State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajaib Singh vs Indco Hightech Agro Rural Development on 1 August, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1045 of 2007
Date of institution : 31.07.2007
Date of decision : 01.08.2012
Ajaib Singh S/o Sh. Jang Singh, R/o Village Naruana, Tehsil and District
Bathinda.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Indco Hightech Agro Rural Development of Women Welfare Society,
82, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.
2. Indco Hightech Agro Rural Development of Women Welfare Society,
Bharat Nagar Chowk, Model Town, First Floor on SBOP Hightech
Branch, Ludhiana through its Manager/Head/In charge.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Indica
Hightech Agro, Kamla Park Sangrur.
4. State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Bank, Bathinda,
through its Branch Manager.
...........Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.5.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate
For respondents No. 1&2 : Sh. Tajinder Joshi, Advocate
For respondent No. 3 : None
For respondent No. 4 : Sh. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate for
Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following three appeals as the questions of law and facts involved in all the three appeals are identical : -
1. First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 (Ajaib Singh v. Indco Hightech Agro and others)
2. First Appeal 1046 of 2007 (Hardev Singh v. Indco Hightech Agro and others) First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 2
3. First Appeal No.1047 of 2007 (Jagdev Singh v. Indco Hightech Agro and others) The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal as they enjoyed before the District Forum.
2. This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint against O.P. No. 1, 2 and 4 and accepted against O.P. No. 3 with cost of Rs. 1000/-. O.P. No. 3 was directed to pay Rs. 18,453/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.2.2007 till payment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that O.P. No. 1 through their pamphlet "KISSAN LAI KHUSHKHABRI", "STEVIA DI KHETI" made tall claims and assured the income of Rs. 5,59,000/- per acre in three years by sowing the said Stevia alleging that the Stevia is Non Toxic with Anti Viral, Anti Fungal, Anti Bacterial, Hypoglycemic, Anti Hypertensive, Vasodilator Properties and Rich sources of Carotene, Aluminium, Calcium prevents tooth Decay, Strengthens Gum, Anti Wringke & Abtu Aeging, Properties Avoids Constipation, Prevents obesity, Cures Cancer, regulates blood pressure, skin care, flavour, Enchancer, Regular use finishes Diabetes, Iron, Magnessium, Ascorbic Acids and other physiochemicals.
4. That the O.P. No. 1 and 2 also approached the complainant and assured good return from cultivation of Stevia and being assured by the O.P. No. 1&2 and being induced by the lame assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the O.P. No. 1, 2 & First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 3 4 i.e. State Bank of India, Bathinda vide agreement dated 16.12.2005. Respondents/Opposite Party No. 1&2 had further allured the complainant by saying that the complainant will be provided Subsidy of Rs. 50,000/- by the O.P/Respondent No. 4 and further the crop to be sown by the complainant would be got insured with the O.P/Respondent No. 3.
5. That at the instance of O.P. No. 1&2, the complainant purchased Stevia Plants and other articles worth Rs. 8,01,000/- vide bill No. 532 dated 28.12.2005 and the plants were sown and grown up under the active guidance on 2-1/2Acre of land, supervised by Dr. Karamjit Singh who is expert man of the O.P. No. 1&2. In the month of March, 2006 the crop was harvested and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant. But thereafter neither any crop was harvested nor any amount was paid to the complainant by the O.Ps. The crop was duly insured by the Opposite party with O.P. No. 3 vide policy No. 051886 dated 21.12.2005. Thereafter immediately the plants withered away as the plants were of inferior quality and the claims of the O.Ps turned false. Thus the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- besides other amounts received by them from the complainant by making false promise.
6. That when the plants withered, the complainant approached O.P. No. 1&2 and requested them to do the needful in the matter. On 23.9.2006 after inspecting the spot, Dr. Karamjit Singh who is the expert technical man opined that 85% of the crop has been damaged and directed the complainant to plough the fields. As per the advice of Dr. Karamjit Singh, the complainant ploughed the fields as he was told that the crop was fully insured with O.P. No. 3 insurance company and the opposite parties would provide new plants to the complainant for sowing the same afresh. First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 4
7. That believing the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant ploughed the fields and prepared the land for sowing the Stevia afresh and waited for new plants as per assurance given by the Opposite party. But the opposite party failed to provide the new plants to the complainant, despite repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. No. 1 to 3 on 24.10.2006 but the O.Ps refused to receive the said registered envelops and managed to get the same returned. That the O.P. No. 1&2 in discharge of their partial lawful existing liability to pay the amount of damages, issued a cheque No. 484985 dated 22.11.2006 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant from their account No. 65006669766 maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Ludhiana and assured the complainant that the cheque would be honoured as and when the same was presented for its encashment. Believing the assurance of the O.P, the complainant accepted the above said cheque and presented the same for its encashment to State Bank of India, Bathinda. The banker of the complainant sent the aforesaid cheque to banker of opposite party No. 1 & 2 at Ludhiana for its clearance but the cheque in question was dishonoured and the same was returned by the banker of O.P. alongwith its cheque returning memo dated 11.12.2006 with the remarks "Not arranged For" and the banker of the complainant further returned the original dishonoured cheque to the complainant. As such the cheque in question remained dishonoured which further reveals the malafide intention of the opposite parties which from the very inception was to cheat the complainant. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint with the prayer that it may kindly be accepted and the opposite parties be directed to release the new plants to the complainant and to honour his claim and also give him subsidy to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- per acre as assured by the opposite party. First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 5 He also prayed for a compensation of Rs.5 lac being the loss of income and Rs. 10 lac on account of expenses incurred by the complainant and on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation suffered by him.
8. Upon notice opposite party No. 1&2 alleged that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the present complainant has been filed after mentioning wrong facts and the complainant has concealed the true facts as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. On merits, it was admitted that they are non government organization working for the benefits of the farmers and the women on the basis of no profit no loss. They also admitted that they are encouraging the farmers to come out from the crops circle of paddy and wheat and for this purpose, the opposite parties are encouraging the farmers to adopt different crops so that their miserable status can be improved as the farmers are getting nothing by sowing paddy and wheat. They also admitted that they encourage the farmers to adopt the medicinal plants on the basis of NABARD scheme regarding cultivation of Stevia and the pamphlets are based on NABARD scheme. It was alleged that the complainant approached them and told that he wanted to come out of the crop circle and wanted to grow Stevia plants upon which information regarding Stevia cultivation was given to him. It was admitted that they entered into Tripartite Agreement with the complainant and the bank/O.P. No-4 on 16.12.2005. It was however denied that they allured the complainant that he would get a subsidy of Rs. 50,000/-. According to the O.Ps, the subsidy is to be provided by the Central Government. It was also admitted that the crop of the complainant was got assured with O.P. No. 3.
First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 6
10. It was admitted that the complainant purchased Stevia plants from them for Rs. 5,88,000/- and the remaining amount was towards fertilizer, irrigation and for other cultivation equipment. They had provided guidance to the complainant for the cultivation of Stevia as they were to buyback his crop. It was admitted that at the time of sowing of Stevia plants and at the time of inspection by Dr. Karamjit Singh, the plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory. It was also admitted that two crops were sold by the complainant to them and the payment thereof was made to him. It was denied if the Stevia plants were of inferior quality or he suffered a loss of Rs. 50 lac. Their contention is that the complainant with a malafide intention started alleging that his crop has been damaged and he ploughed the same himself. It was denied if Dr. Karamjit Singh told him to plough the crop. According to them, the complainant had been selling his crop in open market at higher rate to other farmers and no damage was ever done to it. They denied other allegations levelled by the complainant.
11. O.P. No. 3 also filed separate reply alleging that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that complicated and complex questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which cannot be decided in the summary procedure by this Forum and appropriate remedy if any lies in the civil court. Their contention is that it was not the crop which was insured with them but the fluctuation in weather which was insured. They decided the claim submitted by the complainant on the basis of term sheet for weather index, insurance and calculations based upon actual data of weather collected from Indian Meteorological Department. According to them the payment not in excess of Rs. 7381/- per unit against the policy limit of Rs. 1 lac alone was payable and not the entire First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 7 loss allegedly suffered by the complainant. In order to calculate deviation in anticipation normal weather index was to be collected for which purpose they took the average of minimum temperature at Amritsar, Hissar, Delhi. Their contention is that there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint should be dismissed.
12. O.P. No. 4 denied if they ever agreed to pay any amount on account of subsidy much less Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant regarding the alleged crop rather the subsidy amount if any was payable by the government and not by the O.P. No. 1-3. But the complainant has concealed these facts from this Hon'ble Court. It was alleged that the material and intricate questions of facts and law are involved in this case, and therefore the complainant should be relegated to seek his relief through the Civil Court. They denied if they entered into Tripartite Agreement with the complainant and O.Ps. No. 1&2. It was however admitted that they advanced the loan of Rs. 6,96,000/- to the complainant which was liable to be repaid by him alongwith interest.
13. Parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
14. Learned District forum after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on file, allowed the complaint as mentioned in Para No. 1. Dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant/appellant filed the present appeal
15. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that OP No.1 and 2 have admitted the facts narrated by the complainant in their complaint and the deficiency in service on their part is First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 8 fully proved but even then the learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint against them. Their contention is that due to the wrong information given by OP No.1 and 2 and the allurement to start the cultivation of Stevia, the complainant has suffered monetary loss and, therefore, he is required to be compensated by OP No.1 and 2 who in that process, sold their material for Rs.8,01,000/- and on the other hand, deprived the complainant of the normal income which they would have derived from the said land. When we go through the pleadings of the parties, it becomes clear that the material facts alleged by the complainant has since been admitted by OP No.1 and 2.
17. The case of the complainant is that OP No.1 through their pamphlet Kissan Lai Khushkhabri, Stevia Di Kheti had made tall claims and assured the income of Rs.5,59,000/- per acre in 3 years by sowing the said Stevia plant. It is contended in para 3 of the complaint that OP No.1 and 2 approached the complainant and assured good return from the cultivation. Ex.C3 is the pamphlet issued by OP No.1 giving details as to how the cultivation of Stevia is getting better yield in different States and countries and what benefits this plant is for the treatment of various diseases. On the back of this pamphlet, various varieties of Stevia are mentioned along with the land or States where it could be grown and how it is to be irrigated. Ex.C4 is the other pamphlet giving details of the expenditure and income per acre in 3 years by cultivation of Stevia plant. On the back of this pamphlet is mentioned as to what spray is to be sprayed and how and when it is to be harvested. It also mentioned that a farmer can earn an income of upto Rs.2 lacs per acre and can get subsidy of Rs.70,000/- from the Government. . When we peruse the written statement filed by the OP, they admitted in para 2 as follows : -
First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 9
"It is correct that the answering respondents are encouraging the farmers to adopt different crops so that their miserable status can be improved as the farmers are getting nothing by sowing paddy and wheat. The answering respondents encourage the farmers to adopt medicinal plants, so that their income can be increased and the fertility of their land will be got intact. The opposite parties told the complainant that he could earn more by proper cultivation of STEVIA and this information was provided by the opposite parties on the basis of NABARD Scheme regarding cultivation of STEVIA and the said pamphlets are based on the NABARD Scheme regarding cultivation of STEVIA."
Again in para 3 of the written reply, it was admitted as follows : -
"As a matter of fact, the complainant approached the opposite parties and told them that he want to come out of the crop circle and he want to grow STEVIA plants. The answering respondents provided him the information regarding STEVIA cultivation."
18. The contention of the complainant that he had decided to cultivate STEVIA on this information is, therefore, proved to be correct.
19. The next contention of the complainant is that allured by the tall claims made by OP No.1 and 2, he purchased Stevia plants and other material for its cultivation. Ex.C6 is the retail invoice vide which Stevia plants were purchased from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.5,88,000/- and various First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 10 other articles were purchased for a total sum of Rs.8,01,000/-. OP No.1 and 2 in para 4 of the written reply admitted that the complainant purchased Stevia plants with his free will. According to them, the costs of Stevia plants was Rs.5,88,000/- and the remaining amount was for the fertilisers, irrigation and other cultivation equipments. It, therefore, shows that the complainant spent a sum of Rs.8,01,000/- for cultivation of Stevia plants and the said amount was paid to OP No.1.
20. The next contention of the complainant is contained in para 4 of the complaint in which it was mentioned that the plants sown and grown up under the active guidance in 2.5 acres of land supervised by Dr.Karamjit Singh who is an expert man of the OP No.1 and 2. This fact also was admitted by the OP in para 4 of the reply in which it was mentioned that the OPs provided the guidance to the complainant for the cultivation of Stevia as they had to buy back the crop of the complainant as per the tripartite agreement. It was further admitted that at the time of sowing of Stevia plants and at the time of inspection by Dr.Karamjit Singh, the plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory. There is no allegation made by the OPs if there was any negligence or non-performance of the complainant or any of the requirements for the proper cultivation and looking after of the said plants. It rather shows that the manner in which the plants were to be brought up by the complainant were being observed by him and there was no shortcoming on his part in that respect.
21. The contention of the complainant further is that in the month of March, 2006, the crop was harvested and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited in his account but thereafter, neither any crop was harvested nor any amount was paid to the complainant. In their written reply, OP No.1 and First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 11 2 have admitted this fact that only two crops were sold by the complainant to them and payments of the same was duly paid by them to the complainant.
22. The contention of the complainants further is that immediately, thereafter, the plants withered away as the same were of inferior quality and the claim of the OP turned false, due to which, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.50 lacs. His contention is that he requested OP No.1 and 2 to do the needful and on 23.9.2006, their agent Bhupinder Kumar of Bathinda along with Dr.Karamjit Singh visited the spot, upon which, Karamjit Singh opined that 85% of the crop had been damaged and he, therefore, asked the complainant to plough the same. He also assured that OP No.1 and 2 would provide new plants to him for sowing the crop afresh. The OPs have admitted that the crop was inspected by Dr.Karamjit Singh. In the concluding line of para 4 of the reply, it was denied by OP No.1 and 2 if the plants withered away. It was, however, admitted that at the time of sowing of Stevia plants and at the time of inspection by Dr.Karamjit Singh, the plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory. It was further admitted in para 7 of the written reply that the complainant had ploughed his fields of his own. The basic question would be if the Stevia plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory yielding income to a farmer, would he plough the field to cause loss to himself? Our answer to this question is in the negative. In this manner, it is proved by circumstantial evidence that the plants had withered away and it was only due to that reason that the fields were ploughed by the complainant and that too after the crop was inspected by Dr.Karamjit Singh. The learned District Forum took into consideration the affidavit Ex.R2 of Dr.Karamjit Singh who in para 5 admitted that he inspected the fields of the complainant at the time of sowing the Stevia plants and growth of the plants First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 12 was perfectly alright. He, however, denied if he inspected the fields as alleged by the complainant in his complaint nor told the complainant to plough his fields as the crop has been damaged due to inferior quality of the plants. Needless to mention that Dr.Karamjit Singh is a person of OP No.1 and 2 and would naturally side with them. He has, therefore, submitted a false affidavit in this respect. Had the crop been alright and there was no damage to it, the complainant would have been the last person to plough it away to cause loss of income to himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention of the complainant in this respect is correct; that the plants had withered away, due to which, the field was ploughed.
23. It was also mentioned by the OPs in para 6 of the written reply that in fact, the complainant used to sell the Stevia plants to somebody else and stopped selling the crop to them. It is also contended that with a malafide intention, he started claiming that his crop has been damaged. The reply filed by the OP proves this fact that it is not a fresh case set up by the complainant that his crop was damaged but from the very beginning, he had been proclaiming about the damaged crop. The OPs have not been able to mention the name of the person to whom the Stevia plants were sold by the complainant. They have not mentioned as to on which date the sale was made and for what amount. It may be mentioned that there was an agreement between the parties, copy of which is Ex.C8, in view of which, the entire produce was to be sold by the complainant to OP No.1 and 2. If he was violating the terms of the contract, OP No.1 and 2 would not have kept silent and would have promptly issued a notice to the complainant to restrain him from selling the plants to somebody else and would have approached the Civil Court. They, however, did not do anything. Even when the complainant was proclaiming that his plants have withered away or the crop First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 13 was damaged or he has ploughed his fields, they did not send any representative to inspect the same and to give a report to falsify the claim of the complainant. Dr.Karamjit Singh had been employed by them who admitted that he helps the farmers and guides them to cultivate the plants but in para 5 of his affidavit Ex.R2, he also deposed that he never inspected the field of the complainant nor advised him to plough his fields. The other witnesses produced by OP No.1 and 2 is K.C. Bansal, who submitted his affidavit but he nowhere claims to have inspected the fields of the complainant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the story now propounded by OP No.1 and 2 that the crop was good and the complainant had been selling it to somebody else is a false version.
24. The complaint was dismissed against OP No.1 and 2 by the learned District Forum because the complainant did not get the crop inspected from any officer of the Agriculture Department. When we peruse the agreement Ex.C8 between the parties, we find that there was no such condition mentioned therein providing that in case of any problem, the inspection would be got done from the officers of the Agriculture Department. In view of these facts, the question of getting the fields inspected from such officers did not arise.
25. The case of the complainant further is that when the plants withered away, he approached OP No.1 and 2 and they deputed Dr.Karamjit Singh along with their agent Bhupinder Kumr of Bathinda who inspected the fields on 23.9.2006, the OPs did not produce Bhupinder Kumar of Bathinda in the witness box for the reasons best known to them and, therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against them. As regards Dr.Karamjit Singh, he totally denied if he had visited the said fields. In this manner, we can at the most assume that after the matter was brought to the notice of OP First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 14 No.1 and 2 that the crop has withered away, the OPs did not get the same inspected from anybody. Under these circumstances, the only inference is that the OPs very well knew about the inferior quality of the plants supplied to the complainant and also knew about the consequences thereof, due to which, they did not have the guts to inspect the plants. As mentioned earlier, the complainant had been telling them that the crop has withered away and he has ploughed the same. Even inspite of that, they took no action under the agreement executed by the complainant and did not get it inspected form anybody to prove that the plants had not withered away. These facts, therefore, go against OP No.1 and 2 and not against the complainant.
26. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant has not got the plants examined from the Laboratory to prove that the same were of inferior quality and, therefore, this version of the complainant cannot be believed. We do not find any merit in this argument. In view of tall claims made by OP No.1 and 2 vide Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, the complainant could not have thought that the plants would wither away and, therefore, get the same tested from the Laboratory. The mere fact that these were not got tested, therefore, cannot be a ground to believe that the plants were of good quality. As per the OPs, the plants were perfectly alright and their development was more than satisfactory. The OPs, therefore, cannot blame the complainant for any deficiency on his part to bring up the plants in a proper manner as required. In the written reply, no such allegation has been made by the OPs against the complainant if there was any fault on his part. As discussed above, if the plants had been alright, the complainant would not have ploughed the fields. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention of the complainant is correct that when Dr.Karamjit Singh inspected the fields, he found that 85% of the plants had withered away. He, First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 15 therefore, directed him to plough the fields and assured that new plants would be provided and he should sow the plants of Stevia afresh. It was on this assurance that the fields were ploughed by the complainant. The learned District Forum went wrong in not believing the statement of the complainant, in this respect.
27. The contention of the OPs is that two crops were sold by the complainant to them and the payment thereof was made to him. As per Ex.C4 in the first year, the complainant should have got a draft of Rs.39,000/- per acre and in the second year, Rs.2,60,000/- per acre. There is no dispute about it that the complainant had sown Stevia in 2.5 acres of his land and in this manner, in the first year, he would have got an income of Rs.97,500/- (Rs.39000 x 2.5). He, however, got only a sum of Rs.20,000/- which itself shows that the plants supplied to him were not of that quality which was proclaimed by OP No.1 and 2 through their pamphlet Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. If we calculate the income in accordance with Ex.C4, the complainant would have got an income of Rs.7,47,500/- during the first two years.
