State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Junior Agriculture Officer, ... vs Kartikeswar Sahoo on 27 October, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.43 OF 2001 From an order dated 28.09.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir in C.D. Case No.11 of 2000 1. Junior Agriculture Officer, Bangomunda Block, At/P.O- Bangomunda, Distirct- Bolangir. 2. Director of Agriculture & Food Production, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, District- Khurda. 3. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir, District- Bolangir. 4. District Agriculture Officer, Titilagarh, At/P.O- Titilagarh, District- Bolangir. Appellants. -Versus- 1. Kartikeswar Sahoo, Son of Sanatan Sahoo, Village- Mahulpati, P.O- Mahulpati, P.S- Turekela, District- Bolangir. 2. S. Chhuria, Assistant Seed Certification Officer, Barpali, At/P.O- Barpali, District- Bargarh. 3. Managing Director, Orissa State Seed Corporation Agency, Bhubaneswar-9, District- Khurda. Respondents For the Appellants : M/s. S. Swain, A.S.C. For the Respondents : M/s.D.R. Swain and Assoc. M/s. D. Narendra. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. A N D THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT A N D SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
27TH OCTOBER, 2008.
The appellants, i.e., Junior Agriculture Officer, Bangomunda Block, District- Bolangir, Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Orissa, Bhubaneswar; Deputy Director of Agriculture, District- Bolangir and District Agriculture Officer, Titilagarh, District- Bolangir being aggrieved with the order dated 28.09.2000 passed in C.D. Case No.11 of 2000 by the Bolangir District Forum have come to this Commission.
2. One Kartikeswar Sahoo of Mahulpati filed the complaint before the District Forum, Bolangir alleging that on 14.12.1999, he purchased 3 quintals and 60 kgs. of foundation parijat kisam paddy seeds from Junior Agriculture Officer, Bangomunda Block (appellant No.1) paying a sum of rupees 4,273.20 paise for paddy cultivation under the Seed Village Scheme during the agriculture season of 1999-2000. After purchase of the said foundation paddy seeds, he undertook the germination process from 19.12.1999 to 24.12.1999 and found that there was only 10% germination of the paddy seeds. He used the entire germinated seeds in his agricultural land with the hope that he would get good result as was propagated by the Agriculture Department and it would give higher yield of paddy. But when he found that there was only 10% of germination, he was totally disappointed and intimated the said fact to the Collector of the District and to all the opposite parties before the District Forum (including the appellants) to take suitable action in the matter, but they did not pay any heed to his complaint and as there was no option left for him at that level, he approached the District Forum by filing a consumer dispute claiming rupees 2,13,297.20 paise from the opposite parties towards financial loss sustained by him along with interest, compensation for the mental agony and the harassment and also the cost of litigation.
3. The opposite parties / present appellants appeared in the District Forum in pursuance of the notice issued and filed their written version, in which they took plea that the complainant had purchased the seeds being satisfied with the quality of the seeds, which were duly certified by the State Seed Certification Agency. They have stated further that the complainant could have used 1 k.g. of seed and waited for germination and if after one week, it gave only 10% germination, he should have returned the rest seeds and would not have sustained any loss. It is stated in the written version that the complainant did not show the position to any of the experts who were available in the locality to do the four stages of preparation of seedling nor had he drawn the attention of any of the officers, who have been made parties to the litigation, nor any official agency who are taking up the programme and implementing the same for improved type of cultivation through high yield paddy seeds. They have even gone to the extent of stating in the written version that the complainant did not grow any crop and used the foundation seeds for the other purpose and has filed this vexatious litigation to harass these opposite parties / appellants. It is stated in the written version that Junior Agriculture Officer, Turekela has given a false report that only 10% of the seeds of the complainant were germinated without physical verification / inspection of the field of the complainant and he is a supporter of the complainant and for that, the opposite parties prayed before the District Forum for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3, who are not the appellants before this Commission, filed their written version separately stating therein that Orissa State Seed Certification Agency is not a purchaser or supplier of any kind of seeds and it is only a quality control organization and the complainant has wrongly arrayed them as the supplier of seeds. It is averred in their written version that it is the State Seed Corporation Limited, which supplies the seeds to the other opposite parties and their job is only to inspect the plot, which met all the seeds standards, and after processing at the Rampur Processing plant, they drew samples out of it and then sent to laboratory for testing. As per testing report, they have issued tag which conforms germination percentage, physical purity, generic purity and seed health. It is their statement that there is no question of duplicacy on their part in respect of the seeds. According to them, after the tagging was over on 19.06.1999 and subsequent to that seeds were diverted on 22.06.1999 by the other opposite parties to some other places, whereabouts of which are not known to them and as such the unscientific storage of seeds may be one of the factors affecting the quality of the seeds, or there might be mishandling of the seeds during storage or sale, or due to poor adoption of sowing technique which might have resulted in failure of germination.
5. The District Forum after examining the rival contentions of the parties settled three issues for consideration and after elaborate discussion of all the issues found opposite party Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 liable jointly and directed them to pay compensation of rupees 50,000/-, cost of the seeds amounting to rupees 4,273.20 paise and rupees 800/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum till its payment.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both parties extensively and we have also perused all the material documents on record in the L.C.R. during the said hearing. We fully agree with the findings recorded by the District Forum to the effect that the complainant is a rustic cultivator and being lured by the propaganda of the agriculture department regarding the authenticity of the seeds, it was selling, and its high yield nature with a hope to get better yield and thereby more profit, he purchased the seeds for the above mentioned amount. When these appellants are posted in a particular district and assigned with a particular block and agriculture district, which is much smaller than the revenue district, it is their duty to guide the rustic cultivators who are interested to adopt new cultivation methods by using high yield seeds and go for high yield crop in their land instead of traditional one. In the instant matter, it was the utmost duty of the Junior Agriculture Officer to instruct the complainant or any other cultivators, who opted for new method of cultivation through high yield seeds, regarding the process of germination at every stage thereof and as we find the complainant was never guided by any of the opposite parties / appellants, specifically appellant No.1, who is posted at the block level when the seeds were sold at the block level to the cultivators. We have found rather that receiving the complaint of the complainant, the Junior Agriculture Officer, Turekela visited the plots of land of the complainant on 09.01.2000, where the complainant sowed seeds, and he found 10% germination and he intimated this fact of non-germination of 90% of the seeds to the higher authorities. This fact is evident from the letter of the Junior Agriculture Officer, Turekela dated 14.01.2000 and the said letter fully corroborates the complainants version regarding failure of germination of the seeds which he had purchased and that there was only 10% germination. We are at loss to understand as to why an official of the agriculture department, who on the complaint of the complainant visited his plot of land, where he had sown high yield verity of parijat kisam paddy seeds, would falsely report about 10% germination to his higher authorities when there was every chance that the higher authorities would visit the plot and find out the truth. In this particular case, no other higher official has heeded to the complaint of the complainant, rustic cultivator, and visited the plot of land. Without visit of the plot after receipt of the report of the Junior Agriculture Officer regarding failure of germination terming him as a supporter of the complainant and alleging of filing of false report is absolutely of no avail and no normal human being would believe such a plea so as to exonerate the opposite parties / appellants from their bounden duty, for which they are paid from the State exchequer. It was pointed out during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said Junior Agriculture Officer is being proceeded against for filing such false report supporting the cause of the complainant. We would like to reiterate that why a rustic cultivator, who with the hope of raising and yielding high yield crop had sown the seeds, would go against these appellants by taking them to the Consumer Forum, if he had got the expected result, expecting which he purchased the seeds from the Block. This rather appears to us to be a genuine case, where the complainant being lured by the propaganda regarding growing of high yield paddy crop and getting more profit tried his luck but failed and blamed his fate when no one listened to his complaint regarding failure of germination of the seeds. This is a glaring case of deficiency of service by the Agriculture Department and its officials posted in the District and Block levels and these appellants are the persons who have rightly been held liable and have been directed to pay compensation and cost of the seeds, so also the litigation cost. As regards the compensation, to us it appears to be just and proper, as because the complainant had purchased 3 quintals and 60 kgs. of paddy seeds which is not a very small quantity and he had planned to raise the said high yield verity of paddy in 12 acres of land of his, which was totally shattered due to the deficiency of service / non-service rendered by the opposite parties / appellants in spite of his complaint to them.
7. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal and in the result, we dismiss the appeal of the appellants and confirm the order passed by the District Forum, Bolangir. However, we make no order as to costs.
Let the appellants make payment of the amount of compensation, the cost of seeds purchased by the complainant and the litigation expenses as awarded by the District Forum by its order dated 28.09.2000 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum on it till its final payment.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.