State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Farmers Fertilizers ... vs Ram Sawroop S/O Sh. Mam Ram, Resident Of ... on 20 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.882 of 2013 Date of Institution: 02.12.2013 Date of Decision: 20.01.2014 Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), Service Centre, Kalanwali, District Sirsa. Appellant (Opposite Party) Versus Ram Sawroop s/o Sh. Mam Ram, Resident of Village Anandgarh, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Respondent (Complainant) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ram Sawroop-respondent in person. O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral):
This appeal has been filed by Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, Service Centre, Kalanwali (for short IFFCO) against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short District Forum) whereby, an amount of Rs.42,000/- was awarded to Ram Sawroop-complainant (respondent herein), on account of loss that occurred to his crop, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.550/- as litigation expenses. The amount awarded was to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failure to which interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing complaint, that is, October 26th, 2012 till payment.
2. Respondent had purchased 5 Kgs of Guar Seed against payment of Rs.2,000/- from the appellant, which was sown in his field. The seed was found to be defective. He approached the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa. The Deputy Director Agriculture constituted a team of Agriculture Development Officer Kheowali, Block Agriculture Officer, Odhan, and Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Dabwali, to verify the complaint. The team inspected the crop on August 13th, 2012 and assessed the loss to the extent of 40% on account of defect in the Guar seed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since the respondent could not prove that he was owner of the land in which he had sown the Guar crop, so he is not entitled for any compensation. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon Narender Kumar Versus M/s Arora Trading Company and others, 2007(2)CLT 683, wherein this Commission has held that Killa numbers and Khasra numbers of the land, which was inspected by the Agriculture Development Officer, was not mentioned and therefore the report did not pin point the identity of the land of the complainant. So the report was not taken into account to support the stand of the complainant.
4. In the report Exhibit C-1, it has been clearly mentioned by the team of Agriculture Officers that they inspected the field of Ram Sawroop respondent. With this piece of evidence, it cannot be said that the land in which the Guar crop was sown, was not of Ram Sawroop. So, the authority relied upon is of no avail to the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that the Committee should have been formed as per the letter dated January, 3, 2002 of the Director of Agriculture, Haryana. By that letter all the officers concerned were directed to inspect the fields of complainant farmers comprising a committee of two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. So, the committee formed by the Deputy Director should have been discarded.
6. The respondent moved the complaint before the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sirsa to whom the letter under reference was addressed. So, it was his duty to get the field inspected as per the directions given by the Director Agriculture, Haryana. It was for the Deputy Director Agriculture to constitute a team, which he constituted comprising of three Agriculture Officers. The team not being constituted as per the letter of the Director of Agriculture, was not the fault of the complainant. In view of this, the submission is devoid of merit and is therefore rejected. The compensation was rightly assessed by the District Forum.
7. In the report of the agriculture officers Exhibit C-1, it has been clearly mentioned by them that they had inspected the Guar crop in the field of Ram Sawroop-respondent. Otherwise what was the necessity for the respondent to contest the case on behalf of others in case he had not sown the crop in his field.
8. The District Forum has assessed the compensation in a very adequate manner by observing that five Kilograms of Guar seed is sown in one acre land. It was admitted by the parties that about 6-8 Quintals of Guar crop is expected from one acre of land. Since the loss was to the extent of 40%, therefore, loss in terms of quantity of crop was between 2.4 quintals to 3.2 quintals. The normal price of Guar crop at that time was at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per quintal. Thus, the District Forum assessed the loss of Rs.42,000/-.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
10. The amount of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.22,500/- deposited by the appellant with this Commission be refunded to the respondent- Ram Sawroop against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
20.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL