regard to the market value of 70 bags of paddy of 80 kgs. each stored and pledged by the appellant and the amount is to be credited to the account of the appellant with subsequent interest till the date of payment. That the appellant is also entitled for reasonable compensation for the fraud that was committed, while the paddy was in custody of the Market Committee.
In this appeal, the appellant/complainant filed a petition in FAIA.1634/2012 to receive information relating to: 1). Rice varieties recommended for different zones in A.P., 2).Notified rice varieties in A.P., and 3). Certificate issued by Project Agricultural Officer ITDA., Seethampeta to the effect that there is no specific variety of paddy in the name of CC paddy, and that however, by people in some areas the Sambamasuri called as CC Paddy locally, as additional evidence and they were marked as Exs.A4 to A6 respectively.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside? If so, on what grounds?
It is an admitted fact that the complainant took loan of Rs.26,000/- from the Agriculture Market Committee on 26.12.2006 by pledging 70 bags of C.C. variety paddy under R.B.P.(Rythu Bandhu Pathakam). According to the complainant, he pledged 70 bags of Sambamasuri paddy, each bag weighing 80 kgs. The opposite parties denied the variety and weight of the paddy.
The contention of the opposite parties is that for the year 2006-2007 , 32 farmers including the complainant were granted loans, total worth of Rs.8,58,000/- under R.B.P. Scheme. The complainant brought 70 bags of paddy to the godown saying that it is C.C. variety and the total paddy was 56 quintals, thereby obtained R.B.P. Loan of Rs.26,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant kept quiet though stipulated time of 90 days was over. They further, contended that at the time of taking loans, on the representation made by all the farmers that they would incur some amount if they were asked to get their stock weighed, the officials of the Market Committee did not weigh the paddy trusting the representations of the framers.
Taking advantage of non weighment of the paddy at the time of disbursing of the loans to all the farmers, the complainant is now contending that he pledged Samba Masuri variety of 70 bags weighing 80 kgs., to have illegal gain.
The object of the scheme is to safeguard the interests of the farmers. The riots can keep their produce in the godown for 90 days without paying any interest.
However, as per the request of the farmers, the stock can be kept in the godown for another 90 days, but for the 90 days nominal interest at 10% will be collected, if the worth of stock kept in the godown exceeds Rs.15,000/-. After a lapse of the stipulated time, if the farmer does not come forward to release the stock, the said produce will be put in public auction and adjust the sale proceeds towards the loan amount, with interest, rent for godown, insurance amount thereon. If any balance is there, that will be paid to the farmers.
In this case, admittedly, the complainant did not repay the loan and got release the paddy within first 90 days and that on his request another 90 days time was given to the complainant. Even after expiry of 180 days, the complainant did not come forward to repay the loan and release the paddy. Exs.B1 and B2 are the notices under which the opposite parties informed the complainant to repay the loan amount and get release the paddy pledged with them. But there was no response from the complainant. The opposite party no.1 has also issued auction notice vide Ex.B3 informing the complainant that they were going to put the pledged paddy, in public auction, to recover the loan amount, as the complainant failed to repay the loan amount and not released the paddy even after expiry of 180 days. The opposite parties have also addressed Ex.B4 letter dt. 16.11.2007 to the complainant informing him that they would sell the paddy in public auction on 24.11.2007. There was also exchange of legal notices between the parties under Exs.B5 and B6. Subsequently, the opposite parties came to know that the complainant played fraud on the Agricultural Market Committee, Pathapatnam by pledging inferior quality, weighing less and obtained loan under R.B.P. Scheme and gave a complaint to the police against the complainant vide Ex.B7.
Exs.A4 to A6 filed by the appellant/complainant as additional evidence in this appeal, in our view, does not improve the case of the complainant, even if they are taken into consideration.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the complainant did not discharge the loan and release the pledged paddy within stipulated time, under RBP Scheme. The opposite party no.1 tried to sell the paddy in auction, but he could not do so, because of difference in weight and quality of the paddy. Under these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum to interfere with it .
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum . In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.
14.9.2012