28. OP No.1 had told the complainant vide Ex.C4 that he would get a profit of Rs.39,000/- in the first year, Rs.2,60,000/- in the second year and Rs.2,60,000/- in the third year showing that he would earn a profit of Rs.5,59,000/- in 3 years per acre. The complainant had sown Stevia in 2.5 acres. In this manner, he was given to understand that in 3 years, the complainant would get a total of Rs.13,97,500/- (5,59,000/- x 2.25). The complainant, however, got a total of Rs.20,000/- during this period. The complainant, however, prayed for a sum of Rs.5 lacs towards loss of income. He had spent Rs.8,01,000/- vide Ex.C6 and had, thereafter, been looking after the crop and irrigating it. He has, however, prayed for a sum of Rs.10 First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 16 lacs on account of expenses incurred by him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant can get a compensation of Rs.13,97,500/- minus Rs.20,000/- = Rs.13,77,500/- as loss of income. In fact, the complainant did not get even the normal income from his land which he would have earned had he not resorted to Stevia cultivation. In view of these facts, we feel that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.8,01,000/- which he had paid to OP No.1 and 2 vide bill Ex.C6 for purchasing Stevia plants and other articles. We are also of the opinion that the complainant would at least get Rs.2.5 lacs being the loss of income from his 2.5 acres of land for the said period of 3 years. We are further of the opinion that due to all this, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment and had also put in labour to raise the plants and, thereafter, to plough the same as the crop did not succeed. We are of the opinion that the complainant should be entitled to Rs. One lac towards compensation for mental tension and harassment etc.
29. So far as the claim against the insurance company OP No.3 is concerned, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim. We are of the opinion that the complainant cannot get any further relief in view of the insurance policy issued by them.
30. The complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.6,96,000/- from OP No.4. He is liable to pay interest thereon. Had the Stevia plants been of good quality as proclaimed by OP No.1 and 2, the complainant would have repaid the loan without any hassels. However, due to the fault of OP No.1 and 2, the complainant was plunged into debt and was made liable to pay interest thereon due to substandard and inferior quality of Stevia plants supplied by OP No.1 and 2. They were making high claims to take the farmer out of debt but by their act and conduct, they were plunging the innocent farmers into First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 17 debt trap while earning for themselves a huge amount by sale of their products. However, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and, therefore, no further relief can be granted against them.
31. As regards the subsidy, it was undertaken by the OPs vide Ex.C4 that the Government would pay a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Now, they have alleged that the subsidy was payable only after the loan was repaid. Since the crop failed due to inferior plants, the complainant could not repay the loan, due to which, he would get the subsidy of Rs.70,000/- from the Government. It was also due to the fault of OP No.1 and 2 that he suffered a loss of Rs.70,000/-.
32. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint was liable to succeed but has been wrongly dismissed against OP No.1 and 2. We, therefore, accept the present appeal and modify the impugned order dated 22.5.2007. Consequently, OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.1.2007 till the amount is paid. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint till the amount is paid. The complainant would also be entitled to Rs.5500/- towards the costs of litigation in this appeal and Rs.5500/- before the learned District Forum..
FIRST APPEAL NO.1046 OF 2007
33. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is also accepted and the impugned order 22.5.2007 is modified. OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. First Appeal No.1045 of 2007 18 8.1.2007 till the amount is paid. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint till the amount is paid. The complainant would also be entitled to Rs.5500/- towards the costs of litigation in this appeal and Rs.5500/- before the learned District Forum.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2007
34. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is also accepted and the impugned order 22.5.2007 is modified. OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.2.2007 till the amount is paid. If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint till the amount is paid. The complainant would also be entitled to Rs.5500/- towards the costs of litigation in this appeal and Rs.5500/- before the learned District Forum.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER August 01, 2012.
Rupinder/Paritosh