State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tukaram Dhondiram Jawale vs The District Manager, on 10 April, 2015
1 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012
Date of filing :28.03.2012
Date of order :10.04.2015
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :98 & 99 OF 2012
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 79 & 78 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :OSMANABAD.
1. Vilas Atmaram Jadhav,
R/o Khed, Tq.Lohara,
Dist.Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(In appeal No.98/2012)
2. Tukaram Dhondiram Jawale,
R/o Karajgaon, Tq.Lohara,
Dist.Osmanabad. ...APPELLANT
(In appeal No.99/2012)
VERSUS
The District Manager,
Maharashtra Rajya Biyane
Mahamandal Maryadit Akola,
District Office, Naikwadi Building,
Samtanagar, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENT.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Patne for appellants, Adv.Shri.D.S.Kulkarni for respondent.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 10th April 2015) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judical Member.
1. Challenge in these appeals are the separate judgments dated 14.2.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad partly allowing consumer complaint Nos.79/11 & 78/11 respectively directing opponent to repay the amount paid by complainants towards the price of onion seed with interest @ 9% p.a., further to pay 2 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012 compensation of Rs.3000/- to each complainant and Rs.3000/- more towards cost of each complaint proceeding.
(For the sake of brevity appellants are herein after referred as complainants and respondent seed corporation as opponent corporation)
2. Since opponent corporation is common and further the issues and facts of both the cases are common, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:-
Complainants are the farmers having separate bagayati agriculture fields. In the month of November 2010, complainants had proposed to grow onion crop of AFLR Harna variety for producing foundation seed. Accordingly on 13.10.2010 they visited the office of opponent Corporation at Osmanabad and complainant Vilas Jadhav deposited Rs.4000/- and complainant Shri.Tukaram deposited Rs.2000/- as advance. Complainant Vilas had proposed to cultivate onion crop in his field admeasuring 80R. Whereas complainant Tukaram had proposed to cultivate onion crop in his field admeasuring 40R. Thereafter on 29.10.2010 complainant Vilas paid Rs.29,460/- and obtained the receipt. Likewise on the same day complainant Tukaram paid Rs.20,260/- more and obtained receipt towards price of the foundation onion seed, registration and inspection charges. They were informed that onion seeds will be provided within few days. But despite repeated demand of the complainants, opponent did not provide the onion seeds. Therefore on 30.11.2010 and 8.12.2010 complainants filed written complaint with the opponent Corporation. But opponent did not provide the seeds.
Therefore by letter dated 13.12.2010 opponent Corporation informed the complainants to take onion seed of another variety i.e. AFDR 3 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012 instead of AFLR Harna if required, else to take back the amount deposited by them etc. Thus according to the complainants opponent Corporation committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice denying to provide seed of AFLR Harna variety of onion.
4. It is further submitted that after depositing amount with the opponent Corporation i.e.price of the required onion seeds, they have cultivated their respective lands by investing huge amount. But as Corporation failed to provide the onion seed they could not cultivate the onion crop and thereby sustained loss. They have submitted that if they would have received the same variety of onion seeds they would have received average yield of 2-3 quintal per acre and would have got income at Rs.2000/- per kilogram. Thus according to them complainant Shri.Vilas sustained loss of income at Rs.12 lakhs and complainant Tukaram who sustained Rs.6 lakhs and opponent Corporation is liable to pay the same. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opponent Corporation complainants have filed consumer complaint wherein complainant Shri.Vilas claimed compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- towards loss of income and mental agony and complainant Tukaram claimed compensation at Rs.7 lakhs towards loss of income and mental agony.
5. Opponent Corporation by its separate written version resisted both the complaints on the following among other grounds:-
It did not dispute that it supplies onion seeds to the farmers. It also did not dispute that on 13.10.2010 complainants placed their order for purchasing seeds by depositing amount of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively and thereafter on 29.10.2010 complainant Vilas paid balance amount Rs.29,460/- and complainant Tukaram paid amount of Rs.20,260/-. It also did not dispute that complainants informed that seeds will be provided within few days but it was not supplied. However, it is contended that complainants were 4 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012 informed that AFLR Harna variety onion seed would be supplied if it would be available. However, the same variety of onion seed could not be made available. Therefore on 29.11.2010 complainants were informed by contacting them on their mobile phone that the same variety of onion is not available and therefore if they desire they can carry another variety of onion seed i.e. AFDR onion variety, else to take back their amounts. Accordingly by letters dated 4.12.2006 & 8.12.2006 complainants were informed. But complainants did not turn up and filed false complaints. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainants and contended that since complainants had proposed to cultivate and produce foundation onion seeds to get more profit, complaints are not maintainable. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
6. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponent Corporation committed deficiency in service by not supplying the onion seeds etc. and therefore opponent Corporation is responsible for the loss sustained to the complainants. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainant's claim as noted above.
7. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgments and orders, complainants came to this Commission in appeal by filing separate appeals.
8. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of arguments submitted by Adv.Shri.Patni appearing for the complainants. However, Adv.D.S.Kulkarni though made statement at bar to submit written notes of argument immediately after oral arguments, he did not file. Further we have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, complaint , written version, evidence affidavit of complainants as well as their witness Shri.Suresh Deshmukh and other documents.
5 F.A.No.:98 & 99/20129. Almost all the facts except complainant's claim for compensation towards loss of income due to non-supply of AFLR Harna variety onion seeds are not disputed. Opponent Corporation has not also challenged the impugned judgments and orders. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainants are entitled to get compensation towards loss of income or not?
10. It is submitted by Shri.Patne learned counsel for the complainants that opponent Corporation has purposely denied to supply the AFLR Harna variety onion seeds to the complainants despite it had already accepted entire amount towards price of the seed and falsely informed that the same variety of onion seeds is not available etc. Pointing out the affidavit of witness Shri.Suresh Deshmukh, it is submitted that though the complainants were informed by opponent by letter dated 13.12.2010 that the said variety of onion seed cannot be made available, on 28.12.2010 opponent Corporation has supplied the same variety of onion seed to said witness etc. To which it is denied by Shri.D.S.Kulkarni learned counsel for the opponent Corporation and submitted that if the same variety of AFLR Harna seed was available there could be no difficulty for opponent Corporation to supply the seed to the complainants. He has also denied that on 28.12.2009 opponent Corporation supplied the same variety of onion seed to witnesses Suresh Deshmukh. However, though the complainants have filed affidavit of witness Shri.Suresh Deshmukh to that effect no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of opponent Corporation denying affidavit of Suresh Deshmuhkh. Therefore it is difficult to accept the arguments of Shri.D.S.Kulkarni learned counsel for the opponent Corporation.
However, since there was no reason for the opponent Corporation not to supply the same variety of onion seeds if available the contention of complainants that the opponent Corporation 6 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012 purposely denied to supply the seeds cannot be sustained. It may be that after informing the complainants same variety of seed would have made available when it was supplied to witness Shri.Suresh Deshmukh.
11. When undisputedly complainants were informed by opponent Corporation that the same variety of onion seeds is available they would have received another variety of onion seeds or to refund of the amount as per the offer given by the opponent. However, when the opponent Corporation was not in a position to make same variety of onion seeds available, it should not have received the amount from the complainants giving assurance to provide the same variety of onion seeds. Therefore District Consumer Forum has rightly held that opponent Corporation has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and awarded reasonable compensation towards mental agony and deficiency in service .
12. As far as the complainant's claim about loss of income is concerned, it is contended by the complainants that after placing order for purchasing AFLR Harna onion seeds, they have cultivated their fields by investing huge amount, but as opponent Corporation failed to provide them the same variety of onion seeds, they could not get any income from the said field etc. But we find little force in this contention of complainants. Firstly, because though the complainants would have invested any amount for cultivation of their respective fields, when they were informed by opponent Corporation within month or 1 & 1/2 month that the same variety of onion seed is not available, in our view if, they would have grown another crop in their respective fields. Even it is not their contention that after month of November 2010 their fields remained fallow without growing any crops. According to them when they grow bagayati crops like potato, sugarcane and vegetables, in our view no such farmer would keep the bagayati land fallow without cultivating and growing bagayati crops on 7 F.A.No.:98 & 99/2012 the grounds that particular seed could be made available. No evidence is also produced by the complainants to show that after the month of November 2010 their fields remained fallow without cultivating any other crop. Therefore Dist.Consumer Forum has rightly declined to allow their claim towards loss of income from the field due to non-supply AFLR Harna onion seeds by opponent Corporation.
13. Thus we have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both side also facts and evidence on record and we find that District Consumer Forum has rightly partly allowed the complainant's claim granting compensation towards mental agony and directing to refund the amounts. We find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders. Hence no interference is warranted.
14. In the result, both the appellants fail and therefore both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Both the appeal Nos.98/2012 & 99/2012 stand dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